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.
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.”
While I don't generally have that much against your posts I would love if they were less verbose, slightly more ordered and without as much nesting. Some of it, like the comments on articles and other sources would shine more in a separate post!
When it comes to routing ISIS, I would settle for making them return to their old job of kidnappings, extortion and armed robbery, Ie. criminals in the extreme end for police to handle instead of freedom fighters the military is having some difficulty handling. It would also be the best help for the pragmatic sunnis if ISIS returns from the religious fanatic incitement to an outcast criminal gang. Hoping for ISIS to disappear completely is over optimistic, but removing their supporters on the battlefield would be enough to assure that they are done as a powerfactor in the regional conflicts. For now the bombings seems to cause them enough defeats for the more opportunistic supporters to start looking for a more suitable ally.
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say the United States took the first step in the planned expanded fight against Islamic State militants Monday, going to the aid of Iraqi security forces south of Baghdad who were being attacked by enemy fighters.
The officials say Iraqi forces requested assistance when they came under fire from militants. Officials say the strike represents the newly broadened mission authorized by President Barack Obama to go on the offensive against the Islamic State group wherever it is.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) shot down a Syrian regime fighter jet conducting airstrikes on the group’s stronghold of Raqqa on Tuesday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.
The Britain-based monitor said: “It is the first aircraft shot down since the regime launched air strikes against the jihadists in July following their declaration of a caliphate in late June.”
Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP that the plane was carrying out strikes on the ISIS stronghold of Raqa when it was hit.
Failure by the Iraqi government to fill the key Defense and Interior Minister positions.
he parliament session was held as the U.S. carried out an airstrike near Baghdad for the first time since launching an aerial campaign in early August, and French warplanes flying from the United Arab Emirates began reconnaissance missions over Iraq.
Al-Abadi, Iraq's new prime minister, put forward Sunni lawmaker Jaber al-Jabberi as his candidate for defense minister and Shiite lawmaker Riyad Ghareeb as his pick for interior minister. Parliament, which could confirm the nominees with a simple majority, voted 118-117 against Ghareeb, and 131-108 against al-Jabberi.
"The failure of the parliament to agree on the candidates to fill the posts of interior and defense ministers shows clearly that the gap among and inside political groups are still huge and that each bloc is pursuing its own ambitions," said lawmaker Mutashar al-Samarie.
"I think that the posts of defense and interior minister should be kept away from sectarian power sharing. Iraq's problems in Iraq can be solved only by bringing independent and efficient people to fill ministerial posts."
...
Hamid al-Mutlaq, a Sunni lawmaker, said that many in parliament felt the two nominees were "not qualified" to hold the key posts.
"What we need are professional persons who have expertise in security and army issues," he said.
Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki held both the defense and interior minister posts himself after his re-election in 2010 because lawmakers could not reach an agreement on them. That fueled concerns that he was monopolizing power.
Despite Obama's promise that US ground forces will not fight ISIS, General Martin Dempsey proposed opening the door for the possibility of US ground forces entering the war.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the military's top officer, opened the door Tuesday to sending U.S. troops to fight alongside Iraqi soldiers against Islamic State militants, despite President Obama’s repeated vows not to do so.
Dempsey, who chairs the Joint Chiefs, repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would recommend sending U.S. ground troops to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces if he deems it necessary. That would mark a significant escalation of the offensive Obama announced last week.
“If we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I’ll recommend that to the president,” he said at the opening of his testimony, using one of several abbreviations for Islamic State.
As an example, he said, U.S. troops may be required “at some point” to help Iraqi and Kurdish security forces retake Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which fell to the militants in June.
I wont write anymore as long as you keep that behavior like you know everything about Turkey. From what i see, your history knowledge is all about wiki and American related mid-east topics. And you are calling a guy "Holocaust denier" with bachelor degree in Department of History, Istanbul University (one of the good ones earth has when we say faculty and history in a sentence.) And personally, i may be the guy with least turkic ideology comparing many.
Agreeing the fact Turks should apologize for all the happenings and MUST pay for everything caused by them, or their decisions, we can easily name as WAR CRIMES. They punished some soldiers in that era but not enough.
