Languish.org

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
Meh. While there is no doubt that the US intervention in Iraq was a fuckup of epic proportions, it's not like NOT intervening would have resulted in anything better.

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 07:44:09 AM
along with America's reputation and general goodwill which accumulated after 9/11.

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
Meh. While there is no doubt that the US intervention in Iraq was a fuckup of epic proportions, it's not like NOT intervening would have resulted in anything better.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 10, 2014, 07:51:13 AM
The Kurds will kick them out eventually.

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM
Until the next reason to hate us happened.

Quotemaybe the turks will get their military adventure after all

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 07:44:09 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
Meh. While there is no doubt that the US intervention in Iraq was a fuckup of epic proportions, it's not like NOT intervening would have resulted in anything better.

In due time Saddam's regime would have collapsed into pretty much what we have now, I fully agree. However, lots of American and allied lives would have been spared, along with America's reputation and general goodwill which accumulated after 9/11.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:30:23 AM
I'd rather self-interested, venal allies like the UK, France and Australia than directly influenced but pretty independent countries like Pakistan or Israel.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 10, 2014, 08:30:33 AM
If the Kurds can't kick them out, the Iranians will help the Shia and they would be able to hold against them.

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 07:44:09 AM
along with America's reputation and general goodwill which accumulated after 9/11.

Until the next reason to hate us happened.

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 07:44:09 AM
along with America's reputation and general goodwill which accumulated after 9/11.

Until the next reason to hate us happened.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 10, 2014, 08:43:41 AM
A good bout of American isolationism will do both the US and the world some good.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:24:24 AM
Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 08:39:51 AM
Being a super power who is both

A) Interested in meddling and trying to make things better, while
B) Being unwilling to just use our power directly to force change

is a royal pain in the ass. Especially when your allies are largely categorically unwilling to actually do the things they promise to help.

It really does make me think the US should do as everyone seems to want us to do, and just ditch A, since we certainly are not and should not be willing to change B.

So fuck it. Everyone seems to hate the shitty job we are doing as world policemen, and NATO refuses to do the things they promise to help, so let someone else do it. I think Russia is interested in the position.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:48:10 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 07:44:09 AM
along with America's reputation and general goodwill which accumulated after 9/11.

Until the next reason to hate us happened.

Also, what't the point of goodwill if you don't spend it? Iraq was a mistake but I think losing goodwill's a poor argument against it.

Quote from: mongers on June 10, 2014, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 10, 2014, 08:43:41 AM
A good bout of American isolationism will do both the US and the world some good.

This.

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 08:51:21 AM
I draw the opposite conclusion. Haters going to hate, so fuck 'em. Let's keep doing what we think best*.


(*within reason as certainly we should still be open to other information and make decisions after due consideration.)

Quote from: mongers on June 10, 2014, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 10, 2014, 08:43:41 AM
A good bout of American isolationism will do both the US and the world some good.

This.

Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
seriously zero coverage of this in Norway, it seems I am wondering if a war happens if the USA isn't there to get blamed for it?

Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
seriously zero coverage of this in Norway, it seems I am wondering if a war happens if the USA isn't there to get blamed for it?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:56:05 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
seriously zero coverage of this in Norway, it seems I am wondering if a war happens if the USA isn't there to get blamed for it?

Oh it's the second story on the BBC behind another round of interminable navel gazing about 'British values' :bleeding:

It should be the leading story everywhere. I think it's quite important.

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 08:57:28 AM
Yeah I thought this was a major thing, but nobody gives a fuck since there are no Zionist USAians there to blame anymore.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 09:01:58 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 08:57:28 AM
Yeah I thought this was a major thing, but nobody gives a fuck since there are no Zionist USAians there to blame anymore.

But we a government hasn't tried to define 'British values' in at least 5 years. We've got days of articles explaining what they are and other articles explaining how the entire idea of 'British values' is unbritish.

And there's the World Cup to interrupt it too.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 10, 2014, 09:04:22 AM
This over the Birmingham schools thing? I enjoyed the schoolkid slagging off the islamics in his school on the BBC. I assume they will find him in pieces floating in a river soon.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 09:06:48 AM
Yeah. The government want every school to start teaching 'British values'. Which I think was first proposed under Blair and then Brown, so it was Cameron's turn :bleeding:

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 10, 2014, 08:56:59 AM
We need a giant air conditioned dome over the US.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 09:01:58 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 08:57:28 AM
Yeah I thought this was a major thing, but nobody gives a fuck since there are no Zionist USAians there to blame anymore.

But we a government hasn't tried to define 'British values' in at least 5 years. We've got days of articles explaining what they are and other articles explaining how the entire idea of 'British values' is unbritish.

And there's the World Cup to interrupt it too.

Quote from: KRonn on June 10, 2014, 09:45:27 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 09:01:58 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 08:57:28 AM
Yeah I thought this was a major thing, but nobody gives a fuck since there are no Zionist USAians there to blame anymore.

But we a government hasn't tried to define 'British values' in at least 5 years. We've got days of articles explaining what they are and other articles explaining how the entire idea of 'British values' is unbritish.

And there's the World Cup to interrupt it too.

I would think it quite un-British to discuss the un-Britishness of discussing British values!   ;)

Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2014, 10:16:45 AM
It's hard to state values recognizable as british that don't specifially exclude fag hating, atheist hating and cartoon insulted muslims. If the Satanic Verses are insulting to all muslims then muslims can't have british values.

Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 08:50:50 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:24:24 AM
Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Well that's shocking.  Very few of the guys who allied with us in Iraq had any determination or desire to fight for the cause.  While our enemies were willing to sacrifice everything.  The people are more willing to fight and die for murderous theologies than anything else.  With that calculus the victory of the extremists is inevitable.

Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:24:29 AM
Kurds are still the good guys, though-- right? :unsure:

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 11:04:26 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 08:50:50 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:24:24 AM
Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Well that's shocking.  Very few of the guys who allied with us in Iraq had any determination or desire to fight for the cause.  While our enemies were willing to sacrifice everything.  The people are more willing to fight and die for murderous theologies than anything else.  With that calculus the victory of the extremists is inevitable.

WEll, I think Iraq shows that that is not actually true - you can kill them fast enough that they eventually decide to go somewhere else.

The problem in Iraq was not that we couldn't kill radicals effectively enough to dissuade them, it is that even when we did Iraq did not, does not, and has not had a strong enough national identity to actually function even if we gave them the space to do so had there been the fundamental structure there to begin with.

So other radical groups just show up to take advantage.

But I very much disagree with the basic premise that you cannot beat radicals. You can, and we have. It just doesn't help to smash radical group A if radical group B is just going to show up later because the government itself cannot maintain sovereignty over the state.

Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2014, 11:43:21 AM
And, if you don't have a strong and legitimate government, then radicals will keep prospering no matter how many times you whack them.

Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2014, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 11:04:26 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 08:50:50 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 08:24:24 AM
Inevitably there's lots of rumours around. Two of the most striking are that this was lead by ex-members of the Iraqi Army (1st Mosul) and that they're about to announce Izzat al-Duri (the king of clubs) as the 'governor' of Iraq. He was reported, by Petraeus, as having been based in Syria so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.

Also worrying is that apparently US-trained security forces fled more or less as soon as the battle began, so there now are calls for the Kurds to try and re-take the city. There are also reports that ISIS have managed to seize fighter jets and helicopters that were in Mosul airport.

Well that's shocking.  Very few of the guys who allied with us in Iraq had any determination or desire to fight for the cause.  While our enemies were willing to sacrifice everything.  The people are more willing to fight and die for murderous theologies than anything else.  With that calculus the victory of the extremists is inevitable.

WEll, I think Iraq shows that that is not actually true - you can kill them fast enough that they eventually decide to go somewhere else.

The problem in Iraq was not that we couldn't kill radicals effectively enough to dissuade them, it is that even when we did Iraq did not, does not, and has not had a strong enough national identity to actually function even if we gave them the space to do so had there been the fundamental structure there to begin with.

So other radical groups just show up to take advantage.

But I very much disagree with the basic premise that you cannot beat radicals. You can, and we have. It just doesn't help to smash radical group A if radical group B is just going to show up later because the government itself cannot maintain sovereignty over the state.

I'd go even farther than that.  Beating the radicals militarily is irrelevant.  Radicals are a symptom, not a problem.  Radicals only prosper in absence of strong and legitimate government.  And, if you don't have a strong and legitimate government, then radicals will keep prospering no matter how many times you whack them.

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 11:47:20 AMThe fact is that there is only so much that the allies could have done in Iraq - at best, we go in, provide them the space and opportunity to form a cohesive state, and see if they can pull it off. We can't do it for them, we can only provide them the opportunity.

QuoteIn gaming terms, I look at your complaints shelf and it amounts to me to "Man, we could have totally had a +2 DRM on the 'Can Iraq establish a national identity' die roll, and we fucked it up, so we only got a +1 DRM".

QuoteThere are lessons to be learned from Iraq. Personally, the lesson I take away is that intervention, at best, is a crap shoot.

Quote from: mongers on June 10, 2014, 01:54:01 PM
Good reporting Shelf, keep up the good work.   :)

QuoteSo this is the 2nd major city ISIL have 'liberated' in Iraq, they or their allies having already taken and held Fallujah these last few months.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 10, 2014, 02:02:50 PM
Not really, though, is it?  In Syria they are up against 30% of the population that is fighting for their existence and now has years of experience.  In Iraq they are fighting a few thousand American cronies. 

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
Meh. While there is no doubt that the US intervention in Iraq was a fuckup of epic proportions, it's not like NOT intervening would have resulted in anything better.

QuoteThe fact is that there is only so much that the allies could have done in Iraq - at best, we go in, provide them the space and opportunity to form a cohesive state, and see if they can pull it off. We can't do it for them, we can only provide them the opportunity.

Quote from: Warspite on June 11, 2014, 04:01:52 AMI suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 04:15:41 AM

Quote from: Warspite on June 11, 2014, 04:01:52 AMI suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

But surely the success of the surge and awakening shows that with the right policies and strategy in place you could cause a decline in the level of violence to the point where politics can work. At that point it's up to the Iraqis, with US and coalition support, to take the political opportunity.

The trouble with the occupation was that that didn't happen for three years, and until Bush suffered a bloody nose at home. So you remove a tyrant and start working on a political settlement in the context of increasing violence and escalating sectarian outrages. By the time the approach changed to reduce the conflict the politics are different. It's not the politics of forming a cohesive state, but of reconciling a civil war, which I'd argue is even more difficult.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 04:15:41 AM

Quote from: Warspite on June 11, 2014, 04:01:52 AMI suppose the validity of this view depends on how long a cohesive state actually takes to form, and whether one classes the occupation as indeed providing anyone moderate with the opportunity to do anything substantial. As I recall, Iraq from 2003 to about 2008 was swarming with spoilers determined to reject any political settlement acceptable to America and its allies. It's hard to mobilise your communities in favour of peace when the extremists are triggering intercommunal conflict.

But surely the success of the surge and awakening shows that with the right policies and strategy in place you could cause a decline in the level of violence to the point where politics can work. At that point it's up to the Iraqis, with US and coalition support, to take the political opportunity.

The trouble with the occupation was that that didn't happen for three years, and until Bush suffered a bloody nose at home. So you remove a tyrant and start working on a political settlement in the context of increasing violence and escalating sectarian outrages. By the time the approach changed to reduce the conflict the politics are different. It's not the politics of forming a cohesive state, but of reconciling a civil war, which I'd argue is even more difficult.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages :bleeding:

Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2014, 07:25:31 AM
Maybe the US should get Hezbollah to take on ISIS/ISIL in Mosul.   :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages :bleeding:

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 07:23:01 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
They've taken the Turkish Consulate in Mosul. Reportedly there are hostages :bleeding:

(https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/75/1385753810661.gif)

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 11:45:37 AM
Iraqi Air Force trying to stop ISIS columns advancing on Samarra, apparently.

If there's one thing the Iraqi military excel at, it's a dramatic collapse.

Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2014, 10:15:19 AM
Is ISIS just a proxy for Saudi Wahabbism?

Quote from: Warspite on June 11, 2014, 05:14:01 AMWell remember that in 2003 the politics are not necessarily in favour of a long-lasting settlement either. You've just sold a war as liberating the Shia and Kurds from Sunni tyranny, and then you start arming and working with the Sunni tribes? Political disaster. Whatever strategy you have in 2003, you're still working in what is essentially a security vacuum, unless you take the very bold step of retaining the Iraqi military and bureaucracy in some form. (Which is what I would have advocated in any occupation plan: keep the air conditioners running and order on the streets.) But this is not without risks; it's not hard to imagine the Shia rejecting peace in this counterfactual.

What Iraq really shows is how difficult, if not practically impossible, it is to reconstruct a functioning state after a 'kick the door down' regime change that had no national political settlement either preceding or in parallel to it. Something we've learnt yet again in Libya, so this is very much a mistake the Brits and French make too, I'll say in the interest of being impartial.

I think it's very hard as Westerners from comfortable societies to really understand the fear that grips people and communities in these sorts of situations, and how identity politics - no matter how irrational we perceive them to be - can really subvert what to the outsider seems the rational solution.

Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2014, 10:15:19 AM
Is ISIS just a proxy for Saudi Wahabbism?

QuoteTikrit has now fallen and there's actual fighting inside Samarra reported.

Quote
....
Security sources said ISIL militants on Wednesday drove more than 60 vehicles into Tikrit, the home town of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, occupying the provincial government headquarters and raising the black flag of ISIL.

"Our forces were caught by surprise, they never expected ISIL would use police and army Humvee vehicles, we mistook them for government forces and it was too late to stop them," said a police captain who fled from Tikrit to Samarra.

"We are fighting devils and not ordinary people"
....

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:49:15 PM
Moqtada al-Sadr's calling for the creation of 'peace brigades' to protect Shia holy sites in Iraq.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:49:15 PM

Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2014, 10:15:19 AM
Is ISIS just a proxy for Saudi Wahabbism?

What do you mean?

Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2014, 02:03:47 PM
Whether ISIS is funded and maybe even partially controlled by Saudi interests.

Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
Anybody got a map of what territory ISIS currently controls?

Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2014, 10:15:19 AM
Is ISIS just a proxy for Saudi Wahabbism?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:45:34 PM
I don't remember the run-up to the war being that sectarian, if anything that would show a dangerous almost Arabist amount of local knowledge.

Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
Anybody got a map of what territory ISIS currently controls?

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 03:10:47 PM
If the Revolutionary Guard going is true, maybe these ISIS guys are for Iran what the "russian self defense militas" are for Putin? Forces to support so they destabilise and create pretext for intervention?

QuoteIraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers - roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 03:16:58 PM

QuoteIraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers - roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.

:blink:

Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 03:25:06 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 03:16:58 PM

QuoteIraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers - roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.

:blink:

It is so disheartening.  These men are defending their homeland from murderers and somehow the murderers seem much more motivated than they are.

Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 03:25:06 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 03:16:58 PM

QuoteIraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers - roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.

:blink:

It is so disheartening.  These men are defending their homeland from murderers and somehow the murderers seem much more motivated than they are.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 02:31:26 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
Anybody got a map of what territory ISIS currently controls?

Basically the Euphrates:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/11/world/middleeast/isis-control-map.html?_r=1

But as I say they don't just take cities, they normally take the countryside first and then seize the city. For example in the case of Mosul the Iraqi government has had to fly in supplies for some time because transport by road wasn't safe.

Edit: Also this. Don't know the source but it agrees with the NYT and is clickable :)
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=206503076099972915830.0004fb81021906110e889&t=m&source=embed&ll=34.939985,41.616211&spn=6.302619,12.304687&z=6&dg=feature

Edit: Also this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp2WnwaCYAIX1Ki.jpg)

There are rumours that Revolutionary Guards are now crossing the border to help the government :mellow:

Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 03:10:47 PM
If the Revolutionary Guard going is true, maybe these ISIS guys are for Iran what the "russian self defense militas" are for Putin? Forces to support so they destabilise and create pretext for intervention?

Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2014, 01:22:33 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 11:45:37 AM
Iraqi Air Force trying to stop ISIS columns advancing on Samarra, apparently.

If there's one thing the Iraqi military excel at, it's a dramatic collapse.

Tikrit has now fallen and there's actual fighting inside Samarra reported.


You know what this reminds me of Vietnam Spring 1975, I'm not saying the government/regime will completely collapse, but the way the large and diverse security forces are just crumbling/melting away is reminiscent of those days.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 11, 2014, 06:20:51 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2014, 01:22:33 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 11:45:37 AM
Iraqi Air Force trying to stop ISIS columns advancing on Samarra, apparently.

If there's one thing the Iraqi military excel at, it's a dramatic collapse.

Tikrit has now fallen and there's actual fighting inside Samarra reported.


You know what this reminds me of Vietnam Spring 1975, I'm not saying the government/regime will completely collapse, but the way the large and diverse security forces are just crumbling/melting away is reminiscent of those days.

I'm thinking of the collapse of the Najibullah regime and the even worse fate of the Afghan strongman but it is too early too tell.

Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2014, 06:39:51 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 11, 2014, 06:20:51 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2014, 01:22:33 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 11:45:37 AM
Iraqi Air Force trying to stop ISIS columns advancing on Samarra, apparently.

If there's one thing the Iraqi military excel at, it's a dramatic collapse.

Tikrit has now fallen and there's actual fighting inside Samarra reported.


You know what this reminds me of Vietnam Spring 1975, I'm not saying the government/regime will completely collapse, but the way the large and diverse security forces are just crumbling/melting away is reminiscent of those days.

I'm thinking of the collapse of the Najibullah regime and the even worse fate of the Afghan strongman but it is too early too tell.

I'm not sure that's the best comparison, they held their own well, until the Soviet cut supplies, the aerial bridge and the final nail in the coffin was Dostum cutting the Salang highway.

QuoteWASHINGTON — As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.

But Iraq's appeals for military assistance have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was closed when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.

The swift capture of Mosul by militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has underscored how the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have converged into one widening regional insurgency with fighters coursing back and forth through the porous border between the two countries. But it has also cast a spotlight on the limits the White House has imposed on the use of American power in an increasingly violent and volatile region.

