|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around.
This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation.
But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess.
And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS.
Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime.
The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them.
|
|
|
After yesterday's capture of the Mosul Dam, Iraqi forces attempted to push into Tikrit, but were driven back by minefields, mortar fire, and snipers. Their approach is apparently to be "slow and gradual", and the lack of artillery and aerial bombardment and heavy armor in the attack on Tikrit shows they're probably not planning on leveling the town and killing tons of their own civilians in order to wipe out the IS forces there.
But one would think decisively defeating terrorists is worth more infrastructural destruction? Seems like the better option. It's unclear how many IS forces are in Tikrit, but it appears to be one of their most important bases in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-effort-to-recapture-tikrit-said-to-stall/2014/08/19/db43121e-27b7-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html
|
The more I read about the retake of the dam and what was involved the more I am convinced both the Kurds and the Shiites punked Americans into re-engagement. ISIS has no heavy tanks, no heavy artillery, a few air strikes took out a relatively small amount of hard points and the dam is free, this is from the same people that were supposed to have overrun Baghdad and Ibril? Fucking feckless scum, if ISIS wasnt the epitome of a ruthless deathcult that should be exterminated I'd be even saltier.
|
On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them.
From Al Jazeera’s Jane Arraf, Iraq's longest-serving Western correspondent, reddit AMA:
Redditor question:
"When Syria shot down a Turkish aircraft I recall Turkey wanting to use the defense article in NATO, but they were talked down by the US and other members into instead invoking the article to call for a meeting.
Here's what I'm getting at: Turkey seemed very eager and ready to invade Syria. Should NATO allow and encourage this now that ISIS has taken over large parts of both Syria and Iraq? Should Turkey be the nation with "boots on the ground" intervening to topple the Islamic state? Would this be a net-positive for the region, in your opinion?"
Jane Arraf:
"No, I think Turkish intervention given its history in the region and sectarian tension would be a disaster. It is striking though that the US military has become involved in Iraq after refusing for so long to become more involved in Syria."
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2d8mnz/iama_al_jazeeras_jane_arraf_iraqs_longestserving/
I know far too little about the history of the region to have my own opinion but as you said, Turkey has horrible relations with a lot of it's neighbours, so I don't get why you think turkish involvement would be a good idea.
|
On August 20 2014 14:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them. From Al Jazeera’s Jane Arraf, Iraq's longest-serving Western correspondent, reddit AMA: Redditor question: "When Syria shot down a Turkish aircraft I recall Turkey wanting to use the defense article in NATO, but they were talked down by the US and other members into instead invoking the article to call for a meeting. Here's what I'm getting at: Turkey seemed very eager and ready to invade Syria. Should NATO allow and encourage this now that ISIS has taken over large parts of both Syria and Iraq? Should Turkey be the nation with "boots on the ground" intervening to topple the Islamic state? Would this be a net-positive for the region, in your opinion?" Jane Arraf: "No, I think Turkish intervention given its history in the region and sectarian tension would be a disaster. It is striking though that the US military has become involved in Iraq after refusing for so long to become more involved in Syria." http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2d8mnz/iama_al_jazeeras_jane_arraf_iraqs_longestserving/I know far too little about the history of the region to have my own opinion but as you said, Turkey has horrible relations with a lot of it's neighbours, so I don't get why you think turkish involvement would be a good idea.
Because the Ottomans were a bunch of oppressive assholes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
No one wants to be ruled by the Turks again. Whatever their intentions are, the natives of the middle east would be about as receptive to Turkish occupation as they would be to Israeli occupation.
|
Man, the war on IS might be the most difficult war to fight since WW2 for the western countries. There is a pretty large Muslim population in western countries, and while many of them aren't radical, I'd say 10% of western Muslims could easily be supporting the IS state (as in believe what they are doing, not funding or fighting for them of course). It might be very difficult to do things, because if they were truly seen as terrorists, there would be no problem in exterminating them, but right now, to some individuals they seem like normal people, simply with a different belief system based on religion.
I mean to me, some of the stuff makes sense, they are really strict about a lot of things, but they don't want consumers to be ripped off on the stream selling inferior goods, they have a fair justice system (based on their beliefs), a legal system that is based on the judgement of the people and the Quran, rather than trying to find bullshit loopholes in the system. Some of their features of their systems can be legitimately seen as designed for the good of the people, and the well being of everyone (when looking at people living very religious lives openly), even though I'm strongly opposed to IS.
And I'm sure many people in Western countries feel a similar way (less so on Teamliquid, since teamliquid members are not very religious in general, and the ones that are don't adhere very strictly - again, generally speaking). Anyway, all I'm trying to get at, is there are supporters of the IS, and the longer they are unchecked, the more of their kids they are able to "brainwash", the more time they can be spent trying to become legitimate, and then no longer will killing the "terrorists" be enough, because their entire population will be behind them.
|
On August 20 2014 13:24 Sub40APM wrote:
The more I read about the retake of the dam and what was involved the more I am convinced both the Kurds and the Shiites punked Americans into re-engagement. ISIS has no heavy tanks, no heavy artillery, a few air strikes took out a relatively small amount of hard points and the dam is free, this is from the same people that were supposed to have overrun Baghdad and Ibril? Fucking feckless scum, if ISIS wasnt the epitome of a ruthless deathcult that should be exterminated I'd be even saltier.
Hmm, could be possible. But the retaking of the damn coincided with the re-establishment of Iraqi government and re-organization of Peshmerga forces. However, the dam was the easy part.