Please, read more and more and more.
The main purpose of this discussion, therefore, is not to deny that Turks killed and expelled Armenians on a large scale; indeed what happened might in today's vocabulary be called war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or even crimes against humanity. To prove genocide, however, intent or premeditation must be demonstrated, and in the Armenian case it has not.
Do you know that English court held in Malta about genocide and declared after America's report that there is no evidence of systematic genocide, this is it. Continue with your insulting comparisons or never answer, totally your call. Above all of these, turks are still denying every* every* every* incidents include mass murders, yet Armenians are systematically growing numbers years by (disrespecting deaths mutually), this is a well known fact alongside with their well known faking attempt about the holocaust.
And, every truth has two sides. While world is two busy with pitying Armenian families who hid their descendants in buckets to protect from Turkish soldiers, we have pretty much the same fucking shit for Turkish families victims of rape, beheading, baby murdering, village burnings of Armenians but we dont have any propaganda. Please read some of these: http://armeniangenocidelies.com/ and check Bernard Lewis writings about those.
One important question that we all should answer, if one village full of with armenians, as whole families there* support armenian troops by giving them gold, granting logistics, and sometimes allying with russians, and sometimes hit-run-hide tactics, would you burn it down? You nearly said yes by your words when i said Ataturk planned Dersim Massacre. My answer is no. Turkish answer was also a no but they simply left those people for death by forcing them move from a death point to another with granted escorts of vengeful turkish soldiers.
1.5 million number thus is a lie. Erik Jan Zürcher confirms those kills between the gaps i wrote. And that is not a fictional book, ask your Boston university if they teach history partly from this book or not. By the way, what are your comments about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_Massacre
However, before answering the rest of your post, i finalize my saying by a response estimate after yours, that you are an armenian, and if yes/no, it is not important what world say* agree* claim* but facts. They would do everything to punish Turkey by applying embargo for example, and yes, America also would (like the one happened during invasion of cyprus), Incirlik is not important as it was.
* sincere thoughts : turks are the most butthurted race about these topics because they are losing every single fight for years and years and years and their country is not an wowowoo EMPIRE anymore however armenians are too, they simply lost an independence war, in my case.
//
Having bad relation with EU or ARABS is not the same thing with being enemy. Your argument is about arabs hating turks and turkic publics hate turks are not valid, check turkish combined armies and turkish troops train who and who and who and also check pan-islamic bullshit desires of arabs when you say Ottomans, i dont know what would their reaction be if i say them some Ottoman caliphs have possibility of being gay and nonstopping alcohol drinkers. But hate is normal and acceptable on many cases, they always hate either a greater force or religion, like they do now when we say GOD BLESS MURICA to arab faces.
France has allies, fascinating, especially African ones dude! Your Russian invasion of Turkey made me smile, whenever a guy from Europe says we can destroy Turkey i just smile, bro, bro, war is not a good thing, but they tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence. How many countries you count against Turkey in that link? Im not proud of being Turk and i find it very stupid, but i enjoy the "change of plans" thing of allied forces when we kicked some ass, man, i enjoy some crusades too, big knights with big swords to wield!
* Kurds claims some trade routes i said, did not say they have it, plan is that. Including Aleppo.
Another sincere thought: You know what is turkish stupidity about operation in Iraq, Turkey should have never cared what Bush and world will say and totally invade Kurdish lands till the day Norther Iraq declares they wont be allied with PKK a day more. This is how a powerful country acts.
Dude, if you have any chance to visit these countries, go Israel, go Iraq, and come see Istanbul, if you still think Turkey is poor, i will delete all my posts and will only say i am a dumb idiot in my posts as many times as you want.
Final words related to our main topic, i said ISIS is an American puppet, its just an opinion, im not forcing you to believe and i think America is allied with Turkey with this. Of course they will kill them all, of course they will curse them and bomb them, but for some reason, ill still say America had a finger on when ISIS arming itself, not directly but somehow. There is a turkish word for this situation, you cant fly a bird without Americas permit in those areas, worlds greatest fire power, greatest intelligence organization famous with false flag operations and bringing CHEAP OIL with shell trucks passing by my country in return of the gift : DEMOCRACY.