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan, declined to comment on Mr. Maliki's requests and the administration's response, saying in a statement, "We are not going to get into details of our diplomatic discussions, but the government of Iraq has made clear that they welcome our support" in combating the Islamic extremists.

The Obama administration has carried out drone strikes against militants in Yemen and Pakistan, where it fears terrorists have been hatching plans to attack the United States. But despite the fact that Sunni militants have been making steady advances and may be carving out new havens from which they could carry out attacks against the West, administration spokesmen have insisted that the United States is not actively considering using warplanes or armed drones to strike them.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, last year floated the idea that American-operated, armed Predator or Reaper drones might be used to respond to the expanding militant network in Iraq. American officials dismissed that suggestion at the time, saying that the request had not come from Mr. Maliki.

By March, however, American experts who visited Baghdad were being told that Iraq's top leaders were hoping that American air power could be used to strike the militants' staging and training areas inside Iraq, and help Iraq's beleaguered forces stop them from crossing into Iraq from Syria.

"Iraqi officials at the highest level said they had requested manned and unmanned U.S. airstrikes this year against ISIS camps in the Jazira desert," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and who visited Baghdad in early March. ISIS is the acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as the militant group is known.

Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2014, 03:15:26 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
Anybody got a map of what territory ISIS currently controls?

I have some grossly outdated one.  It's from two hours ago.

Quote from: Phillip V on June 11, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
Will the shocking collapse of the Iraqi military cause hesitation on America's plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan the next two years?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2014, 12:45:42 AM
What's number one?

Somalia? The Congo?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 02:31:26 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp2WnwaCYAIX1Ki.jpg)

QuoteExtremists in Iraq Continue March Toward Baghdad

    Karl Vick @karl_vick
    Aryn Baker @arynebaker

June 11, 2014

Militant Sunni forces are taking territory with lightning speed, moving toward the ultimate goal of establishing a new Islamic Caliphate


As Islamist extremists captured Tikrit, a major city in Iraq's Sunni heartland, just a day after taking Mosul, analysts offered sobering assessments of a fundamentalist militant force whose ambitions may no longer be the stuff of fantasy.

Hardened by years of battle in neighboring Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is routing the forces of a modern nation-state and gathering land with the ultimate goal of establishing an alternate form of governance, an Islamic caliphate.


"This is not a terrorism problem anymore," says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. "This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain."

In capturing Tikrit, famed as the hometown of Saddam Hussein, Islamist militants whom the secular dictator had not tolerated were moving south down Iraq's main highway toward Baghdad. Lewis cited reports that Abu Ghraib, the city just to the west of the capital, was also under assault from ISIS forces that have held Fallujah and much of Ramadi since January.

"We are using the word encircle," Lewis tells TIME. "They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don't know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq."

There was little argument on that point on Wednesday among the American specialists who came to know the country well during the almost nine years U.S. forces remained there, yet faced no opposition as militarily organized as ISIS. The Sunni extremists at the time were known to the U.S. military as AQI, for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"They were great terrorists," says Douglas Ollivant, a former Army Cavalry officer who later handled Iraq for the White House National Security Council. "They made great car bombs. But they were lousy line infantry, and if you got them in a firefight, they'd die. They have now repaired that deficiency."

Like other analysts, Ollivant credits the civil war in Syria for the striking improvement in battlefield ability. "You fight Hizballah for a couple of years, and you either die or you get a lot better," he says. "And these guys got a lot better."

Lewis, who was a U.S. Army intelligence officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, calls ISIS "an advanced military leadership." "They have incredible command and control and they have a sophisticated reporting mechanism from the field that can relay tactics and directives up and down the line," he said. "They are well-financed, and they have big sources of manpower, not just the foreign fighters, but also prisoner escapees." In Mosul, many of the estimated 1,200 prisoners released as the city fell were thought to be Islamist militants.

"They are highly skilled in urban guerrilla warfare while the new Iraqi army simply lacks tactical competence," says Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, who monitors jihadist activity for the Middle East Forum. In a battle that is fought largely on sectarian lines — Iraq's government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has championed the country's Shiite majority — Iraqi officials have solicited Shiite militias to engage the ISIS, "though they prove to be equally incompetent," al-Tamimi adds.

Ollivant, now a fellow at the New America Foundation, says that despite the thunderclap of Mosul's collapse after only four days of fighting, it's not yet apparent how formidable ISIS really is. The windfall of military materiel left behind by fleeing Iraqi forces—especially simple weapons and ammunition, because they do not require complex maintenance—are significant, but less so than the group's operational depth: "Is it holding what it's taking or is it just kind of sweeping through and moving on to the next thing, leaving only a skeletal force behind, that would be easy enough to push out," says Ollivant. "Or is it strong enough to hold the territory it's taken? Those are the two options. One is embarrassing, the other is catastrophic."

But if ISIS can in fact hold the area it has overrun, it may well be able to fulfill its stated mission of restoring the Caliphate, the governing structure for the Sunni Muslim world that inherited authority from the Prophet Mohammed. "This is of great significance," according to an assessment released Wednesday by The Soufan Group, a private security company. A restored Caliphate will attract "many more disaffected young people ... from all over the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, lured by nostalgia for al-Khulafa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Caliphate), which remains a potent motivator for Sunni extremists."

Restoring the Caliphate was the stated goal of Osama bin Laden in creating al-Qaeda, but the terror group has never operated militarily. "It's ISIS that will build the Caliphate, not al-Qaeda," says al-Tamimi.

The entire concept of the Caliphate remains obscure to most Westerners. It has not existed since the Ottoman Empire (which claimed dominion over the world's Muslims) was pulled apart after World War I. The European powers divided the Middle East into their preferred system of governance–nation states–though that arrangement lately seems under threat, especially in Syria and Iraq.

Thomas Ricks, who covered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq for the Washington Post and named his bestselling account of the subject Fiasco, says the current crisis in Iraq was set in motion over a decade ago. "I think that the U.S. invasion fundamentally unbalanced Iraq, and the Middle East," Ricks tells TIME in an e-mail. "By removing Sunni power in Baghdad we increased Iran's influence in the country–and so provoked a Sunni backlash. Big picture, I think we may be seeing the beginning of the re-drawing of the map, this time done by residents of the region instead of by British and French diplomats."

Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2014, 12:16:26 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 11, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
Will the shocking collapse of the Iraqi military cause hesitation on America's plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan the next two years?

If anything, that would encourage us to GTFO faster.  No sense in wasting even more lives delaying the inevitable.  If Iraq can't hold together, then what possible chance does the second-most ungovernable hellhole in the world does?

Quote from: KRonn on June 12, 2014, 07:05:36 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2014, 12:16:26 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 11, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
Will the shocking collapse of the Iraqi military cause hesitation on America's plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan the next two years?

If anything, that would encourage us to GTFO faster.  No sense in wasting even more lives delaying the inevitable.  If Iraq can't hold together, then what possible chance does the second-most ungovernable hellhole in the world does?

Yep. I think that Afghanistan is by far the most ungovernable place that the US was in. Not counting Somalia or Sudan, that's why I qualified it by where the US was actively fighting/supporting. If all US forces leave then it's good bye to Afghanistan. And the US can't fight that war forever. Maybe a small US presence can shore up the Afghan military but the Afghans have to take on the heavy lifting, the fighting and dying for their own country. I don't feel confident of that working out, especially given Iraq's collapse where I feel Iraq was in a much stronger position.

Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2014, 07:06:36 AM

Quote from: KRonn on June 12, 2014, 07:05:36 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2014, 12:16:26 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 11, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
Will the shocking collapse of the Iraqi military cause hesitation on America's plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan the next two years?

If anything, that would encourage us to GTFO faster.  No sense in wasting even more lives delaying the inevitable.  If Iraq can't hold together, then what possible chance does the second-most ungovernable hellhole in the world does?

Yep. I think that Afghanistan is by far the most ungovernable place that the US was in. Not counting Somalia or Sudan, that's why I qualified it by where the US was actively fighting/supporting. If all US forces leave then it's good bye to Afghanistan. And the US can't fight that war forever. Maybe a small US presence can shore up the Afghan military but the Afghans have to take on the heavy lifting, the fighting and dying for their own country. I don't feel confident of that working out, especially given Iraq's collapse where I feel Iraq was in a much stronger position.

Yeah but is there even a "country" level identity there? Seems like tribal identity is much more important to peeps there.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2014, 01:35:26 AM
Now this is fear-mongering done right! :lol:
Oh noes, the ISIS is going to reestablish the Caliphate! :o

Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2014, 10:08:15 AM
The Kurds saw their chance and seized Kirkuk.

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 10:38:29 AM
As things stand now, this photo is a good representation for US efforts in Iraq:

Quote from: Viking on June 12, 2014, 10:21:28 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2014, 10:08:15 AM
The Kurds saw their chance and seized Kirkuk.

Maliki: ATT Kurds, halp ISIS are in our Mosul!!!!11oneoneone
Kurds: On our way, Kirkuk, right?
Maliki: No MOSUL
Kurds: No problem, we're going to Kirkuk with all our d00ds as we speak.

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 11:16:54 AM
Yeah, as long as they don't overextend themselves, I'm rooting for the Kurds to come out of this okay (assuming everything else goes to shit).  I read somewhere that ISIS apparently doesn't have a beef with the Kurds, which struck me as odd.  Seems like everyone in that region likes to pick on the Kurds.

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 11:16:54 AM
Yeah, as long as they don't overextend themselves, I'm rooting for the Kurds to come out of this okay (assuming everything else goes to shit).  I read somewhere that ISIS apparently doesn't have a beef with the Kurds, which struck me as odd.  Seems like everyone in that region likes to pick on the Kurds.

Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2014, 11:20:42 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 11:16:54 AM
Yeah, as long as they don't overextend themselves, I'm rooting for the Kurds to come out of this okay (assuming everything else goes to shit).  I read somewhere that ISIS apparently doesn't have a beef with the Kurds, which struck me as odd.  Seems like everyone in that region likes to pick on the Kurds.

Kurds are still sunnis (though hardly salafists).

ISIS's big beef is with the Shia - like al-Maliki, or Assad's Iranian allies.

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:13:12 PM
Crowd Gathers to Show Support of ISIS Takeover of Mosul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR5cjO_FyUM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR5cjO_FyUM)

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 11:16:54 AM
Yeah, as long as they don't overextend themselves, I'm rooting for the Kurds to come out of this okay (assuming everything else goes to shit).  I read somewhere that ISIS apparently doesn't have a beef with the Kurds, which struck me as odd.  Seems like everyone in that region likes to pick on the Kurds.

QuoteOh noes, the ISIS is going to reestablish the Caliphate! :o

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2014, 12:33:40 PM
Also I think Ricks is right. This could be the start of the end of Sykes-Picot in the Middle East which would be hellish.

Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2014, 12:44:36 PM
Why would it be hellish?  The current borders seem to not work very well, and leave the conflicts simmering indefinitely.

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
I loved all the smartphones. The revolution will be televised "youtubed".

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 12, 2014, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
I loved all the smartphones. The revolution will be televised "youtubed".

't would be nice if all those hardline muslim nutcases would only use technologies that were available to that guy they call prophet. Less hypocrite than leaning on western technology.

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2014, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 12, 2014, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
I loved all the smartphones. The revolution will be televised "youtubed".

't would be nice if all those hardline muslim nutcases would only use technologies that were available to that guy they call prophet. Less hypocrite than leaning on western technology.

Did the Muslim world have no advances on their own since Muhammad? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2014, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 12, 2014, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
I loved all the smartphones. The revolution will be televised "youtubed".

't would be nice if all those hardline muslim nutcases would only use technologies that were available to that guy they call prophet. Less hypocrite than leaning on western technology.

Did the Muslim world have no advances on their own since Muhammad? :huh:

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 12, 2014, 02:43:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2014, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 12, 2014, 02:18:55 PM

Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
I loved all the smartphones. The revolution will be televised "youtubed".

't would be nice if all those hardline muslim nutcases would only use technologies that were available to that guy they call prophet. Less hypocrite than leaning on western technology.

Did the Muslim world have no advances on their own since Muhammad? :huh:

not the point. if these fanatics claim that they wish to live like their misbegotten prophet then they should actually do it, and not be using anything that was invented after mo's death.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2014, 05:26:35 PM
Today in baffling Arabic insults, ISIS called Maliki 'an underwear salesman'.

I've no idea.

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2014, 02:20:46 PM
Did the Muslim world have no advances on their own since Muhammad? :huh:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2014, 06:25:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2014, 02:20:46 PM
Did the Muslim world have no advances on their own since Muhammad? :huh:

Yes, they advanced as far as the Pyrenees.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Obama is not the world's policeman.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Obama is not the world's policeman.

Quote from: viper37 on June 12, 2014, 07:25:01 PM
No, but the US bombed and invaded the country and left before the reconstruction job was fully done.

Quote from: viper37 on June 12, 2014, 07:25:01 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Obama is not the world's policeman.

No, but the US bombed and invaded the country and left before the reconstruction job was fully done.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Obama is not the world's policeman.

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 07:36:57 PM
We left when the elected government of Iraq requested we leave.  What were we supposed to say 'NO PUPPETS YOU BELONG TO US'?  That would have helped the reconstruction project along :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2014, 08:43:14 PM
We should've left another Saddam Hussein in charge, our Saddam Hussein.  There were plenty of Sunni generals to choose from, but nooooo....

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2014, 08:35:20 PM
Wiki's map of this situation. I wonder what that little enclave to the east is supposed to be? (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FTerritorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg%2F800px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png&hash=e7a60a957ebe0d9b8cfd5a37e925f6052411b58c)

Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2014, 11:11:34 AM


:lol:

I've a soft spot for them, they're the only players in Iraq who've made a decent go of it.

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 12, 2014, 10:03:08 PM
It's a shame Isis worship isn't making a comeback.

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 10:06:47 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

So...do you want the US to intervene or not?  You seem to be supporting and opposing both positions at the same time.

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 10:11:47 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 10:06:47 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

So...do you want the US to intervene or not?  You seem to be supporting and opposing both positions at the same time.

The North Vietnamese took a beating in 1972.  I'm not sure what he's getting at.

Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:00:54 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2014, 08:43:14 PM
We should've left another Saddam Hussein in charge, our Saddam Hussein.  There were plenty of Sunni generals to choose from, but nooooo....

I've been saying that since before we invaded.

Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM
Until the next reason to hate us happened.

We made everybody who was a close ally of us regret it with that Iraq invasion.  Probably not the best international strategy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 10:51:02 PM
Is he half Korean?

QuoteHis mother, Elisa, is a native of San Pablo, Laguna, Philippines.

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 07:36:57 PM

Quote from: viper37 on June 12, 2014, 07:25:01 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 07:17:52 PM
Obama is not the world's policeman.

No, but the US bombed and invaded the country and left before the reconstruction job was fully done.

We left when the elected government of Iraq requested we leave.  What were we supposed to say 'NO PUPPETS YOU BELONG TO US'?  That would have helped the reconstruction project along :P

QuoteIn nearby Samara, where insurgents have been negotiating with Iraqi army officials, car dealer Taher Hassan said militants had turned up on Sunday and quickly taken control of most of the city.

He said: "All the local police forces have pulled out of their bases in the city. The fighters are negotiating with the tribes who are in charge of the two shrines so they can try to convince army forces near the shrine to hand themselves over without a fight.Everyone in Samara is happy with the fighters' management of the city. They have proved to be professional and competent. The fighters themselves did not harm or kill anyone as they swept forward. Any man who hands over his arm is safe, whatever his background. This attitude is giving a huge comfort to people here. We have lived enough years of injustice, revenge and tyranny and we can't stand any more."

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 12, 2014, 11:22:06 PM
No, they agreed to a SOFA in the end, but the General couldn't get a response from the White House.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 12, 2014, 11:22:06 PM
No, they agreed to a SOFA in the end, but the General couldn't get a response from the White House.  My Cdr was on the General's Staff at that time (he also blamed the General for being too passive and not pushing for an answer, he had a reputation for indecisiveness).

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 12, 2014, 11:22:06 PM
No, they agreed to a SOFA in the end, but the General couldn't get a response from the White House.  My Cdr was on the General's Staff at that time (he also blamed the General for being too passive and not pushing for an answer, he had a reputation for indecisiveness).

Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2014, 03:57:21 AM
Iran said they'll intervene in Iraq. It would be interesting to see the Revolutionary Guards and the Marines fight side-by-side. :) Maybe that opens a way for diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States? A common foe has brought other opponents together in the past...

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 10:06:47 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

So...do you want the US to intervene or not?  You seem to be supporting and opposing both positions at the same time.

Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2014, 06:17:58 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 10:06:47 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
apropos of the US efforts to halt the 1972 NVA invasion, they flew over 15,000 sorties. :whistle:

So...do you want the US to intervene or not?  You seem to be supporting and opposing both positions at the same time.

Where have I said I'm against US intervention ?

I'm in favour of intensive US air operations, hopefully having started the day before yesterday.

Whilst these islamists are out in the open, nows the time to hit them hard, when they're relative easy targets, using the main highways in large convoys of vehicles; teach them a hard lessons that they've sifted away from hit and run to conventional fighting too early.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2014, 06:47:27 AM
I don't know what to do. But my instinct is that Americans should storm the Bastille if taxpayer dollars are spent providing air support for the Revolutionary Guards.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2014, 06:57:29 AM
Shia Modques in Baghdad calling people to come and collect arms.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2014, 11:15:09 PM
Samara has fallen.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2014, 06:57:29 AM
Shia Modques in Baghdad calling people to come and collect arms.

Quote from: Siege on June 13, 2014, 01:11:03 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 12, 2014, 11:22:06 PM
No, they agreed to a SOFA in the end, but the General couldn't get a response from the White House.  My Cdr was on the General's Staff at that time (he also blamed the General for being too passive and not pushing for an answer, he had a reputation for indecisiveness).

Who was this? Odierno?
Nah, he was back in the States when the SOFA deal went south.

Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2014, 01:21:00 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 12, 2014, 11:22:06 PM
No, they agreed to a SOFA in the end, but the General couldn't get a response from the White House.  My Cdr was on the General's Staff at that time (he also blamed the General for being too passive and not pushing for an answer, he had a reputation for indecisiveness).