What you're missing is the hard part, which is the inhabited cities that IS controls. For example, it would be easy to turn Tikrit into Tikrekt with airstrikes and artillery, but considering these are Iraqi citizens we're talking about in the city, the last thing the Iraqi forces would want to do is maximize civilian casualties of their own people (which airstrikes and artillery will do) in order to clear out the IS. It's an extremely sensitive scenario. Think of it as city-wide hostage situations.
On August 20 2014 14:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them. From Al Jazeera’s Jane Arraf, Iraq's longest-serving Western correspondent, reddit AMA: Redditor question: "When Syria shot down a Turkish aircraft I recall Turkey wanting to use the defense article in NATO, but they were talked down by the US and other members into instead invoking the article to call for a meeting. Here's what I'm getting at: Turkey seemed very eager and ready to invade Syria. Should NATO allow and encourage this now that ISIS has taken over large parts of both Syria and Iraq? Should Turkey be the nation with "boots on the ground" intervening to topple the Islamic state? Would this be a net-positive for the region, in your opinion?" Jane Arraf: "No, I think Turkish intervention given its history in the region and sectarian tension would be a disaster. It is striking though that the US military has become involved in Iraq after refusing for so long to become more involved in Syria." http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2d8mnz/iama_al_jazeeras_jane_arraf_iraqs_longestserving/I know far too little about the history of the region to have my own opinion but as you said, Turkey has horrible relations with a lot of it's neighbours, so I don't get why you think turkish involvement would be a good idea.
You're right about Turkey's stance. They don't like dem Arabs (or Kurds or Israelis or Iranians). But would Turkey be accepted? That's the question to ask. I think Jane Arraf is entirely ignoring that this situation is far different than any other, and we're seeing all types of cooperation we never thought possible, as I'll get into.
But what about Turkey? The US caused unimaginable destruction and chaos to Iraq over a 20 year-period until just a few years ago and yet Iraqis aren't yelling for American blood and are in fact welcoming US intervention. Meanwhile, the Turkish Empire ended a century ago. But while there's still enmity regarding that as Vindicare noted, there's also that Turkey to this day doesn't treat them like equal nations to put it nicely, which only re-ignites the old enmity regarding Ottoman Turkish imperialism, oppression, and exploitation. Turkey wanting to go total war with NATO on Syria says enough. It shows what their true interests are. It's not in fighting against ISIS. It's in trying to justify any sort of empowering move against those inferior Semitic nations they once ruled to the south. The government is far too prideful to engage in proper cooperation with them. Things like likening the most developed and civil Mideastern country to Nazi Germany, comprised of people from Europe whose ancestors had been persecuted by said Nazis, is certainly facepalm-worthy.
In a period of time where everyone and their mother who is fighting against ISIS are considered heroes, whether it's Syrian and Iraqi militaries, Kurdish and Arab militias, USAF, Syrian rebels, etc., I'm sure people would be willing to accept Turkish assistance, but quite honestly, Turkey has no interest because if it doesn't affect Turkey, it doesn't concern them. However, if Turkey wanted to help, I'm sure it would be accepted. If Turkey wanted to help and didn't give off the typical arrogant political vibe, they'd probably be welcome.
The situation is very different than anything we've seen before in the modern era there. You have all sorts of crazy things going on, like Peshmerga, known for insurgencies and nationalistic radicalism, fighting with Iraqi forces and Shiite militias, infamous for terrorism, insurgency, and backing religious Shiite/Iranian interests since the Iran-Iraq War, also fighting along with the Iraqi military. All sorts of unimaginable craziness is going on. And yet an organized, disciplined national force from a bordering nation can't join in?
What is my point? Groups that have never cooperated or even within the last few years were fighting (like Shiite insurgents against Iraqi military forces) are now working together to combat ISIS. Iraqi forces have never fought Turkey, and Turkish military operations would probably be following US lead anyways, so in this very specific, dire scenario, I don't see why Turkey would be despised for helping out as long as it withdraws after fighting's done (no one wants Turkey taking them over again; just go to the Balkans or Mideast). But I am honestly convinced that Turkey has no interest in helping out Kurds and Arabs. Also, a little fun fact: Turkish shows/dramas are among the most popular media you'll find in the Arab countries I know stuff about (this includes Iraq and Syria). Turkish media and culture and people aren't unpopular in these lands. It's the imperialist vibe and hubris from the politics that people hate and reminds them about Ottoman times.
This is a "all hands on deck" emergency situation. I don't see any reason why Turkish assistance would not be welcomed in this very desperate time. As long as they get the hell out when IS is history, then the skeptical Arabs need not worry. I haven't seen anyone say Turkey can't join in. If Turkey dropped the pride, arrogance, and genocide denial, both their southern and northern neighbors would probably see them in a much better light.
|
EDIT: Accidental double post
|
On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them.
Either you lack reading skills or I lack English writing.
Despite several misconceptions in your post, I don't want to derail the thread with a more lengthy response.
Rather,
+ Show Spoiler +
You can't have good relations with a country which supports and feeds armed separatist movements AND a dictator at the same time(Iraq & Saddam). Syria also supported(still supports lightly) the same movement and a semi dictatorship at the same time. I don't think Turkey has any major problem with the current Iraq ruler(s)
I couldn't even understand a bit, how correlated the UN entry, EU participation and "genocides" with the topic. Just stay out of topics you merely understand.
All I want to say is, you "cannot" use military on a border country in which there is a civil war induced by internal and external players(cough US cough), by yourself. You need an international effort and collaboration otherwise you look like an invasion, it doesn't matter how "humanly" your purpose is.(Democracy - US - Oil - Iraq? got the clue?).