Imagine a tomorrow, America confess that they planned everything for oil or weaken russia or i dont know for their own test of weapons blablabla, should you be ashamed? No. This is the true nature of predators, if you are stronger, you rule the world, you enjoy the life.
God bless America and its imperialism, death to the stormcloaks. Peace out.
Edit: To all other members of this forum, i am very sorry if my opinion made our subject off-topic. Ive never wanted to troll, or disturb the ongoing traditions you have in here. I wont write anything about Turkish history or Armenians no matter what. i gave a lot of links already.
Some very good news from the conflict. Christian towns that had been captured by ISIS have now been liberated:
Kurdish peshmerga forces on Tuesday recaptured seven Christian villages in northern Iraq in clashes with militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an officer and a cleric said.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians, most of them Chaldeans, fled their homes when ISIS militants launched a renewed drive in the north in early August.
Iraq’s largest Christian town, Qaraqosh, and dozens of other villages were all but emptied in what Christian leaders described as the worst disaster for the minority in centuries.
On Tuesday, peshmerga forces ousted ISIS militants from seven villages west of the Kurdish capital Arbil during fighting in which rockets and mortar rounds were used, a senior officer said.
“We liberated those villages with the support of US aircraft,” Major Sardar Ali said, referring to the Nineveh plains area between Arbil and Mosul, the main IS hub in Iraq.
The United States, whose air force has been targeting ISIS militants in the area since early August, has yet to confirm it carried out the latest reported strikes.
I wont write anymore as long as you keep that behavior like you know everything about Turkey. From what i see, your history knowledge is all about wiki and American related mid-east topics. And you are calling a guy "Holocaust denier" with bachelor degree in Department of History, Istanbul University (one of the good ones earth has when we say faculty and history in a sentence.) And personally, i may be the guy with least turkic ideology comparing many.
Agreeing the fact Turks should apologize for all the happenings and MUST pay for everything caused by them, or their decisions, we can easily name as WAR CRIMES. They punished some soldiers in that era but not enough.
Please, read more and more and more.
The main purpose of this discussion, therefore, is not to deny that Turks killed and expelled Armenians on a large scale; indeed what happened might in today's vocabulary be called war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or even crimes against humanity. To prove genocide, however, intent or premeditation must be demonstrated, and in the Armenian case it has not.
Do you know that English court held in Malta about genocide and declared after America's report that there is no evidence of systematic genocide, this is it. Continue with your insulting comparisons or never answer, totally your call. Above all of these, turks are still denying every* every* every* incidents include mass murders, yet Armenians are systematically growing numbers years by (disrespecting deaths mutually), this is a well known fact alongside with their well known faking attempt about the holocaust.
And, every truth has two sides. While world is two busy with pitying Armenian families who hid their descendants in buckets to protect from Turkish soldiers, we have pretty much the same fucking shit for Turkish families victims of rape, beheading, baby murdering, village burnings of Armenians but we dont have any propaganda. Please read some of these: http://armeniangenocidelies.com/ and check Bernard Lewis writings about those.
One important question that we all should answer, if one village full of with armenians, as whole families there* support armenian troops by giving them gold, granting logistics, and sometimes allying with russians, and sometimes hit-run-hide tactics, would you burn it down? You nearly said yes by your words when i said Ataturk planned Dersim Massacre. My answer is no. Turkish answer was also a no but they simply left those people for death by forcing them move from a death point to another with granted escorts of vengeful turkish soldiers.
1.5 million number thus is a lie. Erik Jan Zürcher confirms those kills between the gaps i wrote. And that is not a fictional book, ask your Boston university if they teach history partly from this book or not. By the way, what are your comments about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_Massacre
However, before answering the rest of your post, i finalize my saying by a response estimate after yours, that you are an armenian, and if yes/no, it is not important what world say* agree* claim* but facts. They would do everything to punish Turkey by applying embargo for example, and yes, America also would (like the one happened during invasion of cyprus), Incirlik is not important as it was.