Why didn't you fire that general?  So, in a way, some of this is your fault.

Quote from: Siege on June 12, 2014, 10:38:53 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 08:22:25 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2014, 07:48:26 AM
Until the next reason to hate us happened.

We made everybody who was a close ally of us regret it with that Iraq invasion.  Probably not the best international strategy.

Still better than Obama, who have lost every Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.

Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
I would have no problem with the US providing air support, simply under the idea that the current government or Iraq is our ally, and we should support them.

No real faith that it will matter in the long run though.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2014, 06:06:00 AM
Reports/rumours that Sistani has ruled that it's a religious duty to fight ISIS.

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 08:15:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
I would have no problem with the US providing air support, simply under the idea that the current government or Iraq is our ally, and we should support them.

No real faith that it will matter in the long run though.

ISIS really brings people together doesn't it?  Iran and the US might be allies on the same battlefield coming up here.

Quote from: KRonn on June 13, 2014, 09:49:33 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 08:15:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
I would have no problem with the US providing air support, simply under the idea that the current government or Iraq is our ally, and we should support them.

No real faith that it will matter in the long run though.

ISIS really brings people together doesn't it?  Iran and the US might be allies on the same battlefield coming up here.

I guess no surprise if that happens. A major nation like Iraq, with it's prosperous oil money, ruled by ISIS/AQ would be a catastrophe. I wouldn't be surprised if even the UN nation security council all agree on taking some kind of military action.

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 13, 2014, 09:52:20 AM
We need to let that catastrophe happen tho. 10-15 years max and then we can partition it between the Kurds, Iran & Kuwait.

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 09:52:44 AM
No it is perfectly good and reasonable they would be so.  I am just thinking how we soon might be hearing something like 'the Iranian Revolutionary Guards called in US Air support'

Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2014, 09:57:25 AM
Anyone* thinking the Iranians will be our best buds if we help them out is naive.  They will stab us in the back the first chance they get. 


*not saying you're one of them, but I am picking up that vibe from other places

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 09:59:35 AM
Of course they will.  Our interests just happen to go together for a few seconds.

Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
Also, I guess it would be funny to hear an IRG officer call in for US air support:

"Damned pilots of the Great Satan, we request that you rain fire down upon these lesser satans."

Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
"Damned pilots of the Great Satan, we request that you rain fire down upon these lesser satans."

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 08:14:48 AM

Not exactly a high bar.  These last 14 years have been disastrous.  Oh for the days of Clinton and Bush I.

QuoteIranian President Hasan Rouhani cut short a religious celebration on Thursday and said he had to attend an emergency meeting of the country's National Security Council about events in Iraq.

"We, as the Islamic Republic of Iran, won't tolerate this violence and terrorism.... We will fight and battle violence and extremism and terrorism in the region and the world," he said in a speech.

Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2014, 12:01:16 PM
Glad the Iranians haven't lost their sense of humor in these uncertain times.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

QuoteIranian President Hasan Rouhani cut short a religious celebration on Thursday and said he had to attend an emergency meeting of the country's National Security Council about events in Iraq.

"We, as the Islamic Republic of Iran, won't tolerate this violence and terrorism.... We will fight and battle violence and extremism and terrorism in the region and the world," he said in a speech.

Quote from: The Brain on June 13, 2014, 08:15:35 AM
The Commonwealth can provide Air Supply.

Quote from: Siege on June 13, 2014, 12:23:37 PM
We should negotiate the surrender of Iraq to the Taliban or the Haqqani.
Only they can realize the full potential of Iraq, in piece and prosperity.

Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
I would have no problem with the US providing air support, simply under the idea that the current government or Iraq is our ally, and we should support them.

No real faith that it will matter in the long run though.

Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2014, 01:43:05 PM
The US  should be bombing groups like ISIS as a matter of principle wherever they find them.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2014, 11:20:25 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 08:14:48 AM

Not exactly a high bar.  These last 14 years have been disastrous.  Oh for the days of Clinton and Bush I.

Interesting to see all the blame for the SOFA with Bush's signature on it getting shifted to Obama;  although, if it meant the Iraqis could prosecute Siegy and Hansy, maybe opting out of it would've been worth it after all.

Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2014, 01:43:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
I would have no problem with the US providing air support, simply under the idea that the current government or Iraq is our ally, and we should support them.

No real faith that it will matter in the long run though.

That and these are people belong to a suicide death cult allied to, or a successor to the people who carried out 9/11. The US  should be bombing groups like ISIS as a matter of principle wherever they find them.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2014, 02:07:33 PM
Right, because renegotiating the SOFA was as simple as a redoing an HVAC service level agreement.

Sorry, but Iraqi demands that US servicemen be subject to Iraqi prosecution as a fixed baseline condition for any kind of renegotiation was not an option, even if it meant saving your PowerPointing ass.  Now Siegy's shitty taste in beer, that's more of a human rights thing.

QuoteFriday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to "report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year—after nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

Enlarge Image

A U.S. Army soldier stands by military armored vehicles ready to be shipped out of Iraq at a staging yard at Camp Victory that is set to close in Baghdad. Associated Press
The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active, and almost as many civilians died in Iraq last year as in Afghanistan.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2014, 02:07:33 PM
Sorry, but Iraqi demands that US servicemen be subject to Iraqi prosecution as a fixed baseline condition for any kind of renegotiation was not an option...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
NPR had the former US commander in northern Iraq pointing out the difficulty of conducting strikes without deploying air controllers, i.e. boots on the ground.  At least two of them.

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 04:52:32 PM
Huh.  We didn't have any problem doing that in Kosovo...well ok sorry Chinese Embassy.

QuoteCan't they send in a few Special Forces if they need some spotters?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
Heard on NPR that Barry is considering the mongers option.

Maybe an ironic position for mongers to take given his nick. :hmm:

NPR had the former US commander in northern Iraq pointing out the difficulty of conducting strikes without deploying air controllers, i.e. boots on the ground.  At least two of them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
The mongers option is drop some JDAMs.

Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2014, 05:08:37 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
The mongers option is drop some JDAMs.

If they were still avaiable I'd also want to see some A10s parked in Kuwait and from there sent on  some long road trips.

Quote from: KRonn on June 13, 2014, 08:13:05 PM
If the Iranians do go in with troops then they'll likely remain and maybe own the territory they take from ISIS, at least for a while or for good, becoming even closer with Iraq. It strengthens Iran in the region. So while Iranian troops may be a good idea for the short term, the price to pay afterwards may not be so palatable.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
An editorial from the Wall Street Journal.  That closes the case.

QuoteThe leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents. The commanders told me that Maliki, too, said that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq. But he argued that the long-standing agreement that gave American soldiers immunity from Iraqi courts was increasingly unpopular; parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. "We got no guidance from the White House," Jeffrey told me. "We didn't know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, 'I don't know what I have to sell.' " At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn't have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. "The American attitude was: Let's get out of here as quickly as possible," Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

The last American combat troops departed Iraq on December 18, 2011. Some U.S. officials believe that Maliki never intended to allow soldiers to remain; in a recent e-mail, he denied ever supporting such a plan, saying, "I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops." Many Iraqi and American officials are convinced that even a modest force would have been able to prevent chaos—not by fighting but by providing training, signals intelligence, and a symbolic presence. "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners," Askari told me. "But, when they left, all of them left. There's no one to talk to about anything."

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 04:52:32 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 04:49:57 PM
NPR had the former US commander in northern Iraq pointing out the difficulty of conducting strikes without deploying air controllers, i.e. boots on the ground.  At least two of them.

Huh.  We didn't have any problem doing that in Kosovo...well ok sorry Chinese Embassy.

Can't they send in a few Special Forces if they need some spotters?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2014, 04:52:32 PM
Huh.  We didn't have any problem doing that in Kosovo...well ok sorry Chinese Embassy.

I believe we were hitting fixed installations in Serbia, not a couple thousand screaming jihadists who look like civilians.

QuoteCan't they send in a few Special Forces if they need some spotters?

They wear boots too.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 13, 2014, 10:57:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
An editorial from the Wall Street Journal.  That closes the case.

Maybe you prefer The New Yorker

QuoteThe leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents. The commanders told me that Maliki, too, said that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq. But he argued that the long-standing agreement that gave American soldiers immunity from Iraqi courts was increasingly unpopular; parliament would forbid the troops to stay unless they were subject to local law.

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. "We got no guidance from the White House," Jeffrey told me. "We didn't know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, 'I don't know what I have to sell.' " At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn't have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. "The American attitude was: Let's get out of here as quickly as possible," Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

The last American combat troops departed Iraq on December 18, 2011. Some U.S. officials believe that Maliki never intended to allow soldiers to remain; in a recent e-mail, he denied ever supporting such a plan, saying, "I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops." Many Iraqi and American officials are convinced that even a modest force would have been able to prevent chaos—not by fighting but by providing training, signals intelligence, and a symbolic presence. "If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners," Askari told me. "But, when they left, all of them left. There's no one to talk to about anything."

Quote from: Legbiter on June 14, 2014, 07:50:42 AM
And now the Iranians want to team up with the Great Satan to roll back ISIS.  :lmfao:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10899745/Iran-will-consider-joint-action-with-US-in-Iraq-Hassan-Rouhani-says.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10899745/Iran-will-consider-joint-action-with-US-in-Iraq-Hassan-Rouhani-says.html)

Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2014, 06:07:19 AM
I'm an Orc street samurai.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 14, 2014, 10:28:37 AM
Iraq: not a country, but an abstract concept in mid-2000s American politics :lol:

Quote from: mongers on June 14, 2014, 02:50:29 PM

These guy are the Khmer Rouge for the Middle East; stamp them out now.

Quote from: KRonn on June 13, 2014, 09:46:14 PM
Well, people were talking about Iranians calling in US air strikes, like it was maybe cool that the US and Iran work together. Iran and the US had a chance to work together a bit early in the Afghan war too. Just pointing out the obvious downsides.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2014, 05:15:37 PM
Geographically Iran should be an ally (and has been in the past).  The Iranian revolution fucked it up, but I imagine it'll go back to the way it was eventually.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2014, 06:08:20 PM
And in 1975 it was run by the Shah.

Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2014, 06:09:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2014, 06:08:20 PM
And in 1975 it was run by the Shah.

The Shah was all about freedom.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2014, 06:08:20 PM
And in 1975 it was run by the Shah.

QuoteVoice
When All You've Got Is an F-16...
Why is bombing the only option in Washington's policy toolkit?
by Micah Zenko


Just two days after the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) captured territory and military installations in Iraq, Washington foreign policy commentators and policymakers are considering options for responding. And unsurprisingly, the scope of the debate about what to do in Iraq has broken down into bombing, or not bombing. Sen. Lindsey Graham declared on the Senate floor, "I think American airpower is the only hope to change the battlefield equation in Iraq." President Barack Obama later said "I don't rule out anything," to which White House Press Secretary Jay Carney later explained, "We are not contemplating ground troops. The president was answering a question specifically about air strikes." The debate shrinks immediately around whether and how to use the tactic of force.

Though it is commonly referred to as Maslow's Hammer, the concept of privileging the tool at hand, irrespective of its appropriate fit to solving a problem, originated with the philosopher Abraham Kaplan. In his 1964 classic, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, Kaplan discussed the issue of the abstract nature of techniques, particularly the scientific method, used by scientists, whether conducting surveys, doing statistical analysis, or deciphering foreign language inscriptions. He worried that, since "the pressures of fad and fashion are as great in science, for all its logic, as in other areas of culture," certain preferred techniques in which a scientist finds him or herself particularly skilled could predominate over all others. As Kaplan described this phenomenon:

    "I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding. It comes as no particular surprise to discover that a scientist formulates problems in a way which requires for their solution just those techniques in which he himself is especially skilled."

Kaplan's fuller context for the hammer attributed to Abraham Maslow -- who just re-packaged the idea two years later -- was worth bearing in mind during President Barack Obama's speech last week, which was primarily a defense for the contexts in which he applies military force. As Obama noted, "Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail." Though Obama's speech provided no additional information about his thinking, it was useful because it reinforced the singular conception of what foreign policy entails for many in Washington: military force.

Somewhere along the line, in many influential schools of punditry and analysis, the totality of U.S. foreign policy has been reduced to whether presidents bomb some country or adversary, and the alleged impressions that this decision leaves on other countries. The binary construction employed by these pundits and analysts is that a president either demonstrates strength and engagement with air strikes, or fecklessness and detachment in their absence.

Today, the U.S. military has over 400,000 troops stationed or deployed in 182 countries around the world -- primarily conducting force protection, training, or security cooperation missions, but these troops do not factor into this equation. The binary choice is either bombs, or isolationism. Of course, the activities of the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, Treasury Department, or any other government agency and entity working abroad are wholly disregarded or given short shrift at promoting and implementing foreign policy objectives.

This vast overestimation of what military force can plausibly achieve runs totally contrary to what the past dozen years have demonstrated, at tremendous cost and sacrifice. The interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya show that the use of force as the primary instrument did not sustainably secure U.S. interests in those countries over time, nor assure U.S. allies of its mutual defense obligations, and had no latent capacity to deter potential adversaries. Nobody on earth today is scared of America because it put 170,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 in Afghanistan, and led a seven-month air campaign over Libya. If anything, the resulting instability or outright chaos led most to reach the opposite conclusion. Yet, somehow pundits continue to think and argue that sending troops or bombs into another country today will achieve this in the future. Op-ed militarism never dies, even as its underlying logic repeatedly does.

While "the pressures of fad and fashion" apparently compel pundits and analysts to demand the use of force to address unstable or threatening situations, it is rarely accompanied with a definable or measurable military or political objective that it is intended to achieve within the targeted country. You rarely hear such pundits state explicitly what exactly military force is supposed to accomplish. Rather, it is a mindless demand to apply some military tactic to elicit some feeling -- presumably fear and awe -- among third-party witnesses. The most remarkable characteristic of this school of thought is that those within it also claim to be transcontinental mind-readers capable of knowing what specific U.S. instrument of power will change the calculus of potential adversaries. Unsurprisingly, it is always military force.

Though never referred to by proponents of militarism, there is an actual joint planning process and universal task list that the military uses when planning and conducting operations. These documents provide the common reference points and actions that all affected service members are supposed to know. Nowhere in U.S. military planning documents can you find missions like "demonstrating resolve," "exhibiting strength," or "retaining superpower status." It is impossible to make other countries think of you what you would like. Their impressions are highly situationally dependent, and the result of the power and interests that surround a discrete country or issue. Their opinions of the United States are not merely based upon whether the president decided to bomb someone or not.

It is unfortunate that military force -- the most lethal, destructive, and consequential foreign action that the United States can undertake -- suffers from such a dismal and imprecise discourse. It contains meaningless and empty metaphors characterized by crude gardening references, all options forever "on the table," "setting the bar" higher, and Obama vowing to "take very tough actions." Military force is about blowing things up and killing people. Trying to ascribe virtues to its nature, or magical powers to its effects, is misleading and imprudent. Much of Washington does not see force as the solution to the world's problems because the U.S. military has the best hammer, but rather because of the influence and supremacy that it falsely ascribes to it.

QuoteIraq conflict: 'We are stronger than ISIS'

Divisions between the groups fighting to topple Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are emerging.

Much of the attention from the current insurgency has focused on ISIS - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, but it is only one of a number of militia groups fighting.

Former General Muzhir al Qaisi is a spokesman for the General Military Council of the Iraqi Revolutionaries, which entered Mosul alongside ISIS and is taking part in the campaign. He told the BBC's Middle East correspondent Jim Muir that Mosul was too big a city for ISIS to have taken alone.

He also stressed the differences between the two groups, describing ISIS as "barbarians".

Quote from: Zanza on June 15, 2014, 04:50:01 AM
That's an interesting article from a German perspective because we have the exact opposite discussion in our country. No one ever suggests use of military force as a possible means to conduct foreign policy. Our president just recently said again that the public must come terms with the fact that it might be necessary to deploy combat troops abroad.

QuoteThe Future of ISIS and the Sectarian Response: ISIS has Picked a Fight it Cannot Win
Posted by Joshua on Sunday, June 15th, 2014
The Future of ISIS in Iraq and the Sectarian Response – by Joshua Landis

A Washington policy analyst asked me what chances I gave to the possibility that Prime Minister Maliki will try to divide Sunnis and isolate ISIS by teaming up with moderate Sunnis. He raised the possibility of Maliki creating a government of national unity with greater power sharing.

My answer:

1. I doubt ISIS will get a foothold in Baghdad. Already, Shiite mobilization in the face of the ISIS advances are fierce and panicky.  I think Shiite religious mobilization now taking place in Iraq will mean very bad things for Sunnis in general. ISIS has picked a fight it can't win and unleashed the inner Shi'a in their adversary. And it's not as though Maliki, like Assad, lacks powerful friends with a serious stake in the outcome of the battle.

Rather than Maliki teaming up with "moderate" Sunnis, such as the US did in arming the tribes and cultivating the Sahwa, Iraq's Prime Minister is likely to respond by using religion as his prime mobilizer. Of course, he will not abandon "Iraq" or nationalism, just as Assad has not.  But just as Sistani has used the sanctity of Shiite shrines as his primary "national" motivator, Maliki is likely to follow suit. He will largely define the nation in sectarian terms. That is what ISIS has done, as well. Sunnis have scared the pants off of Shiites. The photos of mass shootings of Shiite young men dooms a non-sectarian response, I would imagine. What is more, the gathering storm of sectarian mobilization has already reached furious levels in the entire region. The demonization of Shiites as "rejectors" and "Majous" or pagans who are considered both non-Muslim and non-Arab, has spread to such an extent that it has taken on a life of its own. The counter demonization of Sunnis, within the Shiite world, as terrorists, takfiris, and Wahhabi inspired agents is well entrenched.

