http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fallujah-falls-to-al-qaeda-group-in-iraq-1.2484473
QuoteFallujah falls to al-Qaeda group in Iraq
Former insurgent stronghold seized by hardliners after prolonged fight with government forces
The city centre of Iraq's Fallujah has fallen completely into the hands of fighters from the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and Levant, police said Saturday, yet another victory for the hardline group that has made waves across the region in recent days.
ISIL is also one of the strongest rebel units in Syria, where it has imposed a strict version of Islamic law in territories it holds and kidnapped and killed anyone it deems critical of its rule. Also on Saturday, it claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing in a Shia-dominated neighbourhood in Lebanon.
Hadi Razeij, head of the Anbar province police force, said police had left the city centre entirely and had positioned themselves on the edge of town.
"The walls of the city are in the hands of the police force, but the people of Fallujah are the prisoners of ISIL," he said, speaking on Arabic-language satellite broadcaster al-Arabiya.
Fallujah, along with the capital of Anbar province, Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the U.S.-led war. Al-Qaeda militants largely took both cities over last week and have been fending off incursions by government forces there since.
In a speech in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said government forces would press on to clear the province of militants.
"There will be no retreat until we eliminate this gang and rid the people of Anbar of their evil acts," he said. "The people of Anbar asked the government for help, they called us to come to rescue them from terrorists."
Dozens of families were fleeing Fallujah, sheltering in schools in nearby towns, provincial official Dari al-Rishawi told The Associated Press. It appeared there was a shortage of fuel inside the city and that and food prices had doubled because supplies could no longer enter.
Hundreds of ISIL fighters were in the city, he added, mostly armed with heavy mounted machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. On Saturday, Sunni tribesmen seeking to push out ISIL had yet to enter the city.
The U.S. State Department expressed its concern in a statement, saying it would continue to work with Iraqi authorities and tribes allied against ISIL "to defeat our common enemy."
"We are also in contact with tribal leaders from Anbar province who are showing great courage as they fight to eject these terrorist groups from their cities," Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf said.
Heartland of the insurgency
Government troops, backed by Sunni tribesmen who oppose al-Qaeda, have encircled Fallujah for several days, and have entered parts of Ramadi. On Friday, troops bombarded militant positions outside Fallujah with artillery, a military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to release information.
Anbar province, a vast desert area on the borders with Syria and Jordan with an almost entirely Sunni population, was the heartland of the Sunni insurgency that rose up against American troops and the Iraqi government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The insurgency was fueled by anger over the dislodgment of their community from power during Saddam's rule and the rise of Shia. It was then that al-Qaeda established its branch in the country.
Fallujah became notorious among Americans when insurgents in 2004 killed four American security contractors and hung their burned bodies from a bridge. It, Ramadi and other cities remained battlegrounds for the following years, as sectarian bloodshed mounted, with Shia militias killing Sunnis.
In the end however local tribes managed to defeat the insurgents and the area had been calm for several years.
I posted this in the Iraq thread! :mad:
Dude, that's a prison break thread.
But Obama said that al Qaeda was "decimated," "on the path to defeat" or some other variation dozens of times during the 2012 election. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2014, 01:22:09 AM
But Obama said that al Qaeda was "decimated," "on the path to defeat" or some other variation dozens of times during the 2012 election. :(
Decimated? That means 90% of them are still left?
Not in current usage, grandpa.
Mission accomplished.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2014, 08:50:26 AM
Not in current usage, grandpa.
Crassus will not approve.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 05, 2014, 01:22:09 AM
But Obama said that al Qaeda was "decimated," "on the path to defeat" or some other variation dozens of times during the 2012 election. :(
He also said you could keep your insurance.
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
Looks like we'll be going back.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 05, 2014, 12:51:11 PM
Looks like we'll be going back.
The US just can't quit her*.
*Whore of Babylon
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
If one unwinnable war is good, then two must be spectacular.
*backs away slowly*
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
Well yes. Languish would be dead if it weren't for that war. And given its ailing state, would be good to have another. Raise morale and what not.
On Saturday, according to police officials in Anbar, militants took control of Karma, a town between Falluja and Ramadi, after several hours of clashes.
Police officials and witnesses in Anbar reported that militants had in several cases ambushed convoys of troops and seized heavy weapons. On Friday night, gunmen ambushed an army patrol just north of Falluja, killing four soldiers and making off with eight Humvees, according to a police official.