* sincere thoughts : turks are the most butthurted race about these topics because they are losing every single fight for years and years and years and their country is not an wowowoo EMPIRE anymore however armenians are too, they simply lost an independence war, in my case.
//
Having bad relation with EU or ARABS is not the same thing with being enemy. Your argument is about arabs hating turks and turkic publics hate turks are not valid, check turkish combined armies and turkish troops train who and who and who and also check pan-islamic bullshit desires of arabs when you say Ottomans, i dont know what would their reaction be if i say them some Ottoman caliphs have possibility of being gay and nonstopping alcohol drinkers. But hate is normal and acceptable on many cases, they always hate either a greater force or religion, like they do now when we say GOD BLESS MURICA to arab faces.
France has allies, fascinating, especially African ones dude! Your Russian invasion of Turkey made me smile, whenever a guy from Europe says we can destroy Turkey i just smile, bro, bro, war is not a good thing, but they tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence. How many countries you count against Turkey in that link? Im not proud of being Turk and i find it very stupid, but i enjoy the "change of plans" thing of allied forces when we kicked some ass, man, i enjoy some crusades too, big knights with big swords to wield!
* Kurds claims some trade routes i said, did not say they have it, plan is that. Including Aleppo.
Another sincere thought: You know what is turkish stupidity about operation in Iraq, Turkey should have never cared what Bush and world will say and totally invade Kurdish lands till the day Norther Iraq declares they wont be allied with PKK a day more. This is how a powerful country acts.
Dude, if you have any chance to visit these countries, go Israel, go Iraq, and come see Istanbul, if you still think Turkey is poor, i will delete all my posts and will only say i am a dumb idiot in my posts as many times as you want.
Final words related to our main topic, i said ISIS is an American puppet, its just an opinion, im not forcing you to believe and i think America is allied with Turkey with this. Of course they will kill them all, of course they will curse them and bomb them, but for some reason, ill still say America had a finger on when ISIS arming itself, not directly but somehow. There is a turkish word for this situation, you cant fly a bird without Americas permit in those areas, worlds greatest fire power, greatest intelligence organization famous with false flag operations and bringing CHEAP OIL with shell trucks passing by my country in return of the gift : DEMOCRACY.
Imagine a tomorrow, America confess that they planned everything for oil or weaken russia or i dont know for their own test of weapons blablabla, should you be ashamed? No. This is the true nature of predators, if you are stronger, you rule the world, you enjoy the life.
God bless America and its imperialism, death to the stormcloaks. Peace out.
Edit: To all other members of this forum, i am very sorry if my opinion made our subject off-topic. Ive never wanted to troll, or disturb the ongoing traditions you have in here. I wont write anything about Turkish history or Armenians no matter what. i gave a lot of links already.
sincere thoughts : turks are the most butthurted race
^ This bold sums up the post nicely.
And yes, God bless America.
Not much use in replying to >genocide denial,
>attempting to justify genocide by noting a massacre by Armenians against Azerbaijanis 70 years later which had nothing to do with the Turkish genocide of the Armenians,
>comparing a country that's suffered the worst 30 years of history of practically any country in modern history and centuries of oppression and exploitation before that (Iraq) to the successor of a centuries-old extremely exploitative empire (Turkey) (there's really no comparison to be made as the two countries have been in entirely different situations, but still, link: Iraq $15,188 GDP per capita vs. Turkey $18,975 GDP per capita and it's pretty disappointing Turkey isn't on par with Britain or other strong EU economies; and I'm sure without the last 30 years of frightening history, Iraq would be much better than Turkey. Now something like yet another Arab country being richer than Turkey would certainly be bad for the Turkish superiority mentality),
However, it is interesting to note that Israel >> Turkey
>claiming that Arabs and EU and Russia hate Turkey because Turkey is a more powerful force (LOL!)
>claiming I am an Armenian just because I don't deny the Armenian genocide. Sorry man, but I have ZERO Armenian heritage, and I know next to nothing about the Armenian people. Try again.
bachelor degree in Department of History, Istanbul University
It doesn't look like Istanbul University has a great history program and why is it everyone says they always have a degree in what they're talking about on the Internet? I've never understood this. You'd be the first to be honest about their academic studies in this situation.