2. I would not be shocked to see significant ethnic cleansing of Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad should ISIS attack and give the Iraqi Army a run for its money. After all, the Iraqi army is large, has helicopters, sophisticated intelligence capabilities, tanks, artillery and all the rest. They were caught napping and without esprit de corps, much as the Syrian army was. But capable officers will emerge who will strip down the "power-sharing" fat that the US built and rebuild it based on loyalty to Maliki and Shiism, if most of that has not been done already. This is what happened in Syria, when we saw the Syrian Army unravel at the base during the first year of the Sunni uprising. The Syrian military was quickly rebuilt along sectarian and regional lines to make it much stronger and more loyal, with locally recruited Iranian style National Defense Forces modeled on the Islamic Guard. If Sunnis choose to form such local militias and ally with the Shiite regime, so much the better. If they do not and choose to lay low until they figure out whether ISIS can win in their regions, the Shiites will go it alone and assume all Sunnis are a fifth column. That is how the Turks dealt with the Christians during WWI and the war with the Greeks. The 20% Christians in Anatolia of 1914 were cleansed. Jews in Palestine dealt with Muslims in a manner not altogether dissimilar. It didn't turn out well for Christians in Anatolia or Muslims in Palestine.

3. We are not witnessing power-sharing or the emergence of nationalism in the region. We are witnessing the breakdown of nationalist ideology along religious lines in Syria, Lebanon, and now – I would argue – Iraq. Palestine is a bit of an exception with the new coalition government, but not much of one.

My advice to Obama would be to lay low. This sectarian process has been boiling up for a more than a century. It should be seen as part of the breakdown of the Ottoman order and emergence of nationalism. I compare what is going on in the Levant today to Central Europe during WWII. In Central Europe, the great powers drew national borders after WWI, carving up the lands of the defeated empires without rearranging the peoples to fit them. Thus Poland was on 64% Polish before WWII and Czechoslovakia was 23% minorities. WWII was the "great sorting out." (Read: http://qifanabki.com/2013/12/18/landis-ethnicity/ ) Over the war years, the peoples of central Europe were rearranged according to the WWI borders. By the end of WWII, Poland and Czechoslovakia had been reduced to their core Polish and Czechoslovak peoples. They got rid of their unwanted (Jews) or guilty (think the 12 million Germans of central Europe) minorities, along with many others. It was a nasty and brutal nation-building process.

Of course, in the Middle East, the emergence of national identities is bedeviled by competing religious identities, which seem to be stronger than both "Arabism" or "Iraqism."

I doubt we will see high degrees of Shiite-Sunni cooperation in the coming months. If we stick our long oar into this mess, we will end up with a broken oar. It seems possible that within the next two years, ISIS will largely be destroyed by the concerted action of both Iraqi and Syrian forces with help from Iran and possibly the U.S. Sunnis will not be pacified so long as they receive scant justice and no political role, but ISIS cannot represent their needs in the long run.

Quote

Two days before Mosul fell to the Islamic insurgent group Isis (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), Iraqi commanders stood eyeballing its most trusted messenger. The man, known within the extremist group as Abu Hajjar, had finally cracked after a fortnight of interrogation and given up the head of Isis's military council.

"He said to us, 'you don't realise what you have done'," an intelligence official recalled. "Then he said: 'Mosul will be an inferno this week'.'

Several hours later, the man he had served as a courier and been attempting to protect, Abdulrahman al-Bilawi, lay dead in his hideout near Mosul. From the home of the dead man and the captive, Iraqi forces hoovered up more than 160 computer flash sticks which contained the most detailed information yet known about the terror group.

The treasure trove included names and noms de guerre of all foreign fighters, senior leaders and their code words, initials of sources inside ministries and full accounts of the group's finances.

"We were all amazed and so were the Americans," a senior intelligence official told the Guardian. "None of us had known most of this information."

Officials, including CIA officers, were still decrypting and analysing the flash sticks when Abu Hajjar's prophecy was realised. Isis swept through much of northern and central Iraq over three stunning days, seizing control of Mosul and Tikrit and threatening Kirkuk as three divisions of the Iraqi army shed their uniforms and fled.

The capitulation of the military and the rapid advances of the insurgents have dramatically changed the balance of power in Iraq, crippled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, allowed Kurdish forces to seize control of the disputed city of Kirkuk and galvanised a Shia fightback along sectarian lines, posing a serious threat to the region's fragile geopolitics. On Sunday Isis published photographs that appeared to show it capturing and killing dozens of Iraqi soldiers.

"By the end of the week, we soon realised that we had to do some accounting for them," said the official flippantly. "Before Mosul, their total cash and assets were $875m [£515m]. Afterwards, with the money they robbed from banks and the value of the military supplies they looted, they could add another $1.5bn to that."

Laid bare were a series of staggering numbers that would be the pride of any major enterprise, let alone an organisation that was a startup three years ago.

The group's leaders had been meticulously chosen. Many of those who reported to the top tier – all battle-hardened veterans of the insurgency against US forces nearly a decade ago – did not know the names of their colleagues. The strategic acumen of Isis was impressive – so too its attention to detail. "They had itemised everything," the source said. "Down to the smallest detail."

Over the past year, foreign intelligence officials had learned that Isis secured massive cashflows from the oilfields of eastern Syria, which it had commandeered in late 2012, and some of which it had sold back to the Syrian regime. It was also known to have reaped windfalls from smuggling all manner of raw materials pillaged from the crumbling state, as well as priceless antiquities from archaeological digs.

But here before them in extraordinary detail were accounts that would have breezed past forensic accountants, giving a full reckoning of a war effort. It soon became clear that in less than three years, Isis had grown from a ragtag band of extremists to perhaps the most cash-rich and capable terror group in the world.

"They had taken $36m from al-Nabuk alone [an area in the Qalamoun mountains west of Damascus]. The antiquities there are up to 8,000 years old," the intelligence official said. "Before this, the western officials had been asking us where they had gotten some of their money from, $50,000 here, or $20,000 there. It was peanuts. Now they know and we know. They had done this all themselves. There was no state actor at all behind them, which we had long known. They don't need one."

The scale of Isis's resources seems to have prepared it for the improbable. But even by its ruthless standards, occupying two major cities in Iraq in three days, holding on to parts of Falluja and Ramadi, and menacing Kirkuk and Samara, was quite an accomplishment.

Social media postings throughout last week revealed the group's shock at its successes. Some posting showed extremists weeping with joy as dozens of Iraqi army humvess were driven through a sand berm on the border into Syria.

Foreign jihadists, many from Europe, were among those who stormed into Mosul and have spread through central Iraq ever since. Most of their names were already known to the intelligence agencies which had tried to track their movements after they arrived in Turkey, then disappeared, initially across the Syrian border. But noms de guerre given to the new arrivals had left their trails cold. Now officials had details of next of kin, and often phone numbers and emails.

Whether the intelligence haul can do much to reel in Isis after the fact seems a moot point, with the group having already wrought so much carnage in such a short time. "We will eventually find them," said the Iraqi official. "We knew they had infiltrated the ministries and the most frustrating thing about that flash [stick] was it only had initials. We are focusing on the initials that had the annotation 'valuable' next to them."

Other names were clearly of lesser use, he said. They were marked with "lazy", "undecided" or "needs monitoring".

More than ever before is now known about how Isis has gathered steam. The past week has also been an advanced education in its capabilities and ambitions. "Now we have to catch up with them," the official said.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2014, 08:24:44 PM
Apparently their assets are now in excess of $2 billion.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2014, 08:15:57 PM
Emails must've bounced back.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2014, 08:22:16 PM
How did all those knuckleheads let themselves be captured?  :huh:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2014, 08:29:47 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2014, 08:24:44 PM
Apparently their assets are now in excess of $2 billion.

Boy, I bet the American taxpayer is going to be red with apathy over that.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 15, 2014, 09:46:29 PM
It's kinda looking like we should have backed Assad.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2014, 09:42:56 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2014, 08:29:47 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2014, 08:24:44 PM
Apparently their assets are now in excess of $2 billion.

Boy, I bet the American taxpayer is going to be red with apathy over that.

9/11 cost half a million dollars. I'm pretty sure they can top that with a bank account like that.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2014, 09:42:56 PM
9/11 cost half a million dollars. I'm pretty sure they can top that with a bank account like that.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 15, 2014, 10:38:44 PM
I need a map.

Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2014, 09:39:13 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2014, 08:22:16 PM
How did all those knuckleheads let themselves be captured?  :huh:

I kind of wander about that myself, though thankfully I can't know what you think in such a situation.  By this point the Arabs all throughout the region should know that getting captured means death if you're lucky, or grisly recorded execution if you're not.  I'd strap explosives on myself and try to take someone down with me, but it's easy for me to say from here.  Maybe humans are extremely optimistic when facing certain death, and choose any options that at least delays the inevitable, in hopes of a miracle.

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2014, 07:27:01 AM
Lon Asgeles?

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2014, 07:27:01 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zeit.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2F2014-06%2Firak-isis-isil-3%2Firak-isis-isil-3-540x304.jpg&hash=c25dd410cf50f973988dd4fd7a42bb31b20f7e7e)

Lon Asgeles?

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 15, 2014, 09:46:29 PM
It's kinda looking like we should have backed Assad.

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2014, 08:53:12 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2014, 07:27:01 AM
Lon Asgeles?

What?  You never heard of the Lon Asgeles Asgels?  I think Moke Trut plays for them.

Quote from: Caliga on June 16, 2014, 10:28:01 AM
I'm a big fan of the name Isis.  It sounds like something out of a cartoon.  Is there an: Isis Commander? :cool:

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 16, 2014, 11:51:39 AM
Its the name of the agency in Archer.

Quote from: Phillip V on June 16, 2014, 12:14:34 PM
U.S. sending 100 troops to Baghdad. 2 warships moved to the Persian Gulf.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140616/NEWS/306160027/U-S-positions-troops-ships-aircraft-possible-embassy-evacuation-Baghdad

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 15, 2014, 09:46:29 PM
It's kinda looking like we should have backed Assad.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2014, 01:01:39 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 15, 2014, 09:46:29 PM
It's kinda looking like we should have backed Assad.

???
ISIS and Assad were allies of convenience.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
The mongers option is drop some JDAMs.

Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2014, 09:39:13 PM
Maybe humans are extremely optimistic when facing certain death, and choose any options that at least delays the inevitable, in hopes of a miracle.

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2014, 10:41:35 PM
That's a nice fat slow moving target.

Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2014, 11:39:16 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2014, 10:41:35 PM
That's a nice fat slow moving target.

Meh, you can be as fat and slow as target as you want, it doesn't matter if no one bothers to shoot at you.

Quote from: mongers on June 16, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Couldn't they leave a bit earlier and go by road, south to Kuwait; helicopter evacuations often look rather skedaddly.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 16, 2014, 05:38:44 AM
Apparently Kurds and ISIS have reached a sort-of non-aggression agreement. Which makes a lot of sense for them both.

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 10:23:05 AM
I think small skirmishes in the Islamic world means you're still sort of friends.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 17, 2014, 10:04:37 AM
Rudaw's English Twitter feed is still reporting small skirmishes between Kurdish and ISIS forces at various places near Kirkuk, so either someone has not get the message or its a pretty weak NAP.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 17, 2014, 12:29:36 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 10:23:05 AM
I think small skirmishes in the Islamic world means you're still sort of friends.

It is all over the sex ed camel.

Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
OK, I guess my recollection of said article must suck, because it really does look like bullshit, doesn't it?

Those swords seemed to cut through flesh just fine with the need for any sawing.

Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
OK, I guess my recollection of said article must suck, because it really does look like bullshit, doesn't it?

Those swords seemed to cut through flesh just fine with the need for any sawing.

Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2014, 02:38:28 PM
Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger!

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 02:23:12 PM
So has Obama announced what he's planning to do yet so I can criticize him and take the opposite position?

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 17, 2014, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 02:23:12 PM
So has Obama announced what he's planning to do yet so I can criticize him and take the opposite position?

He is using the Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to solving a crisis:

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 17, 2014, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 02:23:12 PM
So has Obama announced what he's planning to do yet so I can criticize him and take the opposite position?

He is using the Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to solving a crisis:

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Quote from: PJL on June 17, 2014, 04:59:47 PM
That's probably as good as any theory on how the US / West in general response to the crisis as anything else I've heard. It's not like he hasn't practiced the same thing before in Syria and Ukraine.

Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2014, 02:33:56 PM
OK, I guess my recollection of said article must suck, because it really does look like bullshit, doesn't it?

Those swords seemed to cut through flesh just fine with the need for any sawing.

Quote from: citizen k on June 17, 2014, 07:02:32 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F75582000%2Fjpg%2F_75582925_iraq_isis_control_detailed_v1_624map.jpg&hash=97da21183c2eeb40dd2a93a5900d3361317c4ec6)

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2014, 05:40:13 PM
That's the US approach to most anything for the last 20 years.  Aside from air strikes.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 17, 2014, 08:29:03 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, but are these guys the same ones McCain wanted to send arms to in Syria?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2014, 09:39:31 PM
I think most people will just glance at it and assume the yellow bits are controlled by ISIS and that Baghdad is surrounded.

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 10:22:41 PM
I still keep getting Kirkuk and Tikrit confused for some reason.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2014, 05:40:13 PM

Quote from: Hansmeister on June 17, 2014, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2014, 02:23:12 PM
So has Obama announced what he's planning to do yet so I can criticize him and take the opposite position?

He is using the Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to solving a crisis:

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

That's the US approach to most anything for the last 20 years.  Aside from air strikes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 17, 2014, 06:04:51 PM

Quote from: PJL on June 17, 2014, 04:59:47 PM
That's probably as good as any theory on how the US / West in general response to the crisis as anything else I've heard. It's not like he hasn't practiced the same thing before in Syria and Ukraine.

Yeah. At this point I'm not sure that's the wrong choice for Iraq/Syria.

QuoteThe extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is tightening control of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, attacking the strategic city of Baqouba, less than 40 miles from Baghdad.

...On Monday, it took Tal Afar, west of Mosul.

..."Government sources say Baquba — capital of Diyala province on the northern approaches to Baghdad — saw rebels take control of several districts on the western outskirts of the city before these were regained by government troops and allied Shia militia."

Quote
Isis fighters attack Iraq's biggest oil refinery
Islamist militants launch assault in Baiji as Iran raises prospect of military intervention

    Mark Tran   
    theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 June 2014 11.19 BST   

Isis fighters attack Iraq's biggest oil refinery
Islamist militants launch assault in Baiji as Iran raises prospect of military intervention

    Share 41
    inShare6
    Email

    Mark Tran   
    theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 June 2014 11.19 BST   

Baiji oil refinery
The Baiji oil refinery, 155 miles north of Baghdad, is under attack by Isis. Photograph: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters

Islamist militants have attacked Iraq's largest oil refinery in the city of Baiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, as Iran raised the prospect of direct military intervention to protect Shia holy sites.

A top security official told the Associated Press that fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) had begun their attack on the refinery late on Tuesday night. The attack continued into Wednesday morning, with militants targeting it with mortar shells, starting a small fire on the periphery.

The refinery accounts for more than a quarter of the country's entire refining capacity, all of which goes toward domestic consumption – petrol, cooking oil and fuel for power stations. At the height of the insurgency from 2004 to late 2007, the Baiji refinery was under the control of Sunni militants who used to siphon off crude and petroleum products to finance their operations. Isis has used its control of oilfields in Syria to boost its coffers.

Any lengthy disruption at Baiji risks long lines at the petrol pump and electricity shortages, putting further pressure on the Shia-led government of the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Iraq's beleaguered prime minister has fired several top security commanders after Iraqi troops melted away before Isis militants as they captured the Mosul in the north, Iraq's second largest city.

Jihadi rebel forces have reached Baquba, less than 40 miles north of Baghdad, while fighting continues to rage further north in the city of Tal Afar. State television late on Tuesday aired footage of army troops and armed volunteers disembarking from a transport C-130 aircraft at an airstrip near the city.

Isis and disaffected Sunnis have threatened to march to Baghdad, the capital, and the Shia holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf in the worst threat to Iraq's stability since US troops left. The three cities are home to some of the most revered Shia sites. Isis has tried to capture Samarra, north of Baghdad, home to another major Shia shrine.

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warned that Iran would do whatever it took to protect the shrines.

"Dear Kerbala, Dear Najaf, Dear Kadhimiya and Dear Samarra, we warn the great powers and their lackeys and the terrorists, the great Iranian people will do everything to protect them," he said, in a speech on Wednesday in Khoramabad, near the Iraqi border.

On Tuesday Rouhani mentioned petitions signed by Iranians who said they were willing to fight in Iraq "to destroy the terrorists and protect the holy sites", which are visited by hundreds of thousands of Iranian pilgrims annually.

"Thank God there are enough volunteer Shias, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq to fight the terrorists," he added.

Thousands of Iranians have volunteered to defend the shrines. Iran is 90% Shia, a group considered to be apostates by Isis and Sunni extremists. Rouhani said on Saturday that Iran had never dispatched any forces to Iraq and it was very unlikely it ever would, but Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was in Baghdad last week to give advice to Maliki.

Amid the fighting, the plight of foreign oil workers has become a concern. The Turkish embassy in Baghdad is investigating reports that a group of Turkish construction workers were among 60 people abducted by militants near Kirkuk. Isis seized 15 Turks who were building a hospital near the town of Dour, in Salahuddin province near Kirkuk.

The reported abduction came a week after 80 other Turkish nationals were seized by insurgents in Mosul, 49 of them from the Turkish consulate, including special forces soldiers, diplomats and children.

The Indian government has not been able to make contact with 40 Indian construction workers in Mosul, with the Times of India reporting that they have been kidnapped.

The foreign ministry spokesman, Syed Akbaruddin, said dozens of Indian workers were living in areas overrun by Isis and India was in contact with many of them, including 46 nurses. The nurses are stranded in Tikrit, which is under militant control, with many of them holed up in the hospital where they work. Nurses who spoke to the Indian media said they had been treating people injured in fierce street fighting.

The White House has indicated that it may be some days away from a decision on any US military intervention as senior Democrats expressed growing caution about the risks of being sucked back in to conflict in the country.

Amid signs that Barack Obama is treading warily over calls for air strikes, the administration spokesman, Jay Carney, said the president would "continue to consult with his national security team in the days to come", and there would also be further consultations with members of Congress, including some closed briefings later this week.

