On September 14 2014 06:28 pls no ty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
I'm sorry mate but there is absolutely nothing indicating ISIS to be a US puppet. Everything indicates the opposite.
What is the opposite?
[/quote]
The opposite is the fact that the US is forming an international coalition against ISIS and the fact that the US is bombing them and arming the Iraqi military. This is entirely the opposite of your astonishing theory that ISIS is a US puppet.
And with that, your original argument is settled. Case closed
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Well yes, Turkey sees itself as above everyone else in the Mideast, even countries more developed and wealthier than themselves. The old Ottoman arrogance never really died.
Not really. If we are comparing Turkey with a country from EU, Turks will accept that they are not as developed as them.
Another Turkish poster in this thread claimed otherwise, but considering, as you say yourself, there's tons of Turkish nationalism, I'm sure many Turks think contrary to what you and other Turks (rightly) believe.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Turkey is an enemy of the Arabs (and well, pretty much everyone in the world but the US)
Citiation needed.
I let you figure out for yourself how the world thinks of Turkey, which is not too great (and this includes Europe and the Mideast, the most natural geographic partners of Turkey), the same country that even just in recent weeks denies genocides and compared Israel to Nazi Germany, but here's some data from Turks themselves, from 5 second google search about how Turks view themselves and Islam in regards to the West.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-251347-six-in-10-turkish-muslims-say-muslim-western-relations-poor.html
If Turks don't even think they have good relations with the West, what do you think the West thinks about Turkey? lol
This is even considering that usually people severely overestimate how foreigners (people from other countries) see their own country, and yet Turks they still are seen poorly and have poor relations. I'm not being biased, though, for example, the US is rightfully despised by many, but you will find there are some Americans think we're the most loved nation ever and those that don't like us "hate our freedom". It's incredibly naive, considering we're a brutal imperialist power with what appears to have one of the worst reps worldwide.
The EU doesn't like Turkey. Russia doesn't like Turkey. Turkey's Turkic relatives in central Asia don't like Turkey. The Arab nations (except maybe Kuwait), Israel, and Iran don't like Turkey. Foreign relations with Turkey are mostly economic, and decent political relations of Turkey exist almost solely through the USA's leadership in NATO. Turkey is also being blasted by the West for being more Islamic leaning.
Quite honestly, as much as I've tried, I've never found anything about Turkey having good political relations with very many countries. Compare with France on the opposite end, for example, which has many friends and allies in every continent.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Turkey hates Kurdish people, especially the Kurds in their own country. So it's a two-faced policy.
The Sultan and the Young Turks were doing all the "destroying every ethnic group". They're responsible for THREE major genocides in the span of a few years. I have not heard of Kemal being charged with any genocide. He fought brutally against further Greek encroachment in western Anatolia and brutally against other separatists, but genocide is not a word that's been thrown around regarding Kemal.
Erdogan is not just a dictator, but almost leaning Islamist. Also, I see you're very new to politics. Being a politician is about getting votes. Of course he will bullshit when 15 million of the Turkish people are Kurdish. The Kurds also aren't THAT stupid, either. They know an established and reputed Turkish political party will be much better for Turkey, including themselves, over some dimwit from Turkish Kurdistan like Demirtas.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
You mean the Kemalism that turned Turkey into a modern and Westernized nation, from a backwards, heavily Islamic one? Turkey is the most against an independent Kurdish nation if it involves their own Kurds, and this Kurdish terrorism you note didn't help either. If Turkey didn't have an interest in demeaning Arab states as much as possible, it would not do anything to aid Iraqi Kurds. But it does, while slamming and destroying those in their own country.