Cairo, capital to one of the poorest nations in the Mideast / N. Africa. Pic Pic Having one nice district in a city paints a much different picture from the actual situation, huh, even in Cairo. Even parts of Istanbul, the greatest city of Turkey, look worse than even the poorest cities in the USA, like Cleveland.
A guy probably never stepped out of his country comparing turkish economy to ıraqi economy, and then pitying turkey while making bullshit statements depends on a logic that a descendant nation should better than its former vassals without considering 18th centuries Ottoman corrupt taxing and wrong colonizing, after this, adding more funny stuff by giving examples about 30 years of Iraq and how they managed to kept things considerably well without the knowledge of the difficulties Turkey had, like 2 times military revolution and some bankrupts, 1 war, terrorism, debts of world war 1... Plus, Ottomans left nothing but a shithole country, invaded by several armies. It was not the Ottoman ruled by Suleyman the Magnificent. A person with decent history knowledge knows the fact even Egypt was far away better than Ottomans in every aspect before Balkan Wars. This is not how you compare countries and this is not how you pretend like you know shit about history. I can see you have a habitude here bossing members and showing off but no homie, not on me. Take your arguments to any historian, take my answers, see how will they laugh at you. Im tired of correcting you with facts.
Its not genocide. Your country said and says it is not. Your archives says its not. British court deciced so. Armenians tried to fake some documents and whole world knows that. Its a warcrime, its murder, its a shame, but its not genocide. I gave you some links, instead of denying, read. If that was a genocide, world would react 100x by now.
Yeah, you started this comparasion now you are saying there are other aspects with your examples. In a short way of speak, Turkey is more westernised than both Israel and Irak, first of all, Turkey is secular. Your mid east arabs and arabkillers are not.
Oh, its even getting better. Israel is better than Turkey? Hmm. Yeah i like their airforce. But still no match for Turkey. Well, i dont like my country, but i wont let you compare it with countries from mid east. Go to israel, try living there, see with your own eyes. Then come to Istanbul.
I said, its normal to hate us on many cases because we ruled them. You get this? Dude you cant even read. You, simply cant even read the answers you get. Try not to bother me anymore, you cant even back your argument, you say world bank datas, here we see the truth. Accept it or not. Turkey is not as good as leading Eu economies but one of the strongest and growing. Should i paste here Camerons compliments about Turkey? Go to your trusted universities, i believe you are a graduated student from one of the greatest in your country, ask about Turkish economy, Israeli and Iraqi. You are just playing with the facts, bending them as you wish.
As long as you dont push those to my nose, i still respect what you think American. My only critic would be maximum of saying wash your own hands, no more, case closed for me, remember what i said about my opinion over Isis and America, in the answer i gave you.
On September 17 2014 19:49 Silvanel wrote: I am begining to suspect that {CC}StealthBlue is some news site bot for some weird reason targeting TL with its news.It cant be a real person.
Credit where credit is due: He has an amazing ability to find relevant information from very different sources. Especially on this conflict he has some very obscure and diverse, but still pretty trustworthy sources. Particularly the last part is the thing lacking if you pick random sources.
Well hopefully the salty ones will find their path in this thread in peace, if or if not they have something to add to it. I've bruised enough egos and corrected enough falsities and nonsense in this thread. At this point, it's becoming repetitive absurdity.
Anyways, back to my usual business in support of StealthBlue.
The Iraqi Prime Minister is refusing any calls for foreign combat ground forces in Iraq. He says that it is unnecessary, and it is not stated but, given other points he brings up, is possibly fearful that such a move could enrage Iraqis and make the social/political situation more difficult. It's an important revelation following General Dempsey's call for a ground war.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's prime minister strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country to help fight the Islamic State group, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."
In his first interview with foreign media since taking office on Sept. 8, Haider al-Abadi told The Associated Press that the U.S. aerial campaign currently targeting the militants who have overrun much of northern and western Iraq has helped efforts to roll back the Sunni extremists. He also urged the international community to go after the group in neighboring Syria, saying the battle will prove endless unless the militants are wiped out there as well.