QuoteHow ISIS Games Twitter
The militant group that conquered northern Iraq is deploying a sophisticated social-media strategy.
J.M. Berger Jun 16 2014, 2:00 PM ET

The advance of an army used to be marked by war drums. Now it's marked by volleys of tweets.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Sunni militant group that seized Iraq's second-largest city last week and is now pledging to take Baghdad, has honed this new technique—most recently posting photos on Twitter of an alleged mass killing of Iraqi soldiers. But what's often overlooked in press coverage is that ISIS doesn't just have strong, organic support online. It also employs social-media strategies that inflate and control its message. Extremists of all stripes are increasingly using social media to recruit, radicalize and raise funds, and ISIS is one of the most adept practitioners of this approach.

One of ISIS's more successful ventures is an Arabic-language Twitter app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings, or just Dawn. The app, an official ISIS product promoted by its top users, is advertised as a way to keep up on the latest news about the jihadi group.

Hundreds of users have signed up for the app on the web or on their Android phones through the Google Play store. When you download the app, ISIS asks for a fair amount of personal data:

Once you sign up, the app will post tweets to your account—the content of which is decided by someone in ISIS's social-media operation. The tweets include links, hashtags, and images, and the same content is also tweeted by the accounts of everyone else who has signed up for the app, spaced out to avoid triggering Twitter's spam-detection algorithms. Your Twitter account functions normally the rest of the time, allowing you to go about your business.

The app first went into wide use in April 2014, but its posting activity has ramped up during the group's latest offensive, reaching an all-time high of almost 40,000 tweets in one day as ISIS marched into the northern Iraqi city of Mosul last week. On Sunday, as the media reported on the group's advance toward Baghdad, hundreds of Dawn app users began sending thousands of tweets featuring an image of an armed jihadist gazing at the ISIS flag flying over the city, with the text, "We are coming, Baghdad" (see below).

The volume of these tweets was enough to make any search for "Baghdad" on Twitter generate the image among its first results, which is certainly one means of intimidating the city's residents.

.The app is just one way ISIS games Twitter to magnify its message. Another is the use of organized hashtag campaigns, in which the group enlists hundreds and sometimes thousands of activists to repetitively tweet hashtags at certain times of day so that they trend on the social network. This approach also skews the results of a popular Arabic Twitter account called @ActiveHashtags that tweets each day's top trending tags. When ISIS gets its hashtag into the @ActiveHashtags stream, it results in an average of 72 retweets per tweet, which only makes the hashtag trend more. As it gains traction, more users are exposed to ISIS's messaging. The group's supporters also run accounts similar to @ActiveHashtags that exclusively feature jihadi content and can produce hundreds of retweets per tweet.

As a result of these strategies, and others, ISIS is able to project strength and promote engagement online. For instance, the ISIS hashtag consistently outperforms that of the group's main competitor in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, even though the two groups have a similar number of supporters online. In data I analyzed in February, ISIS often registered more than 10,000 mentions of its hashtag per day, while the number of al-Nusra mentions generally ranged between 2,500 and 5,000.

ISIS also uses hashtags to focus-group messaging and branding concepts, much like a Western corporation might. Earlier this year, ISIS hinted, without being specific, that it was planning to change the name of its organization. Activists then carefully promoted a hashtag crafted to look like a grassroots initiative, demanding that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declare not an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq, but the rebirth of an Islamic caliphate. The question of when and how to declare a new caliphate is highly controversial in jihadi circles, and the hashtag produced a great deal of angry and divisive discussion, which ISIS very likely tracked and measured. It never announced a name change.

Media attention has focused, not unreasonably, on ISIS's use of social media to spread pictures of graphic violence, attract new fighters, and incite lone wolves. But it's important to recognize that these activities are supported by sophisticated online machinery. ISIS does have legitimate support online—but less than it might seem. And it owes a lot of that support to a calculated campaign that would put American social-media-marketing gurus to shame.

Quote"We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power," confirmed top US military commander Gen Martin Dempsey in front of US senators.

Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
I'd say we should eat the -25 prestige hit.  Our war exhaustion is too high, and it's not like we're going to get a lot of diplomatic power points with Kerry in the cabinet.

Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
and it's not like we're going to get a lot of diplomatic power points with Kerry in the cabinet.

Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2014, 01:29:13 PM
I got a good feeling about this intervention in Iraq.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2014, 03:32:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2014, 01:29:13 PM
I got a good feeling about this intervention in Iraq.

Third time is the charm?

Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2014, 03:37:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2014, 03:32:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2014, 01:29:13 PM
I got a good feeling about this intervention in Iraq.

Third time is the charm?

:yes:

If the US sends advisers to prop up a corrupt regime in South Iraq while bombing the fanatics in North Iraq who themselves infiltrate the South I don't see what could go wrong.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 19, 2014, 10:13:37 PM
While the idea of splitting Iraq into thirds may seem sexy...it would likely just end up as three states at near perpetual war with each other.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 19, 2014, 10:13:37 PM
While the idea of splitting Iraq into thirds may seem sexy...it would likely just end up as three states at near perpetual war with each other.

Quote"Gone are the times when it was allowed to destroy and desecrate our religious shrines in Najaf, Karbala and Samarra.

"How will we face Imam al-Mahdi if the Samarra shrines were harmed?" he asked.
...
"We are living today the era of the coming of Imam Mahdi," he said.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 19, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
I didn't think anyone could fuck up the Middle East more than Sykes and Picot.

Then I saw Paul Bremer giving his opinion on what we need to do in Iraq.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Sistani's called for a new government. Maybe there's hope.

Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2014, 08:17:33 AM
In what form? ISIS will stop once they learn there are two more Sunnis In Suits in the new government?

Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2014, 08:17:33 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Sistani's called for a new government. Maybe there's hope.

In what form? ISIS will stop once they learn there are two more Sunnis In Suits in the new government?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 08:30:38 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 20, 2014, 08:17:33 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 07:37:09 AM
Sistani's called for a new government. Maybe there's hope.

In what form? ISIS will stop once they learn there are two more Sunnis In Suits in the new government?

The Sunnis have legitimate grievances. I'm not sure they will be addressed but there's no chance with Maliki in charge. The only hope for Iraq is to genuinely bring all the groups in. Though that may mean less help from Iran/problems with the Shia militias.

Then what Yi said. I've always thought the Awakening mattered more than the surge and I think a similar process could help again.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 09:01:19 AM
Unless Newt is a dark horse to become Iraqi PM, I'm not sure I see the connection between political process and contract law.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 09:48:09 AM
But political deals and compromises are disposable everywhere.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 09:01:19 AM
Unless Newt is a dark horse to become Iraqi PM, I'm not sure I see the connection between political process and contract law.

Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2014, 10:59:59 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 09:01:19 AM
Unless Newt is a dark horse to become Iraqi PM, I'm not sure I see the connection between political process and contract law.

Because deals, if reached, only hold as long as the crisis motivating the deal remains. If there is no longer a risk of sunni nutjobs breaking Iraq Maliki will dump any concessions he's made to the Sunnis to get them to stop letting the Sunni nutjobs breaking Iraq.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2014, 11:11:29 AM
Sistani is the Grand Imperial Towelhead, right?  That guy is great, deserved a Nobel.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2014, 12:14:43 PM
I thought Iran had their own.  Is this like the Orthodox Church where every country has their grand imperial...erm...long beard?

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
In retrospect, we should have made Iraq run along Iranian lines, with Sistani being the Supreme Leader. It probably would have been the best option.

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
In retrospect, we should have made Iraq run along Iranian lines, with Sistani being the Supreme Leader. It probably would have been the best option.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2014, 01:35:11 PM

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
In retrospect, we should have made Iraq run along Iranian lines, with Sistani being the Supreme Leader. It probably would have been the best option.

The problem is that the Iranian constitution is based on rather peculiar interpretation of Shi'ite theology, such that many of the highest ranking Iranian ayatollahs never fully endorsed it, and a few bigwigs ended up being placed under house arrest or otherwise silenced.  That is also why a third-rate theologian like Khamenei could end up Supreme Leader.  Sistani is the real deal and would not have signed on to an Iranian-style constitutional arrangement.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 20, 2014, 02:22:18 PM
Yeah and it was what Mousavi meant saying Iran was no longer an Islamic Republic, just a Republic.

Quote from: derspiess on June 20, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Theocracy, no.  Dictatorship, sure why not.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2014, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 20, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Theocracy, no.  Dictatorship, sure why not.

Yes, we know about your views on the US, but what about Iraq?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2014, 01:35:11 PM
The problem is that the Iranian constitution is based on rather peculiar interpretation of Shi'ite theology, such that many of the highest ranking Iranian ayatollahs never fully endorsed it,

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2014, 04:45:54 PM
Spicey and an American Theocracy eh?  The First United Methodist Supreme Council will lead us all with Christ's guidance.  The government will be funded by bake sales as God intended.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 20, 2014, 05:20:42 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2014, 01:35:11 PM
The problem is that the Iranian constitution is based on rather peculiar interpretation of Shi'ite theology, such that many of the highest ranking Iranian ayatollahs never fully endorsed it,

What are the differences? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote from: Queequeg on June 20, 2014, 10:26:44 PM
IDK.  I mean, the 16th Century Safavid Shahdom was for some time basically just a religious order with a title that was inherited.  I think Shi'ite polities have traditionally been theocratic even by the standards of Islamic history.

Quote from: derspiess link=topic=11579.msg753539# msg753539 date=1403542502
Well now that you mention it, to balance things out militia groups in the US ought to wear misspelled ISIS gear.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 12:01:48 PM

Quote from: derspiess link=topic=11579.msg753539# msg753539 date=1403542502
Well now that you mention it, to balance things out militia groups in the US ought to wear misspelled ISIS gear.

SISI?  :hmm:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2014, 09:23:26 PM
Can't imagine him being that accurate.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FD6XWXxF.jpg&hash=1062d62325afbfdc5c26754db1ca32cde68cb7e9)

Quote from: Siege on June 23, 2014, 01:40:35 PM
Worrying thing is, that if I'm right and that's a Kord, then they got the latest russian made shit. Also, the dude in the far left is holding an AK that looks suspiciously like a AK 74, firing 5.45x39mm, instead of the commonly found older AK 47 at 7.62x39mm. Are these the latest weapons captured in Syria?

Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 01:51:11 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 23, 2014, 01:40:35 PM
Worrying thing is, that if I'm right and that's a Kord, then they got the latest russian made shit. Also, the dude in the far left is holding an AK that looks suspiciously like a AK 74, firing 5.45x39mm, instead of the commonly found older AK 47 at 7.62x39mm. Are these the latest weapons captured in Syria?

Definitely sounds plausible.  Why is it worrying?

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 23, 2014, 09:22:15 PM
I have placed my airstrike boner at DefCon 2.

QuoteSyrian War Planes Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq, US Says

Military aircraft that conducted air strikes against ISIS military targets in western Iraq are believed to have been from Syria's air force, a U.S. official told ABC News.

Such air strikes would be a regional escalation of the conflict inside Iraq where the Islamic militants have taken over cities in northern and western Iraq and threatened the stability of the Iraqi government.

It would also make Syria the second country that has been hostile to the U.S. apparently helping Iraq. There have been reports of Iranian troops intervening on behalf of the beleaguered Iraqi government.

ISIS fighters operate on both sides of the Syrian and Iraqi border. Syrian airstrikes would indicate that the government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad finds it advantageous in supporting the beleaguered government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

Terrorists Team Up in Syria to Build Next Generation of Bombs

Iraqi Military Out of Hellfires in Battle Against ISIS

According to the U.S. official, the United States has "pretty good information that the Syrians are behind the fighter aircraft bombing in western Al Anbar," a province in Iraq that includes the Syrian border.  The official said the United States is still trying to gather more information that Syria was behind the strikes.

It's not clear where the jets attacked, but over the weekend ISIS fighters took control of al Qaim and Rutba, both cities located near the Iraq-Syrian border.

A U.S. official also said it was not clear whether the Iraqi government requested or authorized Syrian air strikes in Iraqi territory.

Reports from Iraqi news outlets said U.S. air strikes had hit ISIS fighters, prompting the Pentagon to deny that it had launched air strikes.  "Press reports that U.S. drones struck ISIL [ISIS] targets in Iraq today are false.  No such action has been taken," said Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby.

Since the escalation of the fighting in Iraq the United States military has been flying manned and unmanned surveillance flights over Iraq to share information about ISIS targets with the Iraqi government.   A Pentagon spokesman said today that the U.S. is now flying between 30 and 35 surveillance flights daily over Iraq.

The Obama administration considered airstrikes inside Iraq to stop the momentum of ISIS advances in northern Iraq, but so far has opted not to do so because it would appear that it was taking sides in the conflict. ISIS is an Sunni Muslim force augmented by the Sunni tribes in northern and western Iraq, while the Iraqi government and its army is overwhelmingly composed of Shiite Muslims.

Instead President Obama announced last week that he had authorized sending up to 300 military advisers to Iraq to assist the Iraqi military in its fight with ISIS.

Kirby announced today that 90 advisers had arrived in Baghdad to establish a Joint Operations Center in Baghdad. They will join two initial teams crafted from 40 military personnel working at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In coming days an additional four teams of 50 people will flow into Iraq from elsewhere in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.

Kirby stressed that the first mission for the teams would be to conduct assessments to help determine what advisory assistance they will provide in the next phase of their mission.  They won't be providing those assessments to their chain of command for another two to three weeks.   Kirby said the assessments include assessing the cohesiveness and readiness of Iraqi Security Forces, the state of situation on the ground and ISIS activities, and providing recommendations about the advisory mission.

A U.S. intelligence official provided an assessment that there are between 3,000 and 5,000 ISIS fighters. Their numbers have swelled in recent weeks following the release of almost 1,500 prisoners from a prison in Mosul.

A senior intelligence official said there are approximately 10,000 ISIS fighters — roughly 7,000 in Syria and 3,000 in Iraq. There are between 3,000 and 5,000 foreign fighters who have been incorporated into ISIS ranks, making up part of that 10,000.

It is difficult to assess how many of the roughly 3,000 in Iraq are foreign fighters.
SHOWS: World News

QuoteSyria's essential services are on the brink of collapse under the burden of continuous assault on critical water infrastructure. The stranglehold of extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), neglect by the regime, and an eighth summer of drought may combine to create a water and food crisis which would escalate fatalities and migration rates in the country's ongoing three-year conflict.

The capability of state agencies to respond to water, food and shelter crises is diminishing. The warning signs are clear for what could result in a far worse refugee crisis than the conflict has produced to date. The UN, neighbouring countries and the wider international community have a responsibility to collaborate in the next few months, in order to limit the extent of human suffering.

Water as a weapon

The deliberate targeting of water supply networks and related structures is now a daily occurrence in the conflict. The water pumping station in Al-Khafsah, Aleppo stopped working on 10 May, cutting off water supply to half of the city. It is unclear who was responsible; both the regime and opposition forces blame each other, but unsurprisingly in a city home to almost three million people the incident caused panic and chaos. Some people even resorted to drinking from puddles in the streets.

Attacks and counter-attacks have destroyed several waste water treatment and sewage facilities in the country. Damage to the sewage system in Aleppo, for example, has resulted in the contamination of drinking water. Warnings to citizens to boil all tap water were issued in the city this month. But, with the rising prices of black-market fuel, boiled water is itself a luxury that most of the besieged population cannot afford. Disinfection of the water supply system now needs a two-day fresh water flush, during which time the water supply would be inaccessible –  making it a an unpalatable action, given the current water shortage.

The effects of the diversion and destruction of key water infrastructure, including dams, water pipes and waste treatment plants − compounded by the loss of skilled workers − is felt acutely in the country's largest cities. Hama and Homs have lost water supplies over several consecutive weeks, due to attacks on the water treatment plant on the banks of the Orontes River and on the water pipeline conveying treated water to the two cities. Waterborne disease cases, including typhoid, are on the rise in the Euphrates region, where it has been difficult to supply disinfection chemicals.

ISIS-controlled water resources

ISIS now has control of the Euphrates' major water structures within Syria. This includes Al-Raqqa Dam, one of the biggest dams in the Middle East, which controls the river flow for most of the irrigated lands downstream of Al-Raqqa and supplies 19 per cent of the country's electrical power.

The Euphrates River, which provides 65 per cent of the country's water needs, is also experiencing a dangerous decrease in its flow rates. This is likely to be due to a combination of factors: decades of poor water management, current neglect of water infrastructure on the Euphrates, and the absence of any coordination between Syria and upstream Turkey regarding the river flow. As a result, in late May, the river dried up downstream of Al-Raqqa city, depriving many downstream towns of water. The water level of Al-Assad Lake – Syria's largest reservoir, which provides irrigation for some 500 square miles of agricultural land and all of Aleppo's drinking water − has dropped by six meters since ISIS took control in January. If the lake loses one more metre the water system will stop working. This will leave more than four million inhabitants without access to safe water. This could result in a humanitarian catastrophe that would overwhelm agencies on the ground.

...

Quote
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki: Russian jets will turn tide

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC that he hopes jets from Russia and Belarus will turn the tide against rebels in the coming days.

"God willing within one week this force will be effective and will destroy the terrorists' dens," he said.

He said that the process of buying US jets had been "long-winded" and that the militants' advance could have been avoided if air cover had been in place.

....

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
muslims killing muslims is always a good thing.

Quote from: mongers on June 26, 2014, 04:24:42 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
muslims killing muslims is always a good thing.

Are Russians muslims?

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:35:37 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 26, 2014, 04:24:42 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
muslims killing muslims is always a good thing.

Are Russians muslims?

Some are.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2014, 04:49:42 PM
Sounds more like it will be Iraqis flying Russian planes.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2014, 05:12:08 PM
Possible, though I don't think it would take that much training for an experienced pilot to learn to fly a new model.

Quote from: mongers on June 26, 2014, 04:48:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:35:37 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 26, 2014, 04:24:42 PM

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
muslims killing muslims is always a good thing.

Are Russians muslims?

Some are.

As are some Americans.

I was interested in Seigy's view of Russians becoming involved in Iraq and fighting ISIS.

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:54:43 PM
But are they Muslim planes?  :hmm:

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2014, 01:48:00 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:54:43 PM
But are they Muslim planes?  :hmm:

Once any muslim sits in the cockpit they become a muslim waqf that no muslim can even abandon.