You should tell me why Turkey has to fight with the ISIS in another country's soil while other countries shake their hands and disapprove only? I mean why not US sends its almighty marines to the area and clear the ISIS tumor and bring "democracy" to Syria?
Turkish regime of course condemns ISIS and it's actions but it should be more sound and strong(but I expect less from the ruler party to be honest).
I didn't say Turks refuse to interfere the situation because of the Kurds, I try to say Turkey is not a military actor in the area and shouldn't be one, alone. Syria & Iraq is a military and political swamp even though the actors lack modern military arms. Remember US invasion on Iraq which results millions of death and still causes even more.
I think the actors cause the mess (mainly US) should clear what they created. Turkey's participation is not clear (it is known that Turkey helped Syrian rebels without directly accepting) to interfere directly with mass military force. Turkey can probably help any international effort to stabilize the area.
As I said the situation in middle east is a deep gangrene and you cannot understand the situation by the stereotypical "good guy - bad guy" mentality. No one is either good or bad.
You have to turn on the "eastern perception switch" to understand the issues but merely a few posters got that.
Also stop following mass media.
|
I think one of the most overlooked points in this situation is the people in the areas controlled by IS. A lot of talking about outside intervention and damning civil casualties just to conquer cities is pretty crude.
As I understand it, several leaders in sunni-regions in northern Iraq was so distraught by Maliki that several of them said "anything is better". The bankrobbers and hostage extortionists in ISIS were not the shia militias or the Iraqi army from Maliki so some of the local leaders encouraged and supported IS. There is a reason IS has been able to recruit groups to fight for them!
Now the sunni leaders are negotiating with the shia government. On the table is public support for removing IS from some of the areas. It sounds like it would spit out Assyria as a new autonomous region like Iraqi Kurdistan under loose government control, but if the political situation would turn, the situation would be almost impossible for IS to control in Iraq. Not saying the political extortion is right, but if you were as far out as accepting IS over Iraqs official army and shia militias, the distrust is immense enough to warrent drastic measures.
|
On August 20 2014 20:37 radiatoren wrote:
As I understand it, several leaders in sunni-regions in northern Iraq was so distraught by Maliki that several of them said "anything is better". The bankrobbers and hostage extortionists in ISIS were not the shia militias or the Iraqi army from Maliki so some of the local leaders encouraged and supported IS. There is a reason IS has been able to recruit groups to fight for them!
Well to me it is doubtful that their problem is Maliki per se and not generally being ruled by Shia. With our western thinking we tend to underestimate how tribal the mindset there is and how deep all those ethnic and religious rifts are. And if someone allies with ISIS it doesnt exactly make you look like someone Shia would like to partner with in a unity government.
On top of that there was the dissolution of Sunni army units after they had been paid for years. Which is why I dont think Iraqi Shias will trust the Sunnis ever again after this (if they ever did).
On August 20 2014 20:37 radiatoren wrote:
Now the sunni leaders are negotiating with the shia government. On the table is public support for removing IS from some of the areas. It sounds like it would spit out Assyria as a new autonomous region like Iraqi Kurdistan under loose government control, but if the political situation would turn, the situation would be almost impossible for IS to control in Iraq. Not saying the political extortion is right, but if you were as far out as accepting IS over Iraqs official army and shia militias, the distrust is immense enough to warrent drastic measures.
I dont think the Sunni have much leverage here. From what I have read from Shia posters on the internet they seem to be ok with ISIS control over the Sunni areas and letting them stew in their own juice. As long as they defend their areas that is enough for them.
It is the Sunni that are now suffering under ISIS rule. Their economic situation is also dire as they dont get anything from Baghdad anymore. So there is quite some "Schadenfreude" involved on the Shia side. If the Sunni want to get rid of the guests they invited they will probably have to do it themselves.
|
On August 20 2014 17:44 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them. Either you lack reading skills or I lack English writing. Despite several misconceptions in your post, I don't want to derail the thread with a more lengthy response. Rather, + Show Spoiler +
You can't have good relations with a country which supports and feeds armed separatist movements AND a dictator at the same time(Iraq & Saddam). Syria also supported(still supports lightly) the same movement and a semi dictatorship at the same time. I don't think Turkey has any major problem with the current Iraq ruler(s)
I couldn't even understand a bit, how correlated the UN entry, EU participation and "genocides" with the topic. Just stay out of topics you merely understand.
All I want to say is, you "cannot" use military on a border country in which there is a civil war induced by internal and external players(cough US cough), by yourself. You need an international effort and collaboration otherwise you look like an invasion, it doesn't matter how "humanly" your purpose is.(Democracy - US - Oil - Iraq? got the clue?).
You should tell me why Turkey has to fight with the ISIS in another country's soil while other countries shake their hands and disapprove only? I mean why not US sends its almighty marines to the area and clear the ISIS tumor and bring "democracy" to Syria?
Turkish regime of course condemns ISIS and it's actions but it should be more sound and strong(but I expect less from the ruler party to be honest).
I didn't say Turks refuse to interfere the situation because of the Kurds, I try to say Turkey is not a military actor in the area and shouldn't be one, alone. Syria & Iraq is a military and political swamp even though the actors lack modern military arms. Remember US invasion on Iraq which results millions of death and still causes even more.
I think the actors cause the mess (mainly US) should clear what they created. Turkey's participation is not clear (it is known that Turkey helped Syrian rebels without directly accepting) to interfere directly with mass military force. Turkey can probably help any international effort to stabilize the area.