The U.S. is trying to line up an international coalition to defeat the Islamic State group, which has carved out a proto-state spanning the Syria-Iraq border. President Barack Obama has outlined a plan that includes a broader military campaign in Iraq, increased support and training for Syrian rebel groups, and expanded airstrikes against the militants in Syria.
Al-Abadi, a Shiite lawmaker who faces the enormous task of trying to hold Iraq together as a vast array of forces threaten to rip it apart, welcomed the emerging international effort, but stressed that he sees no need for other nations to send troops to help fight the Islamic State.
"Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."
...
He said that the Iraqi military will choose and approve targets, and that the U.S. will not take action without consulting with Baghdad first. Failure to do so, he warned, risks causing civilian casualties like in Pakistan and Yemen, where the U.S. has conducted drone strikes for years.
On September 17 2014 19:49 Silvanel wrote: I am begining to suspect that {CC}StealthBlue is some news site bot for some weird reason targeting TL with its news.It cant be a real person.
Credit where credit is due: He has an amazing ability to find relevant information from very different sources. Especially on this conflict he has some very obscure and diverse, but still pretty trustworthy sources. Particularly the last part is the thing lacking if you pick random sources.
Yeah, he finds stuff that's practically impossible to find. It makes no sense. By this point, I'm sure he knows Arabic (or he wouldn't find a good amount of the videos and other stuff he's found), but even that doesn't explain how he is able to find all the things he posts here.
Breaking: Very large offensive by ISIS in Kobane, very heavy fighting between ISIS and YPG units who are outnumbered and outgunned. Reports of Isis taking several villages west of tel abyad.
Islam needs its own revolution, its so sad to hear in every video isis members are telling we are gonna kill your people as you killed ours thing, unfortunately Quran is providing a justice depending on reprisal system, named KISAS http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas Please read if you are interested in why they are doing this and where they find the motivation for it.
How they believe this is clearing their killings, i dont know, how would you think that this is justice if you are not insane.
Religions.
Edit: In the beginning of the video i guess i heard some turkish words with a good turkish accent. Any turks can confirm that?
Yeah i hear it: "Yat yat yat kalın burda hareket etmeyin"
LIVE VIDEO: Kerry testifies on ISIS Secretary of State John Kerry will testify at the Senate Foreign Affairs holds hearing on United States strategy to defeat the Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant.
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
WASHINGTON -- At a recent closed-door congressional briefing on the administration's new strategy to combat the Islamic State, a top CIA official left little doubt among those in the room about the agency's attitude toward the project.
The official's muted approach to the briefing dovetails with what senior intelligence community officials tell The Huffington Post is deep behind-the-scenes skepticism, ranging from ambivalence to outright opposition, from within the CIA to the administration's proposal to task the Department of Defense with arming the so-called moderate Syrian rebels.
The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency.
One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.
The biggest red flag over Obama's strategy is that no one in the know seems to like it. DoD doesn't like it. Intelligence doesn't like it. It begs the question: who actually created it?
Who created it? The same DoD and intelligence guys who are now opposing it. But as we're well aware, Obama's strategy is not new.
The strategy has existed for the past 3 years. Obama's basically parroting it again but with the addition of ISIS in the strategy, but he's ignoring the changes in the civil war that have happened since 2011.
Well the origins of the Syrian civil war were essentially protests and what was basically an attempted military coup by the defected generals who formed the FSA.
At that early point, there weren't really Islamic terrorist factions involved in the civil war, who by contrast, now dominate the civil war. The irony is that the only distinguishable "moderate", non-Islamic force in the war today is the Syrian Arab Army. The article, among many many others, even states that we can't even tell who's "moderate" anymore among the insurgents.
Right, I get the part that there's nothing new here and that this is basically what people were proposing 3 years ago. However, there's are reasons why those same people no longer agree that it is the right strategy and now oppose it. So my question is why is Obama regurgitating something that no one believes will work, and who advised Obama that said regurgitation is a good idea?
EPT
and why is it everyone says they always have a degree in what they're talking about on the Internet? I've never understood this. You'd be the first to be honest about their academic studies in this situation.