Hmm. Maybe you should start reading basic Turkish history from an objective history book. Kemalism made major mistakes that waste the growing potential of democracy. If you have any interest for Turkish history (like me  ) you can buy this: http://www.amazon.com/Turkey-History-Erik-J-Zurcher/dp/1860649580 After 18th century, Ottomans were not heavily Islamic. Just to remind you, they built the schools that grow Mustafa Kemal and many other important soldiers, politicians. After French revolution, like all the other ethnics, Turks started to plant their own nationalist ideas. Turkish nationalism founded Turkey with the aid of Islamic propaganda. Later on, they built a secular system, sadly, attacking both right and left ideas and finally, silencing them. I could not find an English translation: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takrir-i_Sükûn_Kanunu This law is about silencing all media, all opinions, parties, if they are not Kemalist. Who killed Sabahattin Ali? Who killed Mustafa Suphi? Who killed İbrahim kaypakkaya? Also you can read: Debating Turkish Modernity: Civilization, Nationalism, and the EEC - And some fun quotes: http://espressostalinist.com/2013/08/31/ibrahim-kaypakkayas-analysis-of-kemalism/
I read and have ready a lot of Turkish history from the American point of view. I find it funny that it's pretty distorted such that it seems to paint a prettier picture of Turkey then the Turkish point of view does.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Free Kurdistan specifically in Iran with US backing is a danger for Iran. But the US has not even considered that option at all. But free Kurdistan in Turkey is also a danger for Turkey. It will lead to more PKK and other Kurdish insurgency
Not anymore. Again, in the leaked meetings of national intelligence organization with PKK, Turkey is arguing a solution about PKK members becoming a joint force in Turkish Army in Kurdish areas including outside and inside. Would you believe this? But this is happening. Im not saying this will happen in close future, but one of the nominated undersecretary for national intelligence is a member of PKK suggested by Öcalan, to Hakan Fidan. :D
This is just like the Russian policy in Chechnya. By making PKK members Turkish stooges, peace can be kept in Turkish Kurdistan. This is exactly what Russia did in Chechnya following the Chechen wars. This is a policy to have a long-lasting peace plan, not to work with terrorists. Politics, man.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Do you know about Turkish history, and how Russia bitchslapped the Ottoman jihads left-and-right as they tried to conquer Europe and install Islam? Russia is a powerful nation, but in no way in the current era have they been a threat to or have threatened Turkey. But Turkish politicians are still butthurt over all the lost Ottoman wars against Russia, so they hate Russia and Armenia no matter the circumstances.
I dont care how many times Russian kicked Otto asses. That is still my favorite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_WarWhole Ottoman history is about kicking ass, or being bitchslapped by western countries. I love the drama. However, its a clear West victory over one of the greatest empire world had. I cant read any butthurt from Turkish politicians or soldiers. But they dont like Russia because of communism. Did you check how Turkey joined Nato?
4 countries fighting against a single one, started by Turkish aggression against Russian Black Sea military facilities after Russia's goal to protect persecuted Orthodox Christians. And then what happened after is the Russians retook it, first as Russian Empire, Russian SSR in Soviet Union, Russian SSR gift to Ukraine SSR (1954), then in recent months, Russian Federation. In World War 1, the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, and Germans devoted most of their forces against Russia alone, and could not crack it.
Yes, I am well aware of how Turkey joined NATO. The USA needed as many countries as it could get in its anti-Russian bloc. It did everything it could to help Turkey suppress socialist revolts in the country and rushed to join it to NATO, not because Turkey is an old-time friend of Europe or anything, but the US wanted to take control of as much as it could against Russia and Russian imperialism, which the US saw as the biggest threat to its expanding imperialism.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
And do they really consider Armenia a threat? That's pathetic. Armenia is a very tiny country whose people Turkey and their Kurdish allies at the time committed genocide against.
There is no evidence of genocide, numbers are wrong. Its about 200.000 to 400.000. Which is still a huge number. Its a massacre that Turkey should apologize. Instead of revealing the truth and respecting the deaths, both Armenia and Turkey are playing for their own. Armenians made a huge mistake by bringing fake reports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Memoirs_of_Naim_Bey
:7 HAHA!!!!!!!!! YOU DENY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE??? OH MY GOD LOL! Dude, this is hilarious.
FOR ONE, the most accepted number of deaths was 1.5 million.