A heavy firefight also erupted on the main highway linking Baghdad and Anbar, with fighters taking three tanks and other military vehicles, according to police officials.
The fighters, though, apparently did not know how to use the tanks, and put out a call over a mosque's loudspeaker: "If anyone knows how to drive a tank, please come to the mosque."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/world/middleeast/shelling-in-iraqi-city-held-by-qaeda-linked-militants-kills-at-least-8.html
What a bitch.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2014, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
Well yes. Languish would be dead if it weren't for that war. And given its ailing state, would be good to have another. Raise morale and what not.
All things die. Languish, too, shall pass.
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2014, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
Well yes. Languish would be dead if it weren't for that war. And given its ailing state, would be good to have another. Raise morale and what not.
All things die. Languish, too, shall pass.
Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But the good name never dies
Of one who has done well
Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But I know one thing that never dies,
The glory of the great dead
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2014, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
Well yes. Languish would be dead if it weren't for that war. And given its ailing state, would be good to have another. Raise morale and what not.
All things die. Languish, too, shall pass.
We don't need to hurry the old girl along.
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
When Bill Clinton left office, Saddam Hussein was in charge of Fallujah. When W left office, it was an American puppet regime. Obama is in office, and now it is Al Qaeda.
Obama won't leave office.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2014, 05:14:44 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 05, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Aren't we glad we went to Iraq? Things are a lot better since we cleaned house over there!
When Bill Clinton left office, Saddam Hussein was in charge of Fallujah. When W left office, it was an American puppet regime. Obama is in office, and now it is Al Qaeda.
Well I hope it's aliens next; at least we have X-COM for that.
I had no idea that Iraqi government had a such a tenuous grasp on the country. :huh: Then again, I had no idea about anything going on there, it's like the place ceased to exist in the media once we pulled out. I just kind of assumed it was limping along as one of the many pseudo-democracies in the region.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2014, 06:09:41 PM
I had no idea that Iraqi government had a such a tenuous grasp on the country. :huh: Then again, I had no idea about anything going on there, it's like the place ceased to exist in the media once we pulled out. I just kind of assumed it was limping along as one of the many pseudo-democracies in the region.
Actually the violence and mass murder continued apace, just when the US pulled out it was no longer possible to blame everything on them and it became arabs murdering arabs nobody cared.
Car bombs are one thing, armed occupation is quite another.
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2014, 05:21:18 PM
Obama won't leave office.
He will after he gets impeached by the Tea Party's controlled Senate and House.
Quote from: Siege on January 05, 2014, 07:46:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 05, 2014, 05:21:18 PM
Obama won't leave office.
He will after he gets impeached by the Tea Party's controlled Senate and House.
Oh, please, oh please, oh please! Do try that.
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
So are you saying that they needed more....diplomacy? :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
I don't know, I was too busy nursing my war boner to listen to such stuff.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
It was. The "Iraq is now a mess and Iran gains from it", ship sailed long, long ago. You know what Iraq needs? Saddam Hussein.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
It was. The "Iraq is now a mess and Iran gains from it", ship sailed long, long ago. You know what Iraq needs? Saddam Hussein.
:lol:
It's true, which sucks. :(
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2014, 08:34:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
I don't know, I was too busy nursing my war boner to listen to such stuff.
Stop stealing my stchick.
I thought your boner was of the murder variety, or did you get your hands on other boners as well?
War is murder.
Therefore: boners = boners.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
It was certainly a possibility obviously. But it was in reasonably stable condition, not so much under Iranian influence, and the worst of the radical elements had been chased out or put down. So I think it's quite valid to say that the US could have done much better as the Iraqi occupation wound down. It's more like making excuses for failure to wash our hands of something we put so much effort, blood and money into to let it go down the tubes.
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 09:57:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 08:25:22 PM
After all the effort the US and allies put into Iraq and it's coming to this mess. The US did not handle leaving well at all, too much politics to make sure to leave at nearly any cost. I don't want the US to go back in, but after all the lives, injuries and money put in there had to be a much better plan for leaving Iraq and in better condition. Push and bargain harder for a Status of Forces Agreement, as is done everywhere the US has troops. Iraq certainly needed the US, and had to know it!
Sec State Kerry now says it's Iraq's issue, that the US and the world told them that it was all up to them or some such blather, but come on, that smacks of trying to deflect from the mistake of how the US/allies left and it makes US leaders look foolish and impotent. To top it all off Iran has gained huge influence there.
Wasn't that the prediction right when the US went in?