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 10:24:26 PM
So, what's left?
Let ISIS win?
Let Iran invade and take over?

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2014, 01:48:00 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:54:43 PM
But are they Muslim planes?  :hmm:

Once any muslim sits in the cockpit they become a muslim waqf that no muslim can even abandon.

Quote from: Siege on June 26, 2014, 10:24:26 PM
Let ISIS win?

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2014, 09:37:27 AM
Balad airbase is reportedly surrounded on three sides.

QuoteIraq's Kurds rule out retreating from Kirkuk
Massoud Barzani says ambition of incorporating city "achieved", amid growing calls for inclusive government in Baghdad.
Last updated: 27 Jun 2014 18:06

The president of the Kurdish region of northern Iraq has issued a defiant statement to the Iraqi government that there was no going back on autonomous Kurdish rule in the oil city Kirkuk.

Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, made the comments at a joint news conference in Erbil with visiting William Hague, British foreign secretary, on Friday.

"We waited for 10 years for Baghdad to solve Article 140," he said, referring to the constitutional item which was meant to address the Kurds' decades-old ambition to incorporate the territory in their autonomous region in the north over the objections of successive governments in Baghdad.

"Now its accomplished because the Iraqi army pulled out and our Peshmerga forces had to step in. So now the problem is solved. There will be more no more conversation about it."

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Erbil, said Barzani's statement was expected to put more strain on the Baghdad government.

"The Kurds see themselves in a position of strength, and say the Iraqi government's pullout forced Peshmerga forces to fill the security vacuum," she said.

Kurdish forces stepped in when federal government forces withdrew in the face of a Sunni rebel offensive led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) earlier this month.

The Sunni rebels made the gains as Iraq's flagging security forces were swept aside by the initial insurgent push, pulling out of a swathe of ethnically divided areas.

The Iraqi army carried out airstrikes on Tikrit, and launched an assault on a strategic university campus on Friday to recapture the rebel-held city.

Exclusive video obtained by Al Jazeera showed damage inside the city after reports of Iraqi military helicopters flying commandos into the city on Thursday.

Several locals told Al Jazeera there were no rebels in the area and that the military hit targets indiscriminately.

Nouri al-Maliki, who has been Iraq's prime minister since 2006, has faced intense pressure to form an inclusive government and address the longstanding grievances of the Sunni and Kurdish communities.

Sistani urges unity

On Friday Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia religious leader, became the latest prominent figure to distance himself from Maliki when he called on politicians to unite and choose a prime minister before parliament sits next week to begin forming a government.

Sistani, who commands unswerving loyalty from many Shia in the region, said the various political blocs should agree on the next prime minister, parliament speaker and president before the newly elected legislature meets on Tuesday.

Under Iraq's governing system put in place after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the prime minister has always been a Shia, the largely ceremonial president a Kurd and the speaker of parliament a Sunni.

Dividing up the three posts before parliament meets would require leaders from each of Iraq's three main ethnic and sectarian groups to commit to the political process and resolve their most pressing problems, including Maliki's fate.

"What is required of the political blocs is to agree on the three [posts] within the remaining days to this date," Abdul Mehdi Karbalai, Sistani's spokesman, said during a Friday prayer sermon in the Shia shrine city of Karbala.

Maliki, whose Shia-led State of Law coalition won the most seats in the April election, had been positioning himself for a third term before the onslaught began.

Despite the turmoil and calls both domestically and internationally for him to step down, Maliki has said any attempt to undermine him would be tantamount to a "coup".

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2014, 01:48:00 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2014, 04:54:43 PM
But are they Muslim planes?  :hmm:

Once any muslim sits in the cockpit they become a muslim waqf that no muslim can even abandon.

Quote from: Siege on June 29, 2014, 03:35:46 PM
Once again, Berkut got everything right, but will get flamed by the usual suspects all the same.

Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2014, 10:14:23 AM
I think I've come to the conclusion, rather begrudgingly, that this is probably simply inevitable.

There is not such real nation as "Iraq". Even before the latest mess, we knew that the country of Iraq was really just a fiction - it was Iraq plus Kurdistan in all but name.

Now it will be Kurdistan, Sunniland, and Shialand. Or whatever. ISIS will get as far as they get, and will stall once enough of the southern majority Shia militias start resisting them.

ISIS itself won't really last, as it is just a hodgepodge of Sunni groups allying for convenience.

QuoteAbu Muhammad al-'Adnani, the official spokesman of the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (ISIS), announced the group's rebranding as the "Islamic State," declaring itself a Caliphate and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph Ibrahim.

His announcement came in a 34 minute speech entitled, "This is the Promise of Allah," and was posted on the Twitter account of the group's al-I'tisaam Media Foundation. Concurrently, the Islamic State's al-Hayat Media Center provided English, French, German, and Russian translations. In the speech, 'Adnani demanded that all jihadi factions, not only those in Iraq and Syria, but everywhere, pledge allegiance to the Islamic State, for the "legality" of their organizations is now void. He stated: "Indeed, it is the State. Indeed, it is the khilāfah. It is time for you to end this abhorrent partisanship, dispersion, and division, for this condition is not from the religion of Allah at all. And if you forsake the State or wage war against it, you will not harm it. You will only harm yourselves."

'Adnani also acknowledged Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by his real name and lineage, Ibrāhīm Ibn 'Awwād Ibn Ibrāhīm Ibn 'Alī Ibn Muhammad al-Badrī al-Hāshimī al-Husaynī al-Qurashī, and declared him the Caliph for Muslims everywhere.

Following is a copy of the English translation:

...

QuoteIsis has produced a slick video, mostly in English, explaining the new caliphate in Iraq and Syria. It is entitled "End of Sykes Picot", a reference to the agreement between France and Britain on divvying up Iraq and Syria after the first world war.

"This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," its spokesman warns. Standing on a border sign he threatens to "break the borders" of Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2014, 06:24:11 AM
Well, hopefully ISIS administration is what Sicily needs to snap out of their medieval mindset that enables mafias to flourish.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 30, 2014, 06:54:46 AM
All Austria included and not Sicily is indeed hilarious. Turkestan seems included in it though. Crimea as well, but not Kazan (Tatarstan) indeed.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2014, 11:10:05 PM
Vienna will fall at last!  :lol:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FISIS-Caliphate.png&hash=993a9c4b418cff3f734ebaa98959dad77157a8f9)

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 29, 2014, 07:53:53 PM
Looks like Jaron will be making his move to crown himself Emperor of Trebizond.


Berkut is right.  This was coming since we invaded. Hell, if Saddam had died in office we might be seeing it anyway, except you know, for the massive amounts of lives and treasure we expended exporting democracy ther.e

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2014, 11:10:05 PM
Vienna will fall at last!  :lol:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FISIS-Caliphate.png&hash=993a9c4b418cff3f734ebaa98959dad77157a8f9)

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2014, 02:13:19 AM
How are not able to trace these guys if they're posting videos on Youtube?

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 30, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
Maybe.  Better government may have created a sense of 'nationhood' in those states.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 29, 2014, 11:10:05 PM
Vienna will fall at last!  :lol:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FISIS-Caliphate.png&hash=993a9c4b418cff3f734ebaa98959dad77157a8f9)

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 30, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
Maybe.  Better government may have created a sense of 'nationhood' in those states.

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2014, 09:17:08 AM
I don't recall the details, but I think Europeans had a disagreement or two about national identities themselves before stable liberal governments came about.

Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2014, 09:25:24 AM

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2014, 09:17:08 AM
I don't recall the details, but I think Europeans had a disagreement or two about national identities themselves before stable liberal governments came about.

Yeah...did any violence result?  I don't recall.

Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
And it is not like our stabilisation efforts have been paying off. Sometimes, cruel as it is, I am thinking we should let the natural course in these hotspots take their way. Too bad it would mean huge sufferings to an unbelievable number of people

Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2014, 09:10:18 AM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 30, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
Maybe.  Better government may have created a sense of 'nationhood' in those states.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the West has this idea that "better government" can precede rational and meaningful national boundaries. I think perhaps that we look at out own societies and governments, our own perceptions on things like the rule of law and importance (or lack therof) to us of things like tribal identities and sectarian distinctions, and think that given "good enough" government, where the lines are drawn on the map really should not matter.

But I suspect that the reality is that it is the other way around - in most places like this, you cannot have "good government" when in fact that government is trying to control groups that simply are not willing to actually work together. You cannot create a national identity because it is not possible (or at least incredibly difficult) to have "good government" when you have national borders that in some cases do not take into account the actual demographic or political realities on the ground.

You end up with one of a couple things, it would seem:

1. Stable, but relatively brutal governments who rule by violence, or
2. Unstable attempts at "coalition" governments that cannot entice or demand the loyalty of those who they must rely on to maintain sovereignity.

In the case of the Middle East, many of the borders are often not just poorly though out from the standpoint of creating states with cohesive identities, in some cases they are very carefully constructed to create intentionally unstable states, like Iraq. Where the goal of the powers setting it up was to make sure that the state could not be stable, and therefore whoever was in power (often a minority) would be reliant on the foreign power to maintain their position.

So I see what you are saying, but I think history has shown that the idea that "good government" can come BEFORE rational boundaries has never really worked. We want it to work because the alternative is either

A) Incredibly hard politically (creating rational states via a political process). Can anyone imagine the country of Kurdistan coming into existence via a nice committee meeting between Iraq, Turkey, and the Kurds? No way.
B) Extreme violence. Which is what we are getting now.

Quote from: Viking on June 30, 2014, 10:35:31 AM
This is a WEIRD thing. The west is an outlier here. Western government are fully centralized with absolute power at virtually all levels of government. The US is possibly the only actual exception to this, but US constitutional history has very much been one of increasing Federal control. In the west the central government has absolute power and exercises it. Any tier below the national government has it's authority usually by permission from the central government. Western states are the result of centralized absolute states which democratized at the top first. Again the US is the exception here but fits into the general trend.

We became democratic by replacing the king as sovereign by the people. Our state apparatus and adminstration is one of an absolute monarchy. Laws and Orders come from Parliament or Executive at the top and percolate down the system to the administrators, government employees and officials at the bottom which implement that rule. The modern western states are build by the absolute foundations laid by Cromwell and Richelieu and Bismarck and Cadorna. In our countries the tribes have been broken. The same applies to Japan and Korea which is why they succeed but not to africa or the middle east.

Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2014, 10:41:50 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 30, 2014, 10:35:31 AM
This is a WEIRD thing. The west is an outlier here. Western government are fully centralized with absolute power at virtually all levels of government. The US is possibly the only actual exception to this, but US constitutional history has very much been one of increasing Federal control. In the west the central government has absolute power and exercises it. Any tier below the national government has it's authority usually by permission from the central government. Western states are the result of centralized absolute states which democratized at the top first. Again the US is the exception here but fits into the general trend.

We became democratic by replacing the king as sovereign by the people. Our state apparatus and adminstration is one of an absolute monarchy. Laws and Orders come from Parliament or Executive at the top and percolate down the system to the administrators, government employees and officials at the bottom which implement that rule. The modern western states are build by the absolute foundations laid by Cromwell and Richelieu and Bismarck and Cadorna. In our countries the tribes have been broken. The same applies to Japan and Korea which is why they succeed but not to africa or the middle east.

Don't confuse "the west" with "europe".

Not only the US, but Canada and Australia have significantly decentralized federations.

Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2014, 09:17:08 AM
I don't recall the details, but I think Europeans had a disagreement or two about national identities themselves before stable liberal governments came about.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2014, 03:11:16 AM
Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map. :)

Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2014, 12:36:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2014, 03:11:16 AM
Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map. :)

Sicily was Muslim and Arab for 300 years.  Dar el Islam is not allowed to be rolled back.

Quote from: Barrister on June 30, 2014, 12:42:30 PM
Tell that to the Islamic Caliphate then, because Sicily is not colored black on their map.

Quote from: Siege on June 30, 2014, 06:53:05 PM
Yeah, but the tribes were broken in the West long before democratization.
Feudal society had very little to do with tribes. If anything is the break down from tribes into clans, and the industrial revolution broke down the clans into families with its new market economy and potential for individual freedom and success. Then the information revolution broke down the family unit completely into todays individualism, with gangs appearing as a family substitute in dispossessed income groups without enough wealth/job opportunities to succeed in the era of information individualism.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2014, 08:07:54 PMAn insightful post? :yeahright:

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Siegebreaker!

Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2014, 12:36:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2014, 03:11:16 AM
Sicily is the the big island just southwest of the Italian peninsula.  It's grey on the map. :)

Sicily was Muslim and Arab for 300 years.  Dar el Islam is not allowed to be rolled back.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 30, 2014, 08:22:41 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2014, 08:07:54 PMAn insightful post? :yeahright:

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Siegebreaker!

It came to light in the MENSA thread that Siegy may be the Smartest Man On Languish, his IQ is at least a couple standard deviations higher than the average. Which according to some theories of cognition would make it very difficult for Siegy to relate to the average Languishite if met in person because we'll basically come across at best as semi-retarded to him.

QuoteExtremists in Iraq Attack Shiite Shrine, Killing 6

By ROD NORDLANDJUNE 30, 2014

BAGHDAD — Sunni extremists fired mortars into a shrine in Samarra that is sacred to Shiites late Monday, killing six people and damaging the shrine, according to a report on Iraqi state television.

Attacks on Samarra's Askariya Shrine by Qaeda-related groups in 2006 set off a wave of sectarian violence throughout Iraq that took years to calm.

A report on the Iraqiya television network said four mortar shells were fired into the compound of the mosque, which was built in 944 and is considered one of the most important shrines in the Shiite world.

A security official in Samarra said only two mortar shells actually hit the mosque's famous golden dome, and damage was slight. The other two landed in a courtyard, where many worshipers had gathered to celebrate the first day of Ramadan.

The dome was largely destroyed in 2006 by extremists who entered the shrine and set off explosives. It was later rebuilt.

Hospital officials in Samarra reported that six people were killed and 23 others were wounded in the attack.

The Iraqi government has heavily reinforced the city of Samarra, about 80 miles north of Baghdad, to prevent insurgents with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria from carrying out such attacks on the shrine. It has so far prevented ISIS from entering Samarra or getting close to the shrine area.

ISIS has made no secret of its intention to foment a sectarian war in Iraq, as Al Qaeda did in 2006.

The attack was likely to arouse fears of retaliatory attacks in an atmosphere where Sunnis have already become victims of random, apparently sectarian killings in Baghdad and elsewhere, as a response to the advances by ISIS in Sunni parts of the country.

The shrine marks the place where Imam Ali al-Hadi, who is revered by Shiites, was buried in 868. Six years later, his son Hassan al-Askari was buried there as well.

Quote
Concerns about ISIL grow among Iraq's Sunnis

GLOBE STAFF

Khazir, Iraq — The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Jun. 29 2014, 11:29 AM EDT

Last updated Sunday, Jun. 29 2014, 9:47 PM EDT

When the black-clad militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) first arrived in Mosul, many among the city's majority Sunni population celebrated. The jihadis had a rough look about them – they were heavily armed and many wore masks – but they were hailed for driving out the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army, which many in Mosul had come to revile as almost an occupying force.

Part of the reason the extremists were welcomed was that they captured Mosul – Iraq's second-largest city – as part of an informal coalition with Sunni tribal fighters, as well as remnants of Saddam Hussein's secularist Baath Party. As ISIL gains in strength and notoriety, it's a marriage of convenience the tribes and the Baathists may come to rue.

Stories abound in Khazir, a sweltering refugee camp 50 kilometres east of Mosul, alongside the highway to semi-independent Iraqi Kurdistan, about the cruelty of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's regime, which many here say arrested and tortured Sunni youths seemingly at random. But the camp's 3,000 residents tell even worse tales about the ISIL fighters who came after them.

Anad Mahmoud, a 22-year-old electrician, says masked ISIL men dressed in long Pakistani-style robes came last week to the farming village of Guba, on the outskirts of Mosul. Though Mr. Mahmoud is a Sunni Arab, most of his neighbours were Shia Turkmen and Shabaks, another religious minority.

Mr. Mahmoud says the Shiite men captured by ISIL were made to dig a pit that would prove to be their mass grave. "They took about 80 Shiite people to a giant hole. They put jerry cans that were filled with something like kerosene in the pit with them, and then blew them up. I heard the sound."

New York-based Human Rights Watch has reported that at least 40 Shia Turkmen were kidnapped in Guba on June 23, and that some were believed to have been killed. The group said four Shia places of worship in and around Guba were also destroyed with dynamite by ISIL.

Mr. Mahmoud, who now shares a tent with five Mosul refugees in Khazir, says he narrowly avoided death himself. "First they said 'You are a Shiite and we are going to execute you.' Then when they discovered [from his identification] that I am Sunni, they said 'You are living in a Shia area, so we will treat you the way we treat them. You must be killed.'"

In the end, Mr. Mahmoud and the other Sunni residents of Guba were allowed to go, but their homes and belongings were taken by ISIL.

Many in Khazir – a sand-whipped place with few services and a mixed population of Sunnis and Shiites who fled Mosul over the past three weeks – say they now believe Iraq is fracturing and the sectarian violence can only be halted by creating separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states. But the tales they tell of ISIL raise worries about what kind of entity an Iraqi Sunni state might be.

"In this camp, you can find Sunnis and Shiites living side-by-side. It is only ISIL who are extremists," said Ali Ahmed, a 20-year-old Shia student sharing a tent with his mother and four siblings. "You can't find a single Shiite in Mosul now. ... They kill people at the checkpoints after looking at their identification documents."

The most recent arrivals to Khazir camp say Mosul is now being governed under a harsh form of sharia law. Some tell tales of being criticized over their Western-style haircuts, and of women being allowed outside only in the company of male relatives. There are rumours of makeshift Islamic courts in the city.

On Sunday, ISIL declared it had established a caliphate stretching from Diyala Province, east of Baghdad, to Aleppo in Syria. In an audio recording released online, the group said its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was now "the caliph" of this region and the "leader for Muslims everywhere."

Those living in Khazir also say the rebels have struggled to deliver basic services such as water and electricity to Mosul, and that the city has been strafed in recent days by Iraqi army helicopters. Aid agencies say that more than 500,000 people have fled Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province since the fighting began.