As I said the situation in middle east is a deep gangrene and you cannot understand the situation by the stereotypical "good guy - bad guy" mentality. No one is either good or bad. You have to turn on the "eastern perception switch" to understand the issues but merely a few posters got that. Also stop following mass media.
True there are not bad guys and good guys in the Middle east. There are only bad guys and even worse guys (as far as state and state-like actors are concerned). There is no need for some perception switch to understand that. Turkey might be only example of a country in the area that is not just simply bad.
|
On August 20 2014 21:57 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 20:37 radiatoren wrote:
Now the sunni leaders are negotiating with the shia government. On the table is public support for removing IS from some of the areas. It sounds like it would spit out Assyria as a new autonomous region like Iraqi Kurdistan under loose government control, but if the political situation would turn, the situation would be almost impossible for IS to control in Iraq. Not saying the political extortion is right, but if you were as far out as accepting IS over Iraqs official army and shia militias, the distrust is immense enough to warrent drastic measures. I dont think the Sunni have much leverage here. From what I have read from Shia posters on the internet they seem to be ok with ISIS control over the Sunni areas and letting them stew in their own juice. As long as they defend their areas that is enough for them. It is the Sunni that are now suffering under ISIS rule. Their economic situation is also dire as they dont get anything from Baghdad anymore. So there is quite some "Schadenfreude" involved on the Shia side. If the Sunni want to get rid of the guests they invited they will probably have to do it themselves.
And Saddam was a Sunni. Sunnis and shias in Iraq have had a deep distrust to each other for years and Saddam loyalist sunnis still exist. When it comes to Maliki he has been good at putting shias at the positions and has basically just reversed the oppression. But if there is so little in common between the different groups it would seem to make sense to somewhat partition the countrys leadership anyway.
Yes, ISIS is not as much of a threat to the rest of Iraq and the suffering of the sunnis is selfinflicted. But since some of the oilfields like Kirkuk are in sunni-provinces it is not worthless for the shias to own the land. The broader aspect is that if it is going to be owned either by ethnic cleansing or deep distrust and lack of cooperation, I doubt the resulting resolution will be anything near final. The powderkeg will still exist. A federalisation is better than a complete breakdown, the status quo would entail.
|
On August 20 2014 13:24 Sub40APM wrote:
The more I read about the retake of the dam and what was involved the more I am convinced both the Kurds and the Shiites punked Americans into re-engagement. ISIS has no heavy tanks, no heavy artillery, a few air strikes took out a relatively small amount of hard points and the dam is free, this is from the same people that were supposed to have overrun Baghdad and Ibril? Fucking feckless scum, if ISIS wasnt the epitome of a ruthless deathcult that should be exterminated I'd be even saltier.
I don't think that it is that easy. IS so far had very good tactics and strategy. Kurdish+Iraqi+Us forces got the dam back easily because most of IS high tech stuff is already in Syria where the risk of getting bombed is significantly lower, so IS basically chose to not defend the dam to the last man.. Why would they? They still can't compete with the US air force so they basically withdrew from that fight.
To Baghdad: I think they would never attack Bagdad, despite all the rhetoric, because an attack on Baghdad might trigger Iran (which IS cannot beat either) to engage in the conflict with full force (because of the holy Shiite shrines in Southern Iraq, whoever holds Baghdad gains direct access to these shrines).
I think their tactic in the next months will be to hold the Iraqi cities of Tikrit and Mossul (They tax the population and gain new fighters) if it is possible, as others already pointed out Iraqi airforce seems reluctant to bomb heavily and the US is unlikely to bomb population centres, too so they might be able to hang in these cities. Then it will be consolidation and trying to fuel a sectarian war in Iraq (semi-succesful so far-->Sunnis in Shiite dominated areas already say that some of their relatives "disappeared" at checkpoints from Shiite militias, but so far there is no open warfare from the SHiites against the Sunnis.
If they are able to hold some parts of Iraq and if a civil war gets going Lebanon will be the next one on their list as the central government there is weak and Hezbollah is very weakened from 2 years of fighting in Syria.