It was certainly a possibility obviously. But it was in reasonably stable condition, not so much under Iranian influence, and the worst of the radical elements had been chased out or put down. So I think it's quite valid to say that the US could have done much better as the Iraqi occupation wound down. It's more like making excuses for failure to wash our hands of something we put so much effort, blood and money into to let it go down the tubes.
Yes, we should definitely flush more effort, blood, and money down the toilet, so that it wouldn't seem that the effort, blood, and money we already spent was flushed down the toilet.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
War is murder.
I disagree. Murder is killing your fellow citizens.
Politicians have extended the term to cover enemy non-combatants, even though the enemy have not extended such to our civilians.
But we are American Soldiers and we fight how and where we are told, and win where we fight.
I didn't say we should flush more blood and money down the toilet! Leaving Iraq could have been done much better, to try for success rather than wring our hands while things fail. Just as some ideas, a US presence to train Iraqi troops and retain some influence in the country as an ally, would have gone a long way to help in the aftermath. And I'm sure the US leadership could have come up with good ideas. Rather than flush down toilet all we did in the first place. The US has many troops in many countries, still in the Balkans even.
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 10:10:40 PM
I didn't say we should flush more blood and money down the toilet! Leaving Iraq could have been done much better, to try for success rather than wring our hands while things fail. Just as some ideas, a US presence to train Iraqi troops and retain some influence in the country as an ally, would have gone a long way to help in the aftermath. And I'm sure the US leadership could have come up with good ideas. Rather than flush down toilet all we did in the first place. The US has many troops in many countries, still in the Balkans even.
Keeping more troops in the country will result in more troops dying there.
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 10:10:40 PM
I didn't say we should flush more blood and money down the toilet! Leaving Iraq could have been done much better, to try for success rather than wring our hands while things fail. Just as some ideas, a US presence to train Iraqi troops and retain some influence in the country as an ally, would have gone a long way to help in the aftermath. And I'm sure the US leadership could have come up with good ideas. Rather than flush down toilet all we did in the first place. The US has many troops in many countries, still in the Balkans even.
Can't argue with you there. We should've come up with good ideas, we should've done much better. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
Can't argue with you there. We should've come up with good ideas, we should've done much better. :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkI691dxNg
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2014, 09:43:56 PM
War is murder.
War is to murder what organized sports is informal games.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 06, 2014, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
Can't argue with you there. We should've come up with good ideas, we should've done much better. :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkI691dxNg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkI691dxNg)
It's not even that. Hindsight ranks much higher then "we should have come up good ideas".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 06, 2014, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
Can't argue with you there. We should've come up with good ideas, we should've done much better. :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkI691dxNg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkI691dxNg)
It's not even that. Hindsight ranks much higher then "we should have come up good ideas".
How about, "don't disband the entire army."
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/11/why-iraq-is-in-turmoil/?hpt=wo_r1
Quote
08:00 AM ET
Why Iraq is in turmoil
Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN
By Fareed Zakaria
Here's a startling statistic: more than 8,000 Iraqis were killed in violent attacks in 2013. That makes it the second most violent country in the world, after its neighbor Syria.
As violence has spread and militants have gained ground in several Middle Eastern countries, people have been wondering how much this has to do with the Obama administration and its lack of an active intervention in the region. The Wall Street Journal and a Commentary magazine opinion piece have both argued this past week that the Obama administration's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq is directly responsible for the renewed violence in that country. They and others have also argued that because it has stayed out of Syria, things there have spiraled downward.
Let me suggest that the single greatest burden for the violence and tensions across the Arab world lies with a president – though not President Obama – and it lies with an American foreign policy that was not too passive but rather too active and interventionist in the Middle East. The invasion and occupation of Iraq triggered what has become a regional religious war in the Middle East. Let me explain how, specifically.
From March through June of 2003, in the first months of the occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration made a series of catastrophic decisions. It authorized the disbanding of the Iraqi army and signed onto a policy of deBaathification, which meant that anyone in Iraq who had been a member of the top four levels of the Baath Party – the ruling party under Saddam Hussein – would be barred from holding any government job.
This meant that tens of thousands of bureaucrats and hundreds of thousands of soldiers – almost all Sunnis – were thrown out of work, angry, disposed, and armed. This in turn meant the collapse of the Iraqi state and of political order. But it also sparked the rise of a sectarian struggle that persists to this day.
More from CNN: Can Iraq ever escape cycle of violence?
