ISIS are pure evil.

wes

Gatling wrote: »

No they dont but consider in this current situation isis started something that's not going to end well for them at all

I am sure they would argue that this whole thing started a long time ago.

Still, the men were suspected ISIS guys, and its just a likely considering the sectarian make up of the Iraqi government, that they were just random Sunni's.

I have 0 sympathy for ISIS, but the Iraqi government aren't much better themselves, and they haven't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.

Gatling

wes wrote: »

I am sure they would argue that this whole thing started a long time ago.

Still, the men were suspected ISIS guys, and its just a likely considering the sectarian make up of the Iraqi government, that they were just random Sunni's.

I have 0 sympathy for ISIS, but the Iraqi government aren't much better themselves, and they haven't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.

The Iraqi government is a joke i remember malaki blaming the kurds when his army ran rather than fight against a force they heavily outnumbered and out gunned,


Oddly enough i havent seen or come across reports of isis spies been executed at all,

wes

Gatling wrote: »

Oddly enough i havent seen or come across reports of isis spies been executed at all,

Could be completely made up. A lot of stuff being made up in regards to ISIS etc right now.

Gatling

wes wrote: »

Could be completely made up. A lot of stuff being made up in regards to ISIS etc right now.

This is what im thinking id be expecting a lot of bragging if isis spies were executed after all that's happend so far ,

nokia69

Nodin wrote: »

And these things don't happen in non-muslim countries?

not on the same scale

slavery is still common in some muslim countries, and I don't mean low pay and poor working conditions, people are bought and sold as slaves

women in saudi arabia have almost no rights they can't even drive a car or leave the house without permission of a male relative

gay rights are a problem in plenty of countries but in iran gays are forced to get sex change opperations against their will, total madness

the root cause of all of this is islam

Gatling

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Heres a link to the incident.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=709_1411977901

now that hardly constitutes proof isis spies are been executed by the iraqi army .

could be Syria ,Iraq , Libya for all we know

Gatling

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

True I guess. Just pointing out its happening.

It's might be happening but we don't know the context behind the video .
its the same any where in involving these Islamic based conflicts from Nigeria to Iraq and beyond .
certainly didn't seem to gather any information from the victim

WakeUp

jmayo wrote: »

The Iranians have revolutionary gaurds there afaik.
Also in Karbala and Najaf.
Intersting if Iranians and Americans end up fighting side by side on the ground.

I think they are too. I remembering reading a few months ago that the quds force were there and had been operating for a while before it was reported. the Iranians have denied it but it makes sense that they would be there from an Iranian point of view. and this guys name popped up too the shadow Suleimani hes the leader of the quds forces he might be there aswell pulling the strings he was in Syria helping out Assad but its thought hes been or is in Iraq now. in the secret agent world of operatives/spec ops and stuff like that for all intents and purposes this guy is a boss. respected by friend and foe alike.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander

Diego Simeone wrote: »

This is crazy. Baghdad falling would spell the end for any chance of an organised Iraqi resistance outside of Kurdistan. I think such a situation would necessitate a foreign troop invasion, either from the West, the UN or even Iran.

This is primarily the fault of the US, UK and anyone else involved in the 2003 war. Whatever about overthrowing Saddam, subsequently breaking up the Iraqi army in the way they did was ****ing stupid. Same goes for their stupid antics in Syria.

do you think there is a chance that Baghdad might fall?.. if that happens I agree it would be crazy. if they enter Baghdad and chaos ensues its going to be messy. breaking up the Iraqi army command structure in the way that they did was probably the worst thing they could have done. and they did it. wonder do they regret doing that now. the middle east to me seems a bit upside down these days even by middle eastern standards. lots of things dont seem right.

Gatling

The iran has had troops in Iraq one way or another since the toppling of Sadam and his cronies.

Baghdad won't be allowed to fall believe you and me if it even came close to happening major military strikes will happen against isis as well as an increase of American advisor's aka special forces .

The main issue will be the lack of credible iraqi forces to fight back some 60% of all there troops are made up of shea sect .
Who are only going to fight for there own interests as well as the numerous militais

WakeUp

thing about Baghdad is if the jihadis get into the city or some of them do or if they activate sleeper cells which I would nearly put money on that they have all out sectarian war could break out. and the Iranians are specifically there to make sure Baghdad doesnt fall. if there is even a slight chance that the city will fall or the Iranians will be overrun more Iranian troops would pour in and that isnt a good thing I dont think they have troops massed along a large portion of their border for either that or a jihadi push into their territory. these jihadis are like lightening when they strike properly they know how to fight and they know a thing or too about strategy. if they are only a couple of km outside the city there is very little between them and getting in unless whatever forces are there opposing them are prepared to stand and fight. Ive read today that over a 1000 Iraqi troops were killed yesterday as the jihadis advanced to where they are now these phuckers are like ninja spartans or something when they roll they roll. they havent been stopped in many places time will tell if they can stopped from entering Baghdad.

Sierra Oscar

Gatling wrote: »

The iran has had troops in Iraq one way or another since the toppling of Sadam and his cronies.

Baghdad won't be allowed to fall believe you and me if it even came close to happening major military strikes will happen against isis as well as an increase of American advisor's aka special forces .

If there was a real threat of Baghdad falling, and thus the complete collapse of the Iraqi state, then I would expect to see Iran launch a ground invasion to occupy Baghdad and other predominately Shiite areas in the South West.

It will be very difficult for ISIS to take Baghdad though. The majority of the population is Shiite these days and the militias will fight to the death - and not flee like the Iraqi Army did. ISIS could occupy parts of the city, but don't expect the opposition forces to just melt away as they did in Mosul.