|
|
|
On August 20 2014 17:44 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 09:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 19 2014 17:33 Laserist wrote:On August 19 2014 11:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 18 2014 17:53 PiPoGevy wrote:
Why aren't the other middle eastern countries making a noise, besides Iran this is bullshit! Because the Gulf Arabs support Islamic terrorism, Syria is too mired, Israel hates everyone, Turkey hates everyone, Lebanon is too small, and the North African states are either beat down by regimes led by Islamic terrorists (see Libya) or dealing with too many issues. And Iran? Their only concern is the threat ISIS poses to Karbala and Najaf, the two Shiite holy cities. Yes, the IRI has extreme religious motivations. Most of the Islamic Republic of Iran's interest in "taking over" Iraq over the past 35 years has been because of this, since Khomeini took power. You do not even know how important these two cities are to Shiite radicals, especially in Iran. The loss of their #1 stooge Maliki is a very heavy blow to their influence and terrorism in Iraq, fortunately. And still accept all the war immigrants without any question. More than 1.5 million(est.) of Syrian immigrants were accepted to Turkey during the war and we still open gates to any other minorities/majorities come from Syria and Iraq. I appreciate if you state why you think Turkey hates everyone? Turkey has some issues with the condition. 1 - Unfortunately ruler party is not putting a strong attitude against ISIS for religious(Sunni) reasons(a huge, I mean huge of the population is strongly against ISIS already) 2 - Turkey's overall problems with the separatist Kurds stationed in North Iraq currently fighting with ISIS. 3 - Turkey is dealing with the immigration problems and Turkey's overall tendency of not intervening to Syria/Iraq issues with military power(as it should). 4 - Turkey already had a diplomat crisis with ISIS. When you don't hear a noise, it doesn't mean that no one doing anything. As I said before in this thread, people sometimes throw baseless ideas around. This is the country that called Israel the same as Nazi Germany. It's extremely ironic, but in any case, Turkey doesn't have exactly have good relations with any given country, unless you count the US through NATO, when the US fast-tracked Turkey's entry simply to counteract socialist movements in the country. Still not in the EU though, not wanted. It's the country that does a good job of pissing people off when it shouldn't. Accepting the genocides of Assyrians, Armenians, and Pontic Greeks would be a start. This is the path to reconciliation. But anyways, what does this have to do with Turkey not taking any part against a jihadist terror group right on their border? I thought Turkey had a decent military. Maybe it's only to be used to harass Turkish Kurds though. Fighting against genocidal terrorists? Not worth the effort, I guess. And refugees bogging down Turkey's ability to fight at all? Lol. In the few months, Russia has been accepting refugees by the 100,000s. I don't think this at all would hamper their military power. And wait, so because Turkey has problems with Kurds, and Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey can't fight ISIS? What? It's almost like you're saying Turkey would much rather see Kurds getting killed by ISIS rather than Turkey joining the fight against ISIS. Isn't Erdogan at least slightly Islamist? I can see what you mean about his party not being against ISIS, for religious reasons of all things. Though to be fair, I don't think common religious denomination is any excuse to not condemn a murderous terrorist organization. That's about as stupid an excuse as I've ever heard from the Turkish regime. The Turks refuse to play any part against ISIS because they have no interest in helping "inferior" Arabs and Kurds and others (even you say Turkey refuses action against ISIS due to Kurds being one of the factions fighting ISIS), despite very well having the resources and might to do so, even while the conflict rages near their border. They'd rather see as much damage done to these nations as can be had from the conflict. That's all I'm seeing from them. Either you lack reading skills or I lack English writing. Despite several misconceptions in your post, I don't want to derail the thread with a more lengthy response. Rather, + Show Spoiler +
You can't have good relations with a country which supports and feeds armed separatist movements AND a dictator at the same time(Iraq & Saddam). Syria also supported(still supports lightly) the same movement and a semi dictatorship at the same time. I don't think Turkey has any major problem with the current Iraq ruler(s)
I couldn't even understand a bit, how correlated the UN entry, EU participation and "genocides" with the topic. Just stay out of topics you merely understand.
All I want to say is, you "cannot" use military on a border country in which there is a civil war induced by internal and external players(cough US cough), by yourself. You need an international effort and collaboration otherwise you look like an invasion, it doesn't matter how "humanly" your purpose is.(Democracy - US - Oil - Iraq? got the clue?).
You should tell me why Turkey has to fight with the ISIS in another country's soil while other countries shake their hands and disapprove only? I mean why not US sends its almighty marines to the area and clear the ISIS tumor and bring "democracy" to Syria?
Turkish regime of course condemns ISIS and it's actions but it should be more sound and strong(but I expect less from the ruler party to be honest).
I didn't say Turks refuse to interfere the situation because of the Kurds, I try to say Turkey is not a military actor in the area and shouldn't be one, alone. Syria & Iraq is a military and political swamp even though the actors lack modern military arms. Remember US invasion on Iraq which results millions of death and still causes even more.
I think the actors cause the mess (mainly US) should clear what they created. Turkey's participation is not clear (it is known that Turkey helped Syrian rebels without directly accepting) to interfere directly with mass military force. Turkey can probably help any international effort to stabilize the area.
As I said the situation in middle east is a deep gangrene and you cannot understand the situation by the stereotypical "good guy - bad guy" mentality. No one is either good or bad. You have to turn on the "eastern perception switch" to understand the issues but merely a few posters got that. Also stop following mass media.
You're making a lot of accusations and putting a lot of words in my mouth. I realize you're upset regarding my bringing up issues regarding Turkish relations with like everyone, but keep your cool (content in spoiler below).
+ Show Spoiler +You can't have good relations with a country which supports and feeds armed separatist movements AND a dictator at the same time(Iraq & Saddam). Syria also supported(still supports lightly) the same movement and a semi dictatorship at the same time. I don't think Turkey has any major problem with the current Iraq ruler(s) Saddam isn't around, and remind me, when was Saddam feeding armed separatist movements? Saddam was the bggest anti-terrorist/Islamist there was. Only the "mainstream" media you refer to, and I see you follow, ever stated such ludicrous things like he supported Al Qaeda (what?). What are you trying to say here? But no, you can't have good relations with countries you treat with arrogance and look down on. This is why Turkey has cold relations with almost everyone. I'm very well acquainted with the fact that the US over a 20-year period turned Iraq from a burgeoning developing nation into the chaotic, corrupted, rotted-to-the-core nation it is today. I've noted that many times, even in this thread. There would not be an IS in existence and Iraq would be significantly more developed, maybe Israel-status, if the US wasn't a power-hungry imperialist regime. But that's in the past. We're talking about the present right now. But tell me something. When have you heard of an imperialist power cleaning up the mess they created? I agree with you, but it's not going to happen. The US has caused such insurmountable damage that I don't think it's easily fixable anyways. Somehow, though, Iraq is still "reasonably" wealthy. Hard to say where they'd be minus US's Khanist behavior. If it wasn't for the fact that IS was poised to conquer the US consulate in Irbil, it's hard to say if the US would have even gotten involved. But heck, even fallen imperialist states like Turkey still deny atrocious genocides and other actions, despite having zero political affiliation with the Ottoman sultans. Regimes act outof pride and greed all too often, and the US is no exception. The US also realizes that if IS is not defeated, there will be a significantly larger clusterfuck, and zero chance for the US to have any more influence in a growing swathe of the Mideast. Turkey would not be acting "alone". Even if they don't want to coordinate with the "inferior" Arabs of Syria and Iraq, they can coordinate with the United States, which is already involved in the conflict. If NATO's leader, Syria, Iraq, and the resident Kurdish/Arab militias, aren't enough international cooperation for you, I don't know what is, unless you're expecting the "mighty" militaries of non-Russian Europe to be able to do anything.