The Bush administration went to war in Iraq to spread democracy. But in fact it spread sectarianism – displacing the Sunni elite who had long ruled the country and replacing it with hardline Shia religious parties that used their new found power to repress the Sunnis – just as they had been repressed.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been utterly unwilling to share power with the Sunnis – who comprise about 20 percent of Iraq – and that has driven them into opposition, extremism, and terrorism. During the surge the prime minister made several promises to change his ways and over the last few years has reneged on every one of them.
This sectarian power-struggle is the origins of the civil war that has been ongoing in Iraq for 11 years. It is the cancer that has spread beyond Iraq into other countries, from Syria to Lebanon.
The Bush administration seemed to have made the massive strategic error almost unthinkingly. There is for example a report that a few months before the invasion, President Bush met with three Iraqi exiles and appeared unaware that Iraq contained within it Sunnis and Shias. An Arab leader confirmed to me that in his meetings with the president, it was clear that Bush did not understand that there was a difference between the two sects. Others in the administration, better informed, were convinced that the Shia would be pluralists and democrats. Those of us who warned of these dangers at the time were dismissed as pessimists.
So if we're trying to understand why we see a Sunni-Shia battle unfolding across the Middle East, keep in mind that the primary cause is not that the Obama administration didn't intervene in Syria. It's because the Bush administration did in Iraq.
That article doesn't support the troops.
QuoteSo if we're trying to understand why we see a Sunni-Shia battle unfolding across the Middle East,
I dont see a problem here. Let them continue.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 12, 2014, 09:38:42 PM
That article doesn't support the troops.
You're alive! :w00t: :hug:
Seems a bit of a stretch to say that the current violence in Syria is caused by the Iraq invastion.
Quote from: KRonn on January 06, 2014, 10:10:40 PM
I didn't say we should flush more blood and money down the toilet! Leaving Iraq could have been done much better, to try for success rather than wring our hands while things fail. Just as some ideas, a US presence to train Iraqi troops and retain some influence in the country as an ally, would have gone a long way to help in the aftermath. And I'm sure the US leadership could have come up with good ideas. Rather than flush down toilet all we did in the first place. The US has many troops in many countries, still in the Balkans even.
But the Iraqis didn't want you there. That's the key difference between Iraq and anywhere the US has troops. It took a lot of negotiations by the Bush administration to get an 18 month SOFA.
I said in 2008 there would be no difference between an Obama or a McCain administration on Iraq because they'd both have to live with the SOFA negotiated by Bush. There was no chance anyone would be able to convince Maliki to extend US involvement or be willing to accept the conditions he'd probably attach to it.
The failure of the occupation was in the first few years. After that I think it was doomed regardless. I mean by the time you left Iraq was experiencing as much violence as Pakistan (it's since crept up a little bit) and the government was the exact same Iranian influenced one that you're moaning about now. But short of re-occupying and deposing the government, what could the US do?
Quote from: fhdz on January 06, 2014, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
It was. The "Iraq is now a mess and Iran gains from it", ship sailed long, long ago. You know what Iraq needs? Saddam Hussein.
:lol:
It's true, which sucks. :(
We could just give Iraq to Assad.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 13, 2014, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: fhdz on January 06, 2014, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
It was. The "Iraq is now a mess and Iran gains from it", ship sailed long, long ago. You know what Iraq needs? Saddam Hussein.
:lol:
It's true, which sucks. :(
We could just give Iraq to Assad.
Give Iraq and Syria to Turkey. :contract:
Only if we can have the Osmanli back. Those turbans were bitchin.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 13, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on January 13, 2014, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: fhdz on January 06, 2014, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
It was. The "Iraq is now a mess and Iran gains from it", ship sailed long, long ago. You know what Iraq needs? Saddam Hussein.
:lol:
It's true, which sucks. :(
We could just give Iraq to Assad.
Give Iraq and Syria to Turkey. :contract:
I doubt they'd want them, even if given for free.
Maybe we can dig up a Seleucid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2014, 04:32:00 PM
Maybe we can dig up a Seleucid.
I like it. Pagan Zombie Antiochus and his phalanx of the damned.
No need to go back that far, there is still an existing pretender from the last (Hashemite) dynasty. The Hashemites are usually pretty OK, assuming they can hold on to their thrones.
Well I guess he wins on the account of still being alive.
Hindusight is 20/20
Their hearing is pretty damn good too. It's spooky.
:D
I guess that explains the great Indian archery tradition.