SECONDLY, the purpose of action against the Armenians was to kill them off. IT WAS GENOCIDE. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE. And you deny evidence of genocide that everyone in the world accepts except for Turks? Oh my goodness. You're also shitting on the Greeks and Assyrians who were also victim of genocide by the Turks and Kurds.
Educate yourself, mate. There is no political motivations for any country to claim the Armenian genocide as genocide, but it is accepted across the entire world except Turkey, because it was genocide through and through. And not one or two isolated atrocities. The whole campaign was a policy of genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
You're the same as Holocaust deniers.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
So it sounds like your Ocalan is just a standard bigot, but with the addition of being a PKK terrorist. Do you seriously take this man as having legitimacy in his statements? The Kurds feel threatened by the tiny nation of Armenia? Is it because they didn't kill all of them off a century ago? Wow.
No i dont. Its not me, PKK. I suppose after peace with Turkey and foundation of Kurdistan, they will return their faces to older enemy of Kurds, which is Armenia. Seriously i dont know why (maybe soil, maybe important trade route, maybe revenge of armenian interfere of Kurdish - Turkish conflict ) but this is Ocalans opinion and whole PKK is looking at his mouth.
Kurds are fascinating. They consider the innocent victims of the Turkish-Kurdish genocide to be their sworn enemies? As I said in my last post, it sounds like the Kurds are mad they didn't kill ALL the Armenians a century ago. The Kurds are already implicated in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians, and they still speak like this? If what you say is true, then this is disgusting. But the Kurds have owed up to their role in the Armenian genocide, so why are they still speaking like this?
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
That's the first time I've heard that. Maybe in 1600 AD?
Third powerful army in NATO? Not only do I think that's false (France, Britain, anyone?), but I'll give the Turks 2 weeks before Russians capture Istanbul and Ankara. Turkey is not the counter to Russia. The USA is. As for what counters the Russian-Chinese alliance? Nothing really. The restoration of close China-Russia relations since the Sino-Soviet split has been one of the biggest nightmares in US foreign policy.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
After ISIS is defeated, in Syria there will still be civil war. In Iraq, the Iraqi government, with the backing of its many allies in Europe, the United States, other Arab nations, and other nations in the world, will retake control. The Kurds in Iraq were a nice political faction to support against Saddam Hussein but with Hussein gone, the US has its full support behind Baghdad, once the center of a strong, secular nation, and everyone's hoping that's what re-emerges, but now without the dictatorship of Hussein.
We will see. But Baghad is not secular, heavily shia.
Let me clarify a point because you missed an important word. When I said, "Baghdad, once the center of a strong, secular nation," note the bolded word "once." This means that it was before, not now. Iraq used to be a strong, secular country, it once was, but not now. We know it's heavily Shia. Although the Baath's founders were mostly Shiite and was largely Shiite until the influence of Khomeini, easily the greatest Islamic extremist of the modern era, started to break Iraqi unity with radicalizing some Shiites. But before that, it should come as no surprise, as sect wasn't really an issue in Iraqi society.
The political and social order the US set up in 2003 was strictly sectarian, opposite to how Iraq used to be (God we fucked up that country so much since 1991), and Maliki's dictatorship made sectarian matters worse. The new regime is trying to revert Iraq to a non-sectarian country again.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Do you realize Bush said that because the Turks were violating Iraqi sovereignty? That says nothing about US not backing Turkey and US relations with Turkey. Bush was telling his ally that what they were doing was wrong and should pull back from it. I don't know how you're reading that the US suddenly secretly despises Turkey.
Turkey was marching into Northern Iraq because terrorists were fleeing there. But America said, bro, thats enough. I was saying this, nothing else. But can you please tell me, what is gonna happen after Germany arms Kurds in Iraq after they dealt with ISIS, will kurds give the weapons back or weapons will become a danger for Turkey. Merkel said, they are gonna take the risk. This means PKK will get those weapons either way. What can Turks do about that? If we take this as a serious problem, this is a direct help from West to PKK. But we all believe this peace will last eternally.