As I said the situation in middle east is a deep gangrene and you cannot understand the situation by the stereotypical "good guy - bad guy" mentality. No one is either good or bad.
You have to turn on the "eastern perception switch" to understand the issues but merely a few posters got that.
Also stop following mass media.
Now, please. At this point, you're just making ridiculous accusations against me and putting words in my mouth. Let's break it down. Never did I put the Mideast in a "good guy - bad guy" situation. I've never put anywhere in such a scenario. Virtually nowhere is like that. "Eastern perception switch"? This thread obviously isn't personal/background talk time, but I can assure you I certainly have that and not just from reading/research but other things as well, and understand the history and issues very, very well. I'm surprised you haven't gathered any of that. You seem to forget that not everyone in the US are oblivious European white people whose ancestors immigrated 4+ generations back, not by a huge margin. (Actually, we'd be pretty fucked if that was the case, at least in tech and engineering/science fields). Even if I was your stereotypical oblivious white American, I think that fun little stint in that fucking desert would have given me more than enough perception. Your bigotry and accusatory style is duly noted. Also stop following mass media. I found this pretty hilarious, considering I'm about the last person you should be saying this to. lol
On August 20 2014 23:45 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 13:24 Sub40APM wrote:
The more I read about the retake of the dam and what was involved the more I am convinced both the Kurds and the Shiites punked Americans into re-engagement. ISIS has no heavy tanks, no heavy artillery, a few air strikes took out a relatively small amount of hard points and the dam is free, this is from the same people that were supposed to have overrun Baghdad and Ibril? Fucking feckless scum, if ISIS wasnt the epitome of a ruthless deathcult that should be exterminated I'd be even saltier. I don't think that it is that easy. IS so far had very good tactics and strategy. Kurdish+Iraqi+Us forces got the dam back easily because most of IS high tech stuff is already in Syria where the risk of getting bombed is significantly lower, so IS basically chose to not defend the dam to the last man.. Why would they? They still can't compete with the US air force so they basically withdrew from that fight. To Baghdad: I think they would never attack Bagdad, despite all the rhetoric, because an attack on Baghdad might trigger Iran (which IS cannot beat either) to engage in the conflict with full force (because of the holy Shiite shrines in Southern Iraq, whoever holds Baghdad gains direct access to these shrines). I think their tactic in the next months will be to hold the Iraqi cities of Tikrit and Mossul (They tax the population and gain new fighters) if it is possible, as others already pointed out Iraqi airforce seems reluctant to bomb heavily and the US is unlikely to bomb population centres, too so they might be able to hang in these cities. Then it will be consolidation and trying to fuel a sectarian war in Iraq (semi-succesful so far-->Sunnis in Shiite dominated areas already say that some of their relatives "disappeared" at checkpoints from Shiite militias, but so far there is no open warfare from the SHiites against the Sunnis. If they are able to hold some parts of Iraq and if a civil war gets going Lebanon will be the next one on their list as the central government there is weak and Hezbollah is very weakened from 2 years of fighting in Syria.
Baghdad is so heavily fortified it would be extremely costly for practically anyone but the US or Russian military to try to attack it. That's why IS is not attacking it. Nothing to do with Iran. Baghdad is walled-in like it's the City from Destiny.
Iran, in the best-case scenario, would only get involved if Kerbala and Najaf were threatened, for religious reasons. Yes, Iran's regime is a lot more religious-crazy than you think. Even then, I doubt Iranian forces in full (beyond the small advisory force) would be allowed in the country. Aside from Shiite Islamic radicals, Iran isn't very popular over in Iraq, and I'm sorry to say that's understating it. It never really was viewed favorably to start with, historically speaking, but the IRI made things a lot worse obviously with all the Arab countries' views of Iran at the social level and political level (aside from Maliki and Assad).
IS's time is limited. The only reason they aren't being wiped out as fast as they rushed in is the fact they're holding entire towns hostage. It makes heavy firepower and airpower unusable without incurring large civilian collateral, so progress is going to be slow and steady. Think of a hostage crisis. It's a million times more complex and difficult to deal with than if the criminals were hanging out without any hostages.
And how many fighters has ISIS lost in Iraq alone? Maybe somewhere in the thousands? Their manpower, morale, and influence is waning, and Maliki was about half the reason for ISIS's success in the first place. He alienated and pissed off and brutally oppressed everyone so badly, and not even to keep order and stability, but to keep his own power. It backfired wonderfully.
Here's some good news already cropping up. IS commanders are already fleeing Iraq.
Iraqi officials say U.S. airstrikes have driven some ground commanders of the Sunni radical group Islamic State from northern Iraq across the border into Syria.
Buoyed by a victory over the insurgents at Mosul Dam this week, the Iraqi military renewed efforts to retake Tikrit, a key Sunni city. But the operation appeared to stall on its second day Wednesday.
