Reply With Quote
ISIS is sunni (ex bathist Saddam army), SA is sunni, Maliki and his govt were Shiite and pissed off the Iraqi sunnis.
ISIS (for sure) and Al Dipstick draws most of its vulnerable recruits among the Sunni population.
With a large part of Iraq being Sunni and feeling left out by the govt, is there any hope period for them getting the political thus military willpower to fight back against these demonic biznitches? The US is waiting 30 days for the Iraqis to replace the ousted pussy who just left. Are you kidding me? Even if the new guy wants to reenergize the Army, is the willpower really there?
Saudi. Its been reported that the recruiting by ISIS is getting tons of supportive tweets from Saudi Arabia. With Joe Sixpack, the average teenage Saudi being unemployed and f(*&cked by the filthy rich Saudi overlords, they are ripe for the pickin when ISIS recruiters come spewing their bull .
ISIS is sunni (ex bathist Saddam army), SA is sunni, Maliki and his govt were Shiite and pissed off the Iraqi sunnis.
Right. So why was not the most minute amount of foresight shown in refusing to let Maliki be elected in the 1st place?
If it was thru a vote (and i dont even remember) then i would say it was a rigged vote.
At any rate, i was told years ago that the whole Iraq issue was over Sunni vs Shiite.
Moving forward, the US is going to *wait* for a new Iraq president and then *hope* he is able to include Shiites enough to where the military gets reenergized?
I'm sure ISIS is going to hold off until they get this done.
they cant do when usa is pro isis fight in syria, but against them in iraq
these fkn clowns are looking at the bigger picture while usa isnt...they will want the whole ME to be under them, i lol at the gulf states who are more lenient islam followers...sitting and doing jack till arrives on its doorsteps will be too late....
they cant do when usa is pro isis fight in syria, but against them in iraq
these fkn clowns are looking at the bigger picture while usa isnt...they will want the whole ME to be under them, i lol at the gulf states who are more lenient islam followers...sitting and doing jack till arrives on its doorsteps will be too late....
Maliki was elected because shiites are the huge majority, elected in reaction to decades of domination by the Saddam Bathist sunnis.Right. So why was not the most minute amount of foresight shown in refusing to let Maliki be elected in the 1st place?
If it was thru a vote (and i dont even remember) then i would say it was a rigged vote.
At any rate, i was told years ago that the whole Iraq issue was over Sunni vs Shiite.
Moving forward, the US is going to *wait* for a new Iraq president and then *hope* he is able to include Shiites enough to where the military gets reenergized?
I'm sure ISIS is going to hold off until they get this done.
Isis, AQ, etc can "hold off" until in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc until the Western/US troops leave in defeat, as they always do. eg, Viet Nam. the British, Russian in Afghanistan
US MIC is not on a "fool's errand" in trying to extend, maintain the American corporate empire because non-stop imperial war and occupation is a hugely profitable business. As with non-military corps USA, MIC doesn't GAF about democracy, only about their profits, no matter the external costs to others. DoD + State Dept budgets blow about $1.5T/year on American empire.
But i thought the US oil pigs were going to get the Iraq oil, as you had posted a link that their schemery resulted in long awaited contracts being awarded under the guise of "only they had the drilling know how" or some such facade?
With ISIS running a storm, isnt the oil flow in danger?
Okay. And are the core group of the ISIS s ex Saddam Bathist Sunnis?
that's what I've read. ISIS has been succeeding so well because it's run by high-level Saddam Baathist Army officers (fired by Bremer) who are directing a war, not raghead terrorism
Well Syria was run by the Baath party as well so why are the Baathist in Iraq fighting the Baath Party gov't in Syria?
It's the Middle East and Muslims, aka, it's confusing.
Assad is shiite, an ally of shiite Iran. ISIS/ISIL is Sunni and is trying to take Assad's gas/oil fields. My guess is that Baathism is a political/socialist movement, trumped by sunni vs shiite sectarianism.