Turkey marches into Iraq to bring violence without the permission of the Iraqi government, and Bush protects Iraqi sovereignty. Maybe the Turks should have at least discussed with the Iraqi government before making an act of war. Very stupid on the Turks' part.
The West considers PKK to be a terrorist organization. We certainly do not support the PKK. However, it will not tolerate Turkish aggression against its neighbors at this expense.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
What do you mean by "liberate"? These are the political, economic, and social centers of Turkey. These are the places people look at when they speak well of Turkey and look at Turkey as being a potential Westernized nation. They certainly don't look at Turkish Kurdistan. Are you suggesting that Turkey should be sent backwards or something? I don't understand what you're getting at. And what do you mean by "power theft map"? I can't read Turkish, by the way, so I don't know what the map is saying.
I was joking about liberate thing, because Anatolia is not Kurdish, yet still as bad as Turkish Kurdistan. In order to fasten EU membership, we need to get rid of Anatolia completely. In that power theft map, you can see Kurds steal electricity from Turkey in great ratios.
So to get Turkey in the EU, we need to get Turkey into the EU? Sounds like a plan. So the Kurds steal electricity too? Jeez, well, at least they're apparently the most civilized of the Kurds between the 4 nations.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Mmm, Kemal's known for a lot of things, but "destroying the Kurds" game isn't one of them.
So the Kurds made violent revolt, and the Turkish forces responded. I admit it's brutal and overkill, but this was a response to violent uprisings by Kurdish terrorism and insurgency. However, I do agree, the Turks are extremely violent. So this Zilan massacre as an addition to subduing Kurdish insurgency does not surprise me. However, the Turks did not have a policy in play of eliminating as many Kurds as they could get their hands on, like they did with the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. This was a single event, and far and away from actual genocide.
For what it's worth, the Turks and the also Kurds were implicated in 3 major genocides, however. The Kurds were hardly victims, this happening shortly after their own genocides of Christian peoples.
However, the Kurds have recognized the genocides against Christians. Why hasn't Turkey?
But Zilan aside, which myself and everyone else regards as a brutal murderous atrocity, meanwhile, you deny the actual genocide of 1.5 million innocent Armenians and 100,000s of Greeks and Assyrians. I like the way you look at things.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Meanwhile, those genocides were completely unprovoked, unless you consider "being Christian" to be a provocation.[
Jihad = Crusade for me. Sorry, i wont play Turks are evils game this night.
Your refusal to accept genocides the entire world except Turkey accepts is astonishing.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
The Syrian Kurds are in northeastern Syria. They're nowhere near the Mediterranean. What do you mean by controlling important ports? And what do you mean by weakening Iran's and Russia's hand? And silencing jihadist terorrism? They're practically at the mercy of ISIS as we speak.
Kurdish forces claim almost %35 of current Syria including trade centers, routes.
Let me show you a map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Kurdistan#mediaviewer/File:Rojava_cities.png
Syrian Kurds are cramped into the northeastern corner of Syria. I fail to see how this tiny poor, largely mountainous region supports your claim that they control 35% of Syrians trade centers.
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Overall, I still do not see what your motive is
Im not Kurdish, as i wrote above i have a great interest in Turkish-Ottoman history as well as my interest to Chinese, British and Greek ones. My motivate comes from my studies.
Greek history eh? Including modern history?
On September 13 2014 16:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
It's not the modern and Westernized people in Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara that are preventing Turkey from entering the EU. It's some dumb village people and the Kurdish society which isn't as developed as "standard" Turkey. In other words, it's pretty old school compared to what you see in modern places you condemn like Istanbul, and people in the EU don't like that old-school way of doing things. Perhaps the Turkish Kurds and old-school village folk should become more modern as a society. It would benefit themselves and Turkey as a whole.
I looked at the link, and the word that came up the most was "Kurd" and "Cyprus". Like I suggested in my last post, if Turkey were to rid themselves of its domination of Turkish Kurdistan (which is literally a bunch of poor mountain people) and northern Cyprus, the greatest block against Turkey joining the EU would be achieved. Turkey also denies a number of genocides. These issues are not difficult to resolve.