The U.S. announced a new series of airstrikes that hit Islamic State forces near the dam, while President Barack Obama denounced the group for beheading an American journalist in retribution for the airstrikes.
"We are noting a retreat of some emirs because the strikes have been effective, and are also starting to create panic," a senior Iraqi counterterrorism official said.
Emir is the title Islamic State members and supporters use for commanders in charge of a province—local leaders of what they envision as statelets in a cross-border Islamic caliphate they hope to establish.
Pentagon officials said they have seen no indications the group's leadership was retreating to Syria as a result of the airstrikes.
According to the Iraqis, the commanders went to eastern Syria, where Islamic State has built an operational base amid the chaos of civil war over the past few years. The insurgents are able to dash across the border into Syria, where that base continues to offer the space to recruit and reorganize largely unchallenged.
...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/some-commanders-of-insurgency-in-iraq-retreat-to-syria-1408561933
Also, this article proves that US/Iraq is against airstrikes against inhabited areas, like Tikrit (in case it wasn't already obvious no one wants serious civilian deaths).
Unlike the three-day battle for Mosul dam, during which U.S. forces launched 35 airstrikes against the Islamic State, American and Iraqi warplanes were not part of the fight in Tikrit, officials said. U.S. officials have said airstrikes in urban areas are unlikely due to the risk of civilian casualties, making it more difficult for government ground forces battling the well-armed militants.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-islamic-state-tikrit-20140819-story.html
There was an attempt by US special forces to rescue Foley and other hostages. Unfortunately, it failed.
.S. ground troops attempted but failed to rescue several American hostages in Syria, the Pentagon announced Wednesday.
"This operation involved air and ground components and was focused on a particular captor network within" territory controlled by the militant group Islamic State, Rear Adm. John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location."
Journalist James Foley was one of those hostages included in the attempted rescue mission, a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity because Foley's identity was not authorized to be said publicly.
Foley was executed by the members of the Islamic State on Tuesday. The group displayed the execution by beheading in a video posted online.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/20/syria-isis-hostages/14360787/
Also, I highly doubt that this projection from 2013 is going to be a reality.
|
+ Show Spoiler +You can't have good relations with a country which supports and feeds armed separatist movements AND a dictator at the same time(Iraq & Saddam). Syria also supported(still supports lightly) the same movement and a semi dictatorship at the same time. I don't think Turkey has any major problem with the current Iraq ruler(s) Saddam isn't around, and remind me, when was Saddam feeding armed separatist movements? Saddam was the bggest anti-terrorist/Islamist there was. Only the "mainstream" media you refer to, and I see you follow, ever stated such ludicrous things like he supported Al Qaeda (what?). What are you trying to say here? But no, you can't have good relations with countries you treat with arrogance and look down on. This is why Turkey has cold relations with almost everyone. I'm very well acquainted with the fact that the US over a 20-year period turned Iraq from a burgeoning developing nation into the chaotic, corrupted, rotted-to-the-core nation it is today. I've noted that many times, even in this thread. There would not be an IS in existence and Iraq would be significantly more developed, maybe Israel-status, if the US wasn't a power-hungry imperialist regime. But that's in the past. We're talking about the present right now. But tell me something. When have you heard of an imperialist power cleaning up the mess they created? I agree with you, but it's not going to happen. The US has caused such insurmountable damage that I don't think it's easily fixable anyways. Somehow, though, Iraq is still "reasonably" wealthy. Hard to say where they'd be minus US's Khanist behavior. If it wasn't for the fact that IS was poised to conquer the US consulate in Irbil, it's hard to say if the US would have even gotten involved. But heck, even fallen imperialist states like Turkey still deny atrocious genocides and other actions, despite having zero political affiliation with the Ottoman sultans. Regimes act outof pride and greed all too often, and the US is no exception. The US also realizes that if IS is not defeated, there will be a significantly larger clusterfuck, and zero chance for the US to have any more influence in a growing swathe of the Mideast. Turkey would not be acting "alone". Even if they don't want to coordinate with the "inferior" Arabs of Syria and Iraq, they can coordinate with the United States, which is already involved in the conflict. If NATO's leader, Syria, Iraq, and the resident Kurdish/Arab militias, aren't enough international cooperation for you, I don't know what is, unless you're expecting the "mighty" militaries of non-Russian Europe to be able to do anything.
As I said the situation in middle east is a deep gangrene and you cannot understand the situation by the stereotypical "good guy - bad guy" mentality. No one is either good or bad.
You have to turn on the "eastern perception switch" to understand the issues but merely a few posters got that.
Also stop following mass media.