The head of Iraq's largest Sunni tribe, Sheik Ali Hatem al-Suleimani, said in an interview that while tribal fighters currently shared common cause with ISIL, there was no formal alliance and tribal leaders knew that if and when they succeeded in ousting Mr. al-Maliki, they would eventually have to fight ISIL next.

The 43-year-old sheik, who heads the powerful Dulaimi tribe, said there were vast differences between the aims and tactics of the tribes – whose fighters include many Saddam Hussein-era police officers and soldiers – and those of ISIL. "We don't think we can work with ISIL and be allies. Culturally, we are totally different from them," the sheik said in a meeting Saturday with The Globe and Mail and other foreign media at a five-star hotel in the Kurdish capital of Erbil.

Sheik al-Suleimani said he wanted "democracy" and greater rights for Sunnis within Iraq – through a new constitution that would see Iraq made into a federal state, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish regions that would have wide autonomy – and he would not support an ISIL theocracy, nor the Baath Party's return to power. "We are postponing our fight with ISIL until later," he said. "Now is not the time to fight ISIL, it's the time to fight Maliki."

The former Baathists – now known as the Naqshabandi Army and headed by top Saddam lieutenant Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri – appear to be the weakest partner among the anti-Maliki forces. When Baathists began displaying portraits of Mr. Hussein around Mosul after the Iraqi army's retreat, ISIL ordered the Baathists to remove them within 24 hours.

Sheik al-Suleimani said that while "Mosul is a special situation," the role of ISIL in the Sunni offensive has been exaggerated by Mr. al-Maliki's government and the international media. He said ISIL "terrorists" made up just 7 to 10 per cent of the total number of Sunni fighters, although he acknowledged the number of ISIL followers was growing.

He said the tribes were confident they could handle ISIL after Mr. al-Maliki was gone. The Dulaims played a key role in the so-called "Sunni Awakening," which saw the Sunni tribes – who had originally fought against the U.S. occupation of Iraq – drive out al-Qaeda in Iraq after the tribal leaders deemed it a threat to their interests. "We have already done this [battled a group like ISIL] before. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was much stronger than ISIL, and we defeated them in 2008."

But in Khazir camp, those who have seen ISIL up close suggested the extremists are gaining strength and that the temporary entente is backfiring on the secular sheiks and the Baathists.

"How can they fight ISIL if they control most of Mosul?" asked Mr. Mahmoud, the electrician who says his Shia neighbours were massacred. "Many young people are now joining ISIL. These people are from his tribe."

Quote from: Phillip V on June 30, 2014, 10:50:42 PM
Obama Orders 300 More Troops to Iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sending-200-us-troops-iraq-24372122 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sending-200-us-troops-iraq-24372122)

QuoteIraqi Council of Representatives fails to elect speaker

The Council of Representatives was due to elect a speaker, but Kurdish and Sunni Arab MPs did not return after a break, depriving it of a quorum.

Acting Speaker Mahdi al-Hafez said parliament would reconvene in a week.

Iraq's politicians have been urged to unite in the face of the jihadist-led Sunni rebellion in the north and west.

The central government in Baghdad has lost control of vast swathes of territory over the past month, and on Sunday the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) declared the establishment of a "caliphate" covering the land it holds in Iraq and Syria.

Isis fighters parading through the Syrian city of Raqqa on Monday showed off military hardware which appeared to include a Scud missile.

The United Nations has said at least 2,417 Iraqis, including 1,531 civilians, were killed in "acts of violence and terrorism" in June.

The figure does not include fatalities in the western province of Anbar, where the Iraqi authorities say 244 civilians died.

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen considers whether the Iraqi government can prevent the break up of the country

Noisy accusations

The first session of parliament since April's elections ended after less than two hours.

Kurdish MPs, who faced noisy accusations of disloyalty from some supporters of Shia Arab Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, walked out. Other MPs followed and soon there were not enough to continue.

QuoteAnalysis: Paul Adams, BBC News, Baghdad

It had been hoped that the gravity of the crisis facing Iraq might be enough for the country's recently elected MPs to set aside their differences.

But since the elections in April, events on the ground have moved with terrifying speed.

Sunni militants have captured swathes of territory and declared an Islamic state. The Kurds have extended the boundaries of their own autonomous region. And once again, Iraqis are dying in huge numbers - about 2,500 in June alone, the worst monthly death toll since 2007.

The country is fracturing and its MPs do not seem to know how to stop it.

Kurdish MP Najiba Najib called on Mr Maliki to "end the blockade" and to stop withholding federal budget payments to the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government.

Kadhim al-Sayadi, a member of the prime minister's State of Law bloc, responded by threatening to "crush the heads" of Iraq's Kurds.

Mr Hafez, who as the oldest MP presided over the session, said the Council of Representatives would reconvene next Tuesday "if there is the possibility of an agreement".

As the leader of the bloc that won the most votes in April, Mr Maliki has demanded the right to attempt to form a governing coalition.

Quote
Iraq's constitutional timetable

    According to Iraq's constitution, the Council of Representatives is required to elect a new speaker during its opening session
    It must choose a president within 30 days of electing a speaker
    Within 15 days of the president's election, the largest bloc must nominate a new prime minister
    Under a de facto power sharing agreement, the speaker is a Sunni Arab, the prime minister a Shia Arab, and the president a Kurd
    After the 2010 elections, it took nine months to form a new government

But he has faced calls from his Sunni, Kurdish and Shia opponents to step down because of his handling of the current security crisis, as well as what they say are the sectarian and authoritarian policies he has pursued during his previous two terms in office.

Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had called on all parties to agree on the appointments before parliament convened.

Leader of the Kurdish region of Iraq Massoud Barzani: "The goal of Kurdistan is independence"

Earlier, the president of the Kurdistan Region, Massoud Barzani, told the BBC he intended to hold a referendum on independence within months.

Mr Barzani said the time was right for a vote had Iraq had already been "effectively partitioned", with Kurdish peshmerga fighters moving into disputed areas abandoned by Iraqi security forces in the face of the Isis advance, including the oil-rich Kirkuk region.

While the Kurds would play a part in any political solution to this "tragic situation", independence was their "right", he added.

Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2014, 07:06:32 AM
My guess at current US 'thinking', let this thing grow and grow, sucking in ever more Jihadists from across the region and Europe, Then bomb the hell out of it and them ?

Plausible ? :unsure:

Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2014, 07:06:32 AM
My guess at current US 'thinking', let this thing grow and grow, sucking in ever more Jihadists from across the region and Europe, Then bomb the hell out of it and them ?

Plausible ? :unsure:

Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2014, 12:59:32 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 30, 2014, 10:50:42 PM
Obama Orders 300 More Troops to Iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sending-200-us-troops-iraq-24372122 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sending-200-us-troops-iraq-24372122)

Idiot.

QuoteISIS, the radical terrorist group that has seized massive portions of Iraq and also Syria, is apparently looking to expand its territory as far as the East coast of North Africa and all the way into South East Asia, with Malaysia and Indonesia in its sights (or perhaps dreams would be a more appropriate term). This is all according to a map that has been circulating Twitter. See Below:

QuoteAt the moment, the veracity of this map has not been confirmed. Still, it does appear to fit with statements made by ISIS members elsewhere. The map shows an Islamic empire stretching the Muslim world that spans across Africa, the Middle East, and South and South East Asia. Even a few countries were Muslims are not a majority, such as India, appear to be the target of ISIS ambitions.

#ISIS releases it's 5 year territorial expansion plan. I'm surprised they don't want to reclaim southern Spain #Iraq pic.twitter.com/EBEl0NDXIN

— Ayman Mohyeldin (@AymanM) June 22, 2014

Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2014, 10:09:52 AM
Don't they know EU gets boring after you blob that much?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 09, 2014, 10:02:59 PM
Also, they've seized 40kg of Uranium! :bleeding:

http://www.ibtimes.com/terrorist-groups-iraq-have-seized-nuclear-materials-iraqs-un-ambassador-said-1623930

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 09, 2014, 10:02:59 PM
Also, they've seized 40kg of Uranium! :bleeding:

http://www.ibtimes.com/terrorist-groups-iraq-have-seized-nuclear-materials-iraqs-un-ambassador-said-1623930

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2014, 09:41:02 AM
A dirty bomb is more likely to kill people in the actual explosion than through radiation poisoning, and the blast damage would most likely be higher than long term radiation contamination.

Much more efficient to put these things into food or water supplies.

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2014, 10:05:42 AM
Their plant here will assure them that everything discussed here is harmless. Right, Siege?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2014, 09:32:36 AM
I'm more worried about a dirty bomb.

Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2014, 12:03:47 PM
Looks like they have big plans for Austria too.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2014, 09:32:36 AM
I'm more worried about a dirty bomb.

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2014, 01:34:19 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2014, 09:32:36 AM
I'm more worried about a dirty bomb.

I'm more worried about a dirty Sanchez.

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 09:59:27 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2014, 09:41:02 AM
A dirty bomb is more likely to kill people in the actual explosion than through radiation poisoning, and the blast damage would most likely be higher than long term radiation contamination.

Much more efficient to put these things into food or water supplies.

Hi, NSA.  :)

Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2014, 01:47:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 09:59:27 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2014, 09:41:02 AM
A dirty bomb is more likely to kill people in the actual explosion than through radiation poisoning, and the blast damage would most likely be higher than long term radiation contamination.

Much more efficient to put these things into food or water supplies.

Hi, NSA.  :)

He's German and therefore already being tracked :ph34r:

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:06:08 AM
I just mention of this on p'dox from a few weeks ago.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/06/isis-5-year-territorial-expansion-plan-map/

QuoteISIS, the radical terrorist group that has seized massive portions of Iraq and also Syria, is apparently looking to expand its territory as far as the East coast of North Africa and all the way into South East Asia, with Malaysia and Indonesia in its sights (or perhaps dreams would be a more appropriate term). This is all according to a map that has been circulating Twitter. See Below:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn1.valuewalk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FISIS-territorial-plan.jpg&hash=94f3498e4d2c9748fc37ca9604e0d5e070d53243)

QuoteAt the moment, the veracity of this map has not been confirmed. Still, it does appear to fit with statements made by ISIS members elsewhere. The map shows an Islamic empire stretching the Muslim world that spans across Africa, the Middle East, and South and South East Asia. Even a few countries were Muslims are not a majority, such as India, appear to be the target of ISIS ambitions.

#ISIS releases it's 5 year territorial expansion plan. I'm surprised they don't want to reclaim southern Spain #Iraq pic.twitter.com/EBEl0NDXIN

— Ayman Mohyeldin (@AymanM) June 22, 2014

What a fun troll.

QuoteIslamic State routs Iraqi armored column in Anbar
By Bill RoggioJuly 13, 2014

Fighters from the newly established Islamic State ambushed and destroyed an Iraqi armored column in the western province of Anbar. Islamic State fighters also captured several American-made armored personnel carriers. The ambush highlights the deteriorating state of the Iraqi security forces.

The Islamic State's Anbar Wilayat (division or province) released a series of photographs on its Twitter account on July 10 that document the ambush of an Iraqi armored column and the aftermath of the attack [photographs below].

According to the statements from the Anbar Wilayat, the Iraqi Army convoy was attacked in the Khalidiyah area in Anbar province. Although the exact date of the ambush was not provided, the Anbar Wilayat typically publishes photographs of attacks within days of carrying them out.

Several photos show Islamic State fighters opening fire on the convoy as it drives on a dirt road in a rural area of Khalidiyah. The Islamic State fighters appear to detonate one or more IEDs, or roadside bombs, on the armored column that includes US made and donated M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers. At least three M1A1s and nine M113s can be identified in the photographs.

At least one tank and two M113s are shown while on fire. One of the Abrams tanks appears to be half buried in a ditch.

The Iraqi soldiers appear to have abandoned the convoy after it was ambushed. The Islamic State only displayed one body of an Iraqi soldier, who appears to have been burned.

Islamic State fighters are photographed on top of the vehicles after the battle. At least two of the M113 armored personnel carriers appear to be operational. An Islamic State fighter is shown driving one of them across a field and toward some homes in the area.

Islamic State consolidating its grip on Anbar

Khalidiyah is located outside of the city of Habbaniyah and near the Al Taqaddum military base. Khalidiyah, which was a bastion for al Qaeda in Iraq up until early 2007, is also halfway between the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar, is currently contested as the Islamic State is reported to control some neighborhoods in the city. Fallujah, the nearby dam, and Karma and Abu Ghraib are currently under the control of the Islamic State and its tribal allies.

The Islamic State controls most of Anbar province. West of Haditha, the Islamic State runs the towns of Anah, Rawa, and the border town of Al Qaim. The jihadist group also controls the far-flung towns of Rutbah and Nukhaib. The status of the Tarbil border crossing to Jordan and the Al Walid crossing to Syria is undetermined. Although there are reports that local tribes assumed control of the crossings, the Islamic State has displayed photographs of its fighters at the crossings.

The Iraqi military previously had two divisions, the 1st and the 7th, deployed in Anbar, but most of these forces have withered since the Islamic State took control of Fallujah in January and extended its control throughout the province. Many Iraqi soldiers are thought to have deserted; the exact number is not known, however. One estimate puts the number of overall desertions for the Iraqi Army at over 90,000. The Iraqi military has not released information on the number of soldiers killed and wounded since the Islamic State launched its offensive in mid-June.

The leadership of the 7th Division crumbled in later December 2013 after an Islamic State suicide team killed the division commander and 17 members of his staff in an ambush in Rutbah.

The situation in Ramadi has become so dire that the Iraqi government is deploying 4,000 members of the newly raised militias, who are primarily Shias, to an area that is overwhelmingly Sunni. The militia members are being "ferried out to Ramadi from Baghdad by helicopter," ABC News reported, demonstrating how thoroughly the Islamic State controls the road from Baghdad to Ramadi.

Since launching the second phase of its operation to control territory in Iraq on June 10, the Islamic State took control of Ninewa province, to include Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, most of Salahaddin province, and areas in Diyala province. Additionally, the Islamic State has been waging an offensive in northern Babil province in the area known as the Triangle of Death, and is said to be in control of several areas, including Jufr al Sakhar. The Islamic State is seeking to take over the belt area around Baghdad, and squeeze the capital and make it ungovernable. [See LWJ report, Analysis: ISIS, allies reviving 'Baghdad belts' battle plan.]

The Iraqi government has largely halted the Islamic State's southward advance outside of Samarra, which is just north of Baghdad. Thousands of Iranian-supported Shia militiamen from Asaib al Haq, Hezbollah Brigades, and Muqtada al Sadr's Peace Brigade are currently deployed between the road from Baghdad to Samarra. Iraqi military and national police units are nowhere to be found on the road, according to The New York Times.

While the Shia militias have helped the Iraqi government slow the Islamic State's advance toward Baghdad, they has been ineffective so far in helping to retake ground lost to the group. The Iraqi military's attempt to retake the city of Tikrit, the provincial capital of Salahaddin which is just north of Samarra, has so far stalled since it was launched at the end of June.

The Islamic State's territory spans both Iraq and Syria. In Syria, the Islamic State controls Raqqah, much of Deir al Zour, and areas in Aleppo and Hasakah provinces.

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
We gave Iraqis Abrams tanks? :bleeding:

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
We gave Iraqis Abrams tanks? :bleeding:

Quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/world/middleeast/us-sees-risks-in-assisting-a-compromised-iraqi-force.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — A classified military assessment of Iraq's security forces concludes that many units are so deeply infiltrated by either Sunni extremist informants or Shiite personnel backed by Iran that any Americans assigned to advise Baghdad's forces could face risks to their safety, according to United States officials.

The report concludes that only about half of Iraq's operational units are capable enough for American commandos to advise them if the White House decides to help roll back the advances made by Sunni militants in northern and western Iraq over the past month.

Adding to the administration's dilemma is the assessment's conclusion that Iraqi forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki are now heavily dependent on Shiite militias — many of which were trained in Iran — as well as on advisers from Iran's paramilitary Quds Force.

Shiite militias fought American troops after the United States invaded Iraq and might again present a danger to American advisers. But without an American-led effort to rebuild Iraq's security forces, there may be no hope of reducing the Iraqi government's dependence on those Iranian-backed militias, officials caution.

The findings underscore the challenges ahead for the Obama administration as it seeks to confront militants with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which has seized major cities in Iraq, all but erased the Syrian-Iraqi border and, on Sunday, staged a raid less than an hour's drive from Baghdad.

Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2014, 08:23:38 AM
Three state solution. Have fun.

Quote from: PJL on July 14, 2014, 08:28:38 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 14, 2014, 08:23:38 AM
Three state solution. Have fun.

Agreed. It will be messy in the short run, but it will stabilise things in the longer run.

Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 08:15:22 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
We gave Iraqis Abrams tanks? :bleeding:

With scrap prices the way they are, you'd have to pay someone to take them.  At least, by giving them to a non-profit, we got a nice tax writeoff.

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
We gave Iraqis Abrams tanks? :bleeding:

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:48:35 AM
Are the old Abrams tanks so devoid of any secrets that we don't mind giving a few samples to Iranians?  Or have they already been analyzed in detail by all our potential enemies?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2014, 10:07:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 08:07:09 AM
We gave Iraqis Abrams tanks? :bleeding:

I imagine they are the export models the Egyptians have.

QuoteIraqi Christians flee after Isis issue Mosul ultimatum

Iraqi Christians are fleeing Mosul after Islamist militants threatened to kill them unless they converted to Islam or paid a "protection tax".

A statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) was read out at the city's mosques.

It called on Christians to comply by midday on Saturday or face death if they did not leave the northern city.

Isis has control of large parts of Syria and Iraq and said last month it was creating an Islamic caliphate.

The ultimatum cited a historic contract known as "dhimma," under which non-Muslims in Islamic societies who refuse to convert are offered protection if they pay a fee, called a "jizya".

"We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract - involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword," the Isis statement said.

"Christian families are on their way to Dohuk and Irbil," in the neighbouring autonomous region of Kurdistan, Patriarch Louis Sako told the AFP news agency.

"For the first time in the history of Iraq, Mosul is now empty of Christians," he said.

The patriarch, one of the most senior Christian clerics in Iraq, said militants had been seen tagging Christian houses with the letter N for "Nassarah", a term used for Christians in the Koran.