However, the issues of Turkish dictatorship and corruption? Yeah, good luck. It's also a poor country. With a GDP PPP per capita of $18,975 (according to World Bank data), which isn't even too much better than Iraq's, and significantly below that of Israel and the Gulf Arab states, I can see why the EU would not allow it. However, it's pushing for extremely impoverished, chaotic, and corrupted Ukraine to join the EU, so I'm not sure Turkey being poor is one of the actual reasons.
Still, you have to really sit back and have a good laugh at the following situation.
You have a country that was at the center of a great and exploitative empire for centuries, Turkey.
You have another country, Iraq, that was under the oppression of a great empire for centuries after being destroyed and its population killed off by Mongols, only gaining independent less than a century ago, and absolutely devastated in every facet especially its economy, education, politics and has had one of the biggest brain drains in the world, over a 20 year period.
And yet even today, the latter nation is swiftly catching up with the former.
The fact that Turkey isn't on par with France or Britain is absolutely mind-numbing. Only incompetence and idiocy of the highest level in modern history is responsible for where Turkey is today. For that, I pity Turkey and feel bad for the Turkish people.
==========================================================================================
Please note, I'm cutting you a ton of slack. People see a genocide denier as losing all legitimacy, especially genocides from a century ago where there is no political motivation to say it is genocide today (except the simple fact it was entirely unjustified mass murder of innocent victims), and where the whole world states this as well.
However, I see that as an entirely separate matter of discussion to everything else you've had to say, much of which is actually pretty decent.
But, your original point several posts ago was the theory that the US commands ISIS and ISIS is a US puppet. There is nothing supporting this theory and nothing I could find, not even from conspiracy theorists, so I think this case is closed.
|
Lols in the spoiler for Cheerio and xMZ  <3
+ Show Spoiler +I see Cheerio is still in a bit of a poor mood about the old Ukraine thread, and xMZ in this thread still sour about an earlier bout in this thread. Cheerio aren't you rather Russophobic, but I guess I'm the hater? I gotta say, hating is not my forte man. Please, Cheerio, point out my speculation and where I'm not being tolerant and objective. I'd honestly like to know so that I may improve my objectiveness. Or at the very least, please add something to this thread. And please, xMZ, where do I hype myself up or talk about myself? I don't know man, I've been hyping the facts/truths/happenings. At the very least, please add something to this thread. On September 15 2014 23:31 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 23:01 xM(Z wrote:
you are reading JudicatorHammurabi wrong: it's mostly ego there plus some minor subjective obsolete facts. he hypes himself up not the facts/truths/happenings. it's his ego that can't be objective and he spins everything around it. edit: nvm Its not that he is fundamentally wrong, but the way he words his arguments is indeed weird and does not tolerate any other opinion. Nah, I tolerate plenty of opinions. What I don't tolerate are entirely unbased conspiracy theories and denial of well-known and globally accepted genocides, genocides which fill the bill of the definition on every term. There is a difference, you see.
On September 16 2014 02:17 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2014 00:41 Nyxisto wrote:On September 15 2014 23:01 xM(Z wrote:
you are reading JudicatorHammurabi wrong: it's mostly ego there plus some minor subjective obsolete facts. he hypes himself up not the facts/truths/happenings. it's his ego that can't be objective and he spins everything around it. The guy he's arguing with claims that IS is a US puppet and denies the Armenian genocide and you think Habibi is mad? I think TL needs some kind of "don't deny or relativize historically proven mass murders" policy because this kind of stuff is really dragging a lot of threads down. What is historically proven and by who?
Good lesson in history mate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
On September 15 2014 22:01 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
what do you mean by"it won't really change much"? A lot has already changed since before this. By that I mean Sunni troops, not Shia, who already have or have had plans to defect to ISIS aren't going to suddenly change their minds because of a few executions. Not that it applies to every one of them of course (not every Sunni is a Daesh-loving fanatic). If ISIS is to be truly routed in Iraq, every Sunni needs to be persuaded with something that will convince them to fight against ISIS. The Shia in the south are basically just holding their areas while trying to slowly clear the road to Baiji. Show nested quote +On September 15 2014 18:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
If Iraqi forces were already whipped into shape regarding the true nature of ISIS, then the discovery of the June Tikrit executions only reinforced it. No doubt about that. The current state of the Iraqi Army is definitely in a better shape than it was back when Fallujah fell that's for sure.