Now, please. At this point, you're just making ridiculous accusations against me and putting words in my mouth. Let's break it down. Never did I put the Mideast in a "good guy - bad guy" situation. I've never put anywhere in such a scenario. Virtually nowhere is like that. "Eastern perception switch"? This thread obviously isn't personal/background talk time, but I can assure you I certainly have that and not just from reading/research but other things as well, and understand the history and issues very, very well. I'm surprised you haven't gathered any of that. You seem to forget that not everyone in the US are oblivious European white people whose ancestors immigrated 4+ generations back, not by a huge margin. (Actually, we'd be pretty fucked if that was the case, at least in tech and engineering/science fields). Even if I was your stereotypical oblivious white American, I think that fun little stint in that fucking desert would have given me more than enough perception. Your bigotry and accusatory style is duly noted. Also stop following mass media. I found this pretty hilarious, considering I'm about the last person you should be saying this to. lol
My thoughts:
+ Show Spoiler +When you talking about problems of one country with its neighbors, you have to look at the recent past of the parties. Do you know where the Kurdish separatists based and launch their armed attacks? Let me liberate you from go hard on your memory: It is Iraq! (Specifically Qandil Mountains) Wiki : + Show Spoiler +The territory is notable as a sanctuary for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). This organization controls an area of roughly 50 km², which has been bombarded by the Turkish Air Force and shelled by Iranian artillery for several years. No terrorist organization(yeah Kurdish separatists are still considered as terrorists, worldwide) can live in a country without the support of the ruling body. Turkey demanded actions against them all the time but neither Saddam nor whatever ruling body of Iraq now, did any actions against them because either Saddam or US used them as a tool for different purposes(keep Turkey in check or whatever reason). I'll let the research to you about the situation of Kurds-Turkey, PKK(armed separatist wing), drug trade, arms trade etc.. Turkey has a right to look down on other middle-east country because Turkey is the only secular democracy in the region. Far more developed than others and let me phrase you, we have no intentions on invading any country or whatever. I'd like to quote 2 parts from your response 1 - "When have you heard of an imperialist power cleaning up the mess they created?" 2 - "Turkey would not be acting "alone". Even if they don't want to coordinate with the "inferior" Arabs of Syria and Iraq, they can coordinate with the United States, which is already involved in the conflict. If NATO's leader, Syria, Iraq, and the resident Kurdish/Arab militias, aren't enough international cooperation for you, I don't know what is, unless you're expecting the "mighty" militaries of non-Russian Europe to be able to do anything." Why should Turkey trust US? Arabs in Syria torn by civil war. Arabs in Iraq have no strong military, neither willpower to be hero. How much military power NATO will(or did) dispatch for the holy anti-ISIS campaign? Kurdish militia(peshmerge) has some military power but a part of the peshmerge fight "against" Turkey for a little while ago. US only support air operations and deliberately dodge a land intervention. I couldn't consider the parties that you mention as an international cooperation. They are local authorities with various power levels, bar US. If you ask me what should Turkey do, 1 - Ruler Party should strongly condemn ISIS disregarding their rotten Islamic roots. There is no excuse to stay low against terrorism. 2 - Turkey should lobby in Nato and other power nodes to press ISIS issue especially starting in financial sense. ISIS FinanceAbout military intervention, I am skeptical about that because Syria and all the political powers there accuse Turkey as invader no matter. And probably they wouldn't want any Turkish soldier in that particular area despite the international agreement on what ISIS is. If I did go personal on something sorry about that. I just don't understand how related genocide claims and other stuff with the topic since Turkey suffered a lot because of the radical Islamist terrorists. I'll keep those out of the conversation for the sake of the integrity of the topic. Turkey played a minor role if it played any in ISIS issue and people expect too much from Turkey imho.
|
Sharia Law treats every non-muslim like a second class or third class citizen, that's the last thing I'll live under.
Somebody mentioned creating Assyria, oh how that would be beautiful...
|
A bit offtopic, but still Arabian Peninsula. I just read that "several 10 000" armed shiite rebels are in and around the capital of Yemen, they are tribal fighters and demand independence from the sunni central government. Seems that it might be possible to see another sectarian conflict zone opening up. It is just hard to imagine that the sunni government in Yemen (right next to the sunni hardliners in Riad) will give in to the demands of the rebels, fighting is already happening in the countries periphery....
@Hammurabi: I don't think that they'll get IS out of Mossul and Tikrit, they still have the Baathists on their side, who are rightfully afraid of the governmental blowback for their little marriage with IS. Of course they cannot hold the countryside, they are a guerilla force which is able to overwhelm already wounded or weak opponents, they cannot beat a fresh and battle ready "real" army,
Iranian soldiers are already engaged in Iraq, 2-3 weaks ago you could read about the first iranian officer dying on the Iraqi battlefield, I still tend to think that we would see a much bigger Iranian engagement if IS would attack Bagdad, I just cannot see the Iranians trusting the Iraqis to get the job done themselves and protect the Shrines down south as they already watched divisions simply falter without trying to fight back.
Despite getting thrown out again (which will be non-fatal, the power base of the organisation is in Syria, at this moment nobody is strong enough to really challenge their territorial gains there), the operation was still a huge success. They robbed billions from banks and Iraqi oil income, they taxed the population and gained an enormous amount of points on the jihadibility scale with the massacres)
Regarding IS casualties of their offensive, I somewhere read that around 2000 of their fighters died during the time the offensive in Iraq took place (this casuality number includes both fronts, Syria and Iraq, spanning a timeframe of ~2,5 months). On the other hand the Syrian Observatory thing claimed that they just had their most succesful recruitment months with 6000 new recruits from all over the world, of course you cannot just compare numbers as most of new recruits will just be cannonfodder, only a minority will stay alive long enough to become an effective jihadi guerilla, but still they are in good shape.
For really challenging their influence, one must attack their power base in Syra. unfortunately they are still making progress there. They are slowly pushing towards Aleppo again. If they manage to conquer the airport (don't know its name, would have to look up) where they are fighting government forces right now, they'll open a corridor to Holms and decrease the pressure of the Syrian airforce.
Overall, I just think that hey are in it for the long run and only the regional powers can stop them (Iran, Turkey), especially as the whole area is in a big mess, middle powers are weakened by Civil war or are on the brink of Civil War, the smaller countries might get drawn in and then they'll be up for the grabs, too. I don't think Turkey will act, they are supporting IS with weapons, medical care and an never ending stream of new recruits (turkish nationals are by far the largest foreign fighting force within IS).
It will either be Iran or some kind of Alliance who gets to them, unfortunately I don't see it happening in the near future, just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