The answer to the OP appears to be: No.
They still seem to think, and not without reason, that we will come running to the rescue.
So we should only read from websites approved by Cosmored?
How do you know your information is "correct"?
FWIW:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.caGlobalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) may best be described as the moonbat equivalent to WorldNetDaily (albeit not as "succesful" as WND). It is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky.
The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca considers itself to be a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.
While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bull throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from Russia Today, along with other unreliable and/or open sources.
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,[2] vaccines,[3] genetic modification,[4] Zionism,[5][6] HAARP,[7] global warming,[8][9] and David Kelly.[10] Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.
Apparently, contributors to Globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,[11] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.
It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general. And ironically, it has more in common with its writers' enemies and wingnut rivals than they would ever admit.
I commend Obama for ordering more air strikes on these s.
Yep.
They need to blow up all the hardware ISIL got from the Iraqi army when they their pants and ran.
The IsIs have 2billion dollars and oil fields. They can buy back the hardware from US back.
how about trying to cut the funding by going after the Saudis?? ISIS are Prince Bandars toys why not go after him???
Its funny the Iraqi government is getting all the blame when it was the Iraqi government who were clamoring for the US and Saudi to stop funding the jihadist in Syria because the violence might spill over to Iraq.
lol thinking they just "can't see it"
they're turncoats working for globalists interests and ought to be shot and hung
Why Washington’s War on Terror Failed – The Underrated Saudi Connection
There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington’s policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.
But U.S., Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a “moderate” Syrian opposition being helped by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.
The reality of U.S. policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.
By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the U.S. has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.
Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
The key decisions that enabled al-Qa‘ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa‘ida relied for its financing on “a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.”
The report’s investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.
The “war on terror” has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement.
The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend.
Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment.
Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/...+capitalism%29
So the "war on terror" is yet another war America has lost because America's policies of economic empire are dictated by the profits of BigOil and MIC.
US's "ally" against ISIL
U.N. Releases Shocking New Estimate Of People Killed In Syria
For the first time in months the United Nations issued an estimate of how many people have been killed in the midst of Syria’s civil war, placing the number at a staggering 191,369.
The number covers from the beginning of the civil war in March 2011 until April of this year. At the outset of the conflict, Syrian protesters marched peacefully on the streets demanding President Bashar al-Assad accede to free elections and other democratic reforms. Since then, the crisis has spiraled ever deeper, with Syria now seen as a breeding ground for extremism and the Assad government more stubbornly dug in than ever.
Navy Pillay, who is finishing her final weeks as the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, announced the new estimate on Friday in a statement from her offices in Geneva. “With additional killings reported from earlier periods, in addition to the new killings that have taken place, the total is more than double the number do ented a year ago,” Pillay said. Fourteen months ago, the U.N. provided number of those killed was the much lower — though still extremely high — 93,000.
But the number may actually be far higher than the total the U.N. has now provided. An independent NGO that deals with statistics started with a list of 318,910 reported killings, taken from five sources, including the Syrian government and local NGOS, before whittling it down to only those that have been confirmed. Only those that included a full name of a victim, the date of death, and where it took place made their way into the final version. “After duplicates were merged, the combined dataset was reduced to 191,369 unique records of conflict-related deaths as of 30 April 2014,” the U.N. explained.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...h-toll-update/
... not that US has ever had any qualms about allying with, supporting some the nastiest, undemocratic regimes.
Saudi's grand mufti denounces ISIS and Al Qaeda as apostates:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...435845901.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...abb_story.htmlEgypt’s top cleric has condemned the extremist Islamic State group that has been on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, describing it as a “terrorist” organization that poses a danger to Islam and Muslims. The Islamic State is “violating all the Islamic principles and the intentions of the Shariah (Islamic law),” said Grand Mufti Shawki Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority.
meanwhile, ISIS denounces Hamas:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...e-israel.html#
what does globalreasearch.ca tell us to think? can you put it in a nuts for us?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