You are right. This is why one of the top priorities of the new government is reconciliation and unity. But don't forget, Sunni militias have been fighting ISIS in Haditha area and other parts of Iraq. As the Iraqi military is not a sectarian force, I'm sure it still has a large Sunni contingent despite the deserters.
What the Sunnis need is the assurance that the new regime isn't another pro-Tehran, anti-Sunni dictatorship. It's difficult to address years of persecution and grievances, one that was not necessarily a political or anti-Islamist basis, but on a purely sectarian one. It's one thing when you crush an unpopular or dangerous ideology like communism or Islamic extremism. It's another when you're demeaning an entire ethnicity or religious group, and that's exactly what Maliki with the blessings of Iran was doing.
I'd be hard-pressed to believe that very many Sunnis support ISIS, including military deserters and especially regular civilians. It appears that the brunt of their (falling) support comes from the most disgruntled and aggressive victims of anti-Sunni policy and de-Baathification, which quite honestly makes sense.
But the amount of ground ISIS is losing, the fact many Sunni militias have joined in the fight, and the general joyous mood wherever people are liberated from ISIS tells the real story.
This article gives a pretty good view of who supports ISIS and why. It's also important to note why regular, secular Sunnis in Iraq support these vicious Islamic terrorists, and the reasons are pragrmatic more than anything else.
And that leaves the third and final group—perhaps the least appalling but likely the largest and most important. Call them the Sunni Pragmatists. These include Iraqi tribal sheikhs, whose allegiance to ISIS originates not in a cultish death wish but in a desire to win security and well-being, and who seem to be using the Psychopaths and the True Believers as convenient allies. From ISIS, the Pragmatists get a way to punish Baghdad for its long neglect of Sunni regions. From the Pragmatists, ISIS already got a greased path into Iraq that allowed their tiny force to cover large amounts of ground and fulfill the True Believers’ goal of rapid expansion, à la the forces of the Prophet Muhammad in the earliest days of Islam. ISIS’s extension into Iraq happened quickly both because many Sunnis cooperated, and because the Shia-led central government had incredibly weak holds on northern, mostly Sunni cities like Mosul. I observed the dereliction of Iraqi army bases in Mosul in late 2012, and it was clear even then that a serious invading force would face roughly as much resistance as Clark W. Griswold and family encountered at Wally World. To hold all that new territory, now that ISIS forces are spread thin 300 miles beyond Raqqa, will require ongoing buy-in from their local Sunni allies.
At least some of the Sunni Pragmatists are ex-Baathists—colleagues of Saddam Hussein who have survived to fight again. The Naqshabandi militia, controlled by Saddam’s vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri (a potential body double for Bryan Cranston), has periodically worked with ISIS to fight the Shia government of Nuri al Maliki. Like his old boss, Douri is no Islamist, which shows just how cynical his alliance with the True Believers has been—and how much more malleable his motivations and goals are than those of his True Believing and Psychopathic counterparts.
The other Sunni Pragmatists are the tribal sheikhs, who occupy the large, sparsely populated western Iraqi province of Anbar, between Syria and the central axis of cities—Mosul, Tikrit, Baghdad—on the outer-boundary of where ISIS operates. During the U.S. occupation, the Anbar sheikhs enjoyed vast amounts of CIA money, as well as trucking contracts, and (under the Sons of Iraq program) government funds for their tribal militias. But since the Americans left Iraq and began dealing only with the Maliki government, they have been shut out of politics and oil revenue.
...
“This is a marriage of convenience,” Wrzesniewski says, “and the sheikhs are hoping for a violent divorce.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119395/isiss-three-types-fighters
|
EPT