BuilderPlumber

jmayo wrote: »

My thinking exactly.

The Iranians have revolutionary gaurds there afaik.
Also in Karbala and Najaf.
Intersting if Iranians and Americans end up fighting side by side on the ground.

Iran and America are more friends than enemies if truth be known. The official line is there due to historical reasons (Iranian government cannot yet again appear to be aligned to America) and convenience reasons (Iran is Persian and wants to be seen as in solidarity with its neighbours on things like Israel: in reality, Iran hates Israel much less than its Arab neighbours do).

America has always found Iran's 1979- regime useful hence it never went to war with it in its, er, 35 year history. It has also been well able to contain extremists in its ranks (Ahmadinejad for example was completely sidelined because he posed a danger to the clerics and maybe even the military's existence in government).

America especially found Iran useful against the Taliban/al Qaeda and Saddam. Unofficially, there was a lot of Iranian help in these campaigns against these common enemies. ISIS once again will bring them together against another common enemy.

Basically every regime in the Middle East that retains power is there because America finds them useful in some way. Either they prevent extremists meeting up (if Iran did not exist, Afghanistan and Iraq would meet and Sunni extremism in both would unite) or that the current regime keeps organisations like ISIS in their place.

The trend has seen Arab nationalism at first raise its head. Nasser in Egypt started off this. Then Saddam, Assads, etc. Quickly, the so-called 'Islamic fundamentalism' came into being afterwards. At first, the US embraced it as a way to get rid of communism. But they also lent support to Arab nationalist regime and made better friends with Iraq, Syria and Egypt in the 1980s. Relations with Iran have been more complex but a lot more friendly than we are officially lead to believe, but many have argued for opening up even better relations even more and many see it as a comparatively more progressive and moderate 'Islamic' state that will go down that road if relations improve. The battleground of the near future could well be progressive v regressive Islam perhaps on the Shia v Sunni line respectively?

KungPao

Having seen interviews with the younger generation of Iranians, I'd be hopeful of Iran becoming more like, say, Turkey, than a rogue state like so many in the region.

Iranians seem like a decent lot.

Manic Moran

conorhal wrote: »

Except they're not, it's a PR excercise by the US who are bombing 'supported by' a list of nations that are providing a tiny ammount of logistical support, no UAE, Saudi or any other Arab nation has planes involved. Of course it's just a PR move by them too to placate the Americans. Saudi is a bit like Pakistan, and ally in the 'war on terror' that is actually it's worst offender, but they need to sell oil and the US need local bases so each side turns a blind eye. If you really wanted to end the war on terror you bomb the Saudi's first, they and the likes of Qatar are funding it.

Speaking of funding, heard on the radio last night that Ireland had cut a cheque to help out in the fight against ISIS. Anyone know what the dollar amount was?

As to UAE planes, apparently one of the UAE aircraft involved was flown by a woman, which is a little unusual in that neck of the woods.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/25/u-a-e-s-first-female-fighter-pilot-dropped-bombs-on-the-islamic-state/

Good to see the list of the statements by the various muslim clerics, but I do note I don't see anything in there particularly prohibiting the execution of prisoners. (Journalists and aid workers, fine, but how about captured Iraqi soldiers which videos have shown getting executed in job lots?)

jmayo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Iran and America are more friends than enemies if truth be known. The official line is there due to historical reasons (Iranian government cannot yet again appear to be aligned to America) and convenience reasons (Iran is Persian and wants to be seen as in solidarity with its neighbours on things like Israel: in reality, Iran hates Israel much less than its Arab neighbours do).

America has always found Iran's 1979- regime useful hence it never went to war with it in its, er, 35 year history. It has also been well able to contain extremists in its ranks (Ahmadinejad for example was completely sidelined because he posed a danger to the clerics and maybe even the military's existence in government).

America especially found Iran useful against the Taliban/al Qaeda and Saddam. Unofficially, there was a lot of Iranian help in these campaigns against these common enemies. ISIS once again will bring them together against another common enemy.

Basically every regime in the Middle East that retains power is there because America finds them useful in some way. Either they prevent extremists meeting up (if Iran did not exist, Afghanistan and Iraq would meet and Sunni extremism in both would unite) or that the current regime keeps organisations like ISIS in their place.

The trend has seen Arab nationalism at first raise its head. Nasser in Egypt started off this. Then Saddam, Assads, etc. Quickly, the so-called 'Islamic fundamentalism' came into being afterwards. At first, the US embraced it as a way to get rid of communism. But they also lent support to Arab nationalist regime and made better friends with Iraq, Syria and Egypt in the 1980s. Relations with Iran have been more complex but a lot more friendly than we are officially lead to believe, but many have argued for opening up even better relations even more and many see it as a comparatively more progressive and moderate 'Islamic' state that will go down that road if relations improve. The battleground of the near future could well be progressive v regressive Islam perhaps on the Shia v Sunni line respectively?

Remember Irangate (or was it Contragate) ?
The Iranians helped the Americans aginst the Taliban and supposedly were getting on well until Bush put his foot in it with his Axis of Evil speech.
And yes Iranians are Persians and not Arabs, a big difference.

No my point was that you could have American and Irianian soldiers fighting side by side against the common enemy ISIS.
That would be a first AFAIK.

International relations can be a funny old beast and circumstance can often mean two countries diametrically opposed and supposed enemies can end up on the same side.

People tend to forget, or in this day and age don't even bloody know in the first place, that USSR invaded Poland at same time as Germany and they carved the place up between them.

Brown Bomber

jmayo wrote: »

International relations can be a funny old beast and circumstance can often mean two countries diametrically opposed and supposed enemies can end up on the same side.

Why are/should the US and Iran be diametrically