Community destroyed

Iraq is home to one of the world's most ancient Christian communities but its population has dwindled amid growing sectarian violence since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Prior to 2003, the number of Christians in the city had been as high as 60,000, but that had dropped to about 35,000 by June this year, Mr Sako said.

He said another 10,000 fled Mosul after Isis took control at the beginning of June and numbers dropped have fallen rapidly since.

Isis issued a similar ultimatum in the Syrian city of Raqqa in February, calling on Christians to pay about half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety.

QuoteIsis orders all women and girls in Mosul to undergo FGM

UN says 'fatwa' issued by militant group in and around Iraqi city could affect 4 million

The militant group Islamic State (Isis) has ordered all girls and women in and around Iraq's northern city of Mosul to undergo female genital mutilation, the United Nations says.

The "fatwa" issued by the Sunni Muslim fighters would potentially affect 4 million women and girls, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Jacqueline Badcock, told reporters in Geneva by videolink from Irbil.

"This is something very new for Iraq, particularly in this area, and is of grave concern and does need to be addressed," she said.

"This is not the will of Iraqi people, or the women of Iraq in these vulnerable areas covered by the terrorists," she added.

No one was immediately available for comment from Isis, which has led an offensive through northern and western Iraq.

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I eagerly await all those totally not anti-semites and totally pro-humanists to march all around Europe to protest ISIS on this.

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:00:09 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I eagerly await all those totally not anti-semites and totally pro-humanists to march all around Europe to protest ISIS on this.

I don't think anti-Israeli sentiment is about anti-Semitism.  I think it's about two things:  the inability of people who lived in peace their whole life to comprehend that war is a nasty business, and the bigotry of low expectations.  Israel is a western state, so it's expected to act in a civilized manner, whereas you can't really expect anything other than brutal violence from the Arabs.

Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2014, 10:14:40 AM
Meh.

ISIS has been doing horrible things from the start - what is one more horrible thing?

Either the people who aligned with them turn on them, or more horrible things will keep happening.

It is just a matter of time - they don't seem capable of not believing their own mythology.

Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2014, 10:02:26 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:00:09 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I eagerly await all those totally not anti-semites and totally pro-humanists to march all around Europe to protest ISIS on this.

I don't think anti-Israeli sentiment is about anti-Semitism.  I think it's about two things:  the inability of people who lived in peace their whole life to comprehend that war is a nasty business, and the bigotry of low expectations.  Israel is a western state, so it's expected to act in a civilized manner, whereas you can't really expect anything other than brutal violence from the Arabs.

You would have a point if it wasn't totally about anti-Semitism. I have yet to encounter somebody who was anti-Israel in these matters and didn't have funny ideas about the role of Jews in the world.

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:52:31 AM
I have.

Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2014, 10:34:50 AM
The world could totally use some Jewish airstrikes against ISIS, to raise this issue into prime news time.

Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 11:19:13 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2014, 10:34:50 AM
The world could totally use some Jewish airstrikes against ISIS, to raise this issue into prime news time.

Suddenly ISIS would become sympathetic victims if that happened.

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:00:09 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I eagerly await all those totally not anti-semites and totally pro-humanists to march all around Europe to protest ISIS on this.

I don't think anti-Israeli sentiment is about anti-Semitism.  I think it's about two things:  the inability of people who lived in peace their whole life to comprehend that war is a nasty business, and the bigotry of low expectations.  Israel is a western state, so it's expected to act in a civilized manner, whereas you can't really expect anything other than brutal violence from the Arabs.

Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2014, 11:29:07 AM
It is about your identity. Israel is a place holder or a vicarious target for something else in your life that annoys or bothers you.

Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 11:33:48 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2014, 11:29:07 AM
It is about your identity. Israel is a place holder or a vicarious target for something else in your life that annoys or bothers you.

"In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!"

Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2014, 11:38:15 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 11:33:48 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2014, 11:29:07 AM
It is about your identity. Israel is a place holder or a vicarious target for something else in your life that annoys or bothers you.

"In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!"

http://mypersonaljihad.tumblr.com/

QuoteMy sister told me that when she was little and saw white people in make up commercials and never black people, she thought it was just because white people were ugly and black people were beautiful and didn't need make up

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 11:04:31 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:52:31 AM
I have.

Europeans?  I know some Americans have crazy anti-Israeli thoughts like 'maybe continuing to give these dudes a half billion a year is not entirely in our interests' sometimes.

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 11:42:56 AM

QuoteMy sister told me that when she was little and saw white people in make up commercials and never black people, she thought it was just because white people were ugly and black people were beautiful and didn’t need make up

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 12:14:02 PM
It was always harder to pick up black women :(

QuoteIslamic militants seize part of Syrian army base
Published on NewsOK Modified: July 24, 2014 at 8:38 am •  Published: July 24, 2014

BEIRUT (AP) — Fighters from the extremist Islamic State group on Thursday overran part of an army base in northern Syria, which has been under the militants' siege for months, in ferocious battles that killed or wounded dozens on both sides, activists said.

The battle over the base is the latest in the Islamic State's push to capture as much of Syrian territory as it can. Since June, the group has seized a huge chunk of territory straddling the Iraq-Syria border, where they have declared a self-styled caliphate.

The base lies in Raqqa province, where much of the territory fell to the Syrian opposition last year. Earlier this year, the Islamic State, which sided with the rebels at the start of the Syrian conflict three years ago, captured much of Raqqa and has tried to capture the base several times.

The assault on the base began around midnight on Wednesday with two suicide car bombs, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Syrian army helicopters fought back, targeting jihadi positions around the base, the activist group said.

The Observatory said 35 Islamic State fighters died and that dozens of government troops were killed or wounded, including six soldiers who were beheaded. It said both sides exchanged mortar and artillery fire.

The Syrian air force carried out 12 raids around Division 17 and the nearby provincial capital of Raqqa, which is also controlled by the Islamic State, said the Local Coordination Committees, another activist group. It said army helicopters were dropping barrel bombs around the base.

Elsewhere on Thursday, Islamic State fighters stormed the headquarters of Syrian President Bashar Assad's ruling Baath party in the northeastern city of Hassakeh in the predominantly Kurdish province that carries the same name, activists said. Black banners of the Islamic State were seen raised over the Baath party building, the Observatory said.

Juan Mohammed, a Kurdish official in Hassakeh, said there were two explosions near the building but he added that he had no immediate information about whether the Islamic State had stormed the Baath headquarters.

In their push, the Islamic State fighters have also captured much of Syria's oil-rich eastern province of Deir el-Zour, which borders Iraq. Last week, the jihadis captured a gas field in the central province of Homs, an attack that left more than 200 people dead.

Clashes between government forces and Islamic State fighters have been rare until after the group's blitz advance in northern and western Iraq in June. Since then, violence between the two intensified as jihadis try to remove all rival groups from areas under their control.

Assad's forces have fought back, but for now appear mostly intent on consolidating the territory firmly under their control in his powerbase, the capital of Damascus, and in his Allawite heartland to the west.

The Syrian conflict has killed at least 170,000 people, a third of them civilians, and displaced some 9 million, a third of the country's pre-war population, according to activists.

Also Thursday, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the watchdog agency overseeing Syria's disarmament, said ships had completed deliveries of 1,300 tons of chemicals removed from Syria to destruction facilities outside the country.

"Destruction activities are now underway in all locations," said Ahmet Uzumcu, the director-general of the OPCW Executive Council.

After 600 metric tons (661 tons) of chemicals were loaded for destruction onto the U.S. vessel MV Cape Ray in the Italian port of Gioia Tauro earlier this month, the remaining chemicals were delivered to commercial land-based facilities in Finland, the United Kingdom and United States where they are now in the process of being destroyed, Uzumcu said.

"As of 21 July, the amount of all Syrian chemicals destroyed stood at 31.8 percent of the total," the OPCW said.

The statement also said that seven facilities remaining in Syria will be razed to the ground and five underground structures will be sealed permanently to make them inaccessible. Those activities are to begin within 60 days, OPCW said.

Quote
Isis denies ordering that all girls in Mosul undergo FGM
Doubts grow over UN report, seemingly reliant on year-old document from Syria thought to have been doctored

    Ian Black and Fazel Hawramy   
    The Guardian, Thursday 24 July 2014 18.29 BST   



Jihadi extremists who have taken over the Iraqi city of Mosul have denied ordering families to have their daughters undergo female genital mutilation in order to prevent "immorality" or face severe punishment, as claimed by a senior UN humanitarian official on Thursday.

Supporters of the Islamic State (Isis), previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, dismissed the story as propaganda based on a fake document – though residents of Mosul, as well as Kurdish officials, insisted it was true.

The claim about enforced FGM came from the UN's deputy humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Jacqueline Badcock, who told reporters that up to 4 million women and girls aged 11-46 faced the risk of genital mutilation. "This is something very new for Iraq, particularly in this area, and is of grave concern and does need to be addressed," she said. "This is a fatwa from Isis. This is not the will of Iraqi people, or the women of Iraq in these vulnerable areas covered by the terrorists."

Reports about the issue have been circulating in Iraqi media for the past few days. On Wednesday a Kurdish website, BasNews, reported that the fatwa had been issued by the self-proclaimed "Caliph" of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as a "gift" to the people of Mosul. BasNews said on Thursday that it stood by its story. "Of course Isis would deny this," the editor, Hawar Abdulrazaq, told the Guardian.

Badcock's comments came in a briefing by videolink from her base in Irbil, capital of the Kurdish regional government, to reporters at the UN headquarters in Geneva.

But plans for a statement by the UK international development secretary, Justine Greening, were dropped as doubts grew about the accuracy of the claim.

Suspicions about its veracity were based partly on the fact that FGM is not required by Islam and is not prevalent in Iraq. It is most widespread in Egypt, Sudan and east Africa.

A document circulating on social media purporting to be the Isis fatwa was in fact dated July 2013, originated in Aleppo, Syria, and was widely described as having being photoshopped. It appeared on Thursday on the website of the Saudi-owned TV channel al-Arabiya.

Ahmed Obaydi, a spokesman for Mosul police, told BasNews: "Baghdadi's decision to have all women circumcised is, as he claims, to prevent immorality and promote Islamic attitudes among Muslims. The decision was made by Baghdadi as a 'gift' for people in Mosul." But Mohammed, a local journalist, told the Guardian he knew no one who had been told by Isis that their female relatives should undergo FGM. "This is mainly media hype with no substance," he said.

Isis supporters quickly dismissed the story as a hoax. "If Isis responds to every lie and rumour they will not be able to control all these areas you hear about," tweeted one. "Please ask UN to prove their claims before you hear from us." The same Twitter account, whose name is derived from an Arabic word meaning "monster", contains multiple images of the decapitated heads of Syrian soldiers taken in the Raqqa areas near the Iraqi border.

According to the Iraqi paper al-Mustaqbal, which also reported on the alleged fatwa earlier this week, the practice of FGM is alien to Iraqi society except the Kurdish provinces. Worldwide, more than 130 million girls and women have undergone FGM.

The FGM story broke against a background of wider concern about the situation in Mosul, whose Christian community has been forced to flee under threat of forced conversion or execution by jihadists who have turned churches into mosques and confiscated property.

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has lambasted Isis for its "criminality and terrorism". Last weekend Isis gave the city's Christians a stark choice: convert to Islam, pay a religious tax, or face death.

Quote
Isis militants blow up Jonah's tomb
Militants say revered Muslim shrine in Iraq, believed to be burial place of prophet swallowed by a whale, has become place for apostasy

    Associated Press in Baghdad
    The Guardian, Thursday 24 July 2014 18.45 BST   

Isis militants have blown up the Mosque of the Prophet Younis, or Jonah, in Mosul
The blown-up Mosque of the Prophet Younis, or Jonah, in Mosul. The mosque was built on an archaeological site dating back to the eighth century BC. Photograph: Uncredited/AP

Islamic State (Isis) militants have blown up a revered Muslim shrine traditionally said to be the burial place of the prophet Jonah in Mosul, residents of the city said.

Residents said on Thursday that the militants first ordered everyone out of the Mosque of the Prophet Younis, or Jonah, then blew it up.

The mosque was built on an archaeological site dating back to the eighth century BC and is said to be the burial place of the prophet, who in stories from both the Bible and Qur'an is swallowed by a whale.

It was renovated in the 1990s under Iraq's late dictator Saddam Hussein and until the recent blitz by Isis that engulfed Mosul, remained a popular destination for religious pilgrims from around the world.

Several nearby houses were also damaged by the blast, said the residents, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared for their own safety.

The residents told AP that the militants claimed the mosque had become a place for apostasy, not prayer. The extremists also blew up another place of worship nearby on Thursday, the Imam Aoun Bin al-Hassan mosque, they said.

The attack came hours after Iraqi lawmakers elected veteran Kurdish politician Fouad Massoum as the nation's new president, as they struggle to form a new government amid the Isis blitz that has engulfed much of northern and western Iraq.

Iraq is facing its worst crisis since the 2011 withdrawal of US troops amid the offensive by the al-Qaida breakaway group that captured large swaths of land in the country's west and north, including Iraq's second largest city of Mosul. The militants have also seized a huge chunk of territory straddling the Iraq-Syria border, and have declared a self-styled caliphate in the territory they control.

Quote from: Viking on July 24, 2014, 11:29:07 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 10:00:09 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I eagerly await all those totally not anti-semites and totally pro-humanists to march all around Europe to protest ISIS on this.

I don't think anti-Israeli sentiment is about anti-Semitism.  I think it's about two things:  the inability of people who lived in peace their whole life to comprehend that war is a nasty business, and the bigotry of low expectations.  Israel is a western state, so it's expected to act in a civilized manner, whereas you can't really expect anything other than brutal violence from the Arabs.

It is about your identity. Israel is a place holder or a vicarious target for something else in your life that annoys or bothers you. Where you stand of capitalism, free markets, redistribution and environmental issues is determinative of if you are anti-israel or pro-israel. I think it is obvious that it is not a split between pro-pals and pro-j00s, it is anti and pro israel. Note this is probably why the debate gets tricky for the pro-israel side since they find themselves having to justify or explain the real hard choices that need to be made while the anti-israel side merely attacks whatever hard choices Israel does make.

Alan Dershowitz's schtick about keeping Israel a bi-partisan issue is getting harder to maintain because it really isn't about israel, it's about the israel hater. This is why nobody gives a shit when arabs are massacred in greater numbers AT THE SAME TIME in Syria and Iraq today. On the 22nd alone (I think) more people died in syria from combat than have died in total in teh gaza war so far.

For arabs and muslims it is about their identity and dignity as arabs and muslims. Their impotence in stopping Israel shames them. For Socialists and lefties attacking israel is affirming their own communal belonging and their own expression of their values.

It's not about what the facts are it is about who you are.

QuoteHundreds die in Syria's 'deadliest week'

23 July 2014 Last updated at 18:31 BST

It has been described as one of the most deadly weeks in Syria since fighting began three years ago.

More than 1,700 people have been killed in seven days as fighting intensified after Presdent Assad was sworn in for a third term.

Fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have been accused of killing many government troops in a battle at a gas field.

QuoteIslamic State militants launched assaults on Syrian forces across three provinces on Thursday that killed key government figures, including two brigadier generals, said activists and residents, in a rare confrontation between the two sides during the war.

In one assault, the jihadists besieged two military bases outside Hasakah city in Syria's east, killing a commanding brigadier general, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group in London with a network of contacts across Syria.

The militants, wearing military uniforms, also stormed the headquarters of the ruling Baath Party, where they killed Hanna Atalla, a party leader in the city, according to the Observatory and residents in interviews. The Islamic State militants flew their black flag over the building, which had served as a government military operations center.

Also in Hasakah, the militants killed Abdul Samad al-Nazzal, a senior officer with the National Defense Forces, a pro-regime paramilitary group, these people said.
The Syrian government acknowledged that its Baath Party headquarters were attacked but didn't comment on any battles or deaths.

If the Islamic State militants can seize Hasakah city that will help them to consolidate their control over the major Syrian and Iraqi cities they have occupied on either side of the border. Hasakah sits in the middle of the Islamic State's two centers of power in both Syria and Iraq—Raqqa and Mosul.

Over the past two months, Islamic State jihadists have solidified their hold over a contiguous territory spanning over 400 miles and declared a caliphate, or Islamic empire, in June.

"If they take over the military bases in Malabiah and Kawkab [in Hasakah], they will gain tons of weapons," said a media activist who lives in Hasakah, in a Skype interview. "There are eight weapons warehouses with artillery, tanks and missile launchers."

The Islamic State seized large stockpiles of Iraqi military equipment including tanks and artillery when it overran Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, in June, ferrying away weapons, including some donated by the U.S. The war gains have enabled the Islamic State to fight on multiple fronts: against the Iraqi and Syrian governments and the multiple rebels groups in Syria that oppose them.

A recent surge in fighting between the government and Islamic State is a marked change. The two have rarely faced off on the battlefield, with President Bashar al-Assad's forces generally avoiding the same large-scale offensives it has launched against the Western and Arab-backed Free Syrian Army.

The Islamic State's victories on Thursday also extended to the north, where militants overran government positions in Raqqa province, where they killed another brigadier general.

The militants also beheaded six soldiers from the same division and posted photos of their heads lined up on a concrete floor to Twitter accounts associated with the Islamic State. Those same accounts posted a photo of a smiling Saudi they said launched the suicide blast that initiated the assault.

In retaliation, Syrian warplanes hit Islamic State positions on Raqqa and its environs, while government forces shelled the area, killing an unknown number of civilians, according to the observatory. Pro-government media confirmed the airstrikes.

In Syria's west, clashes continued for a second week in and around the al-Shaer gas field and production facility in Homs province, a major source of energy for the country. The Islamic State stormed al-Shaer last week, overrunning the facility and killing some 300 government forces and staging mass executions, according to statements made by supporters of the extremist group.

The government acknowledged the battle but didn't comment on any casualties.

The Syrian military sent in reinforcements to retake al-Shaer earlier this week and staged airstrikes, pro-government media said. The clashes killed 700 in just two days of fighting last week, according to the Observatory, marking the deadliest days of the civil war so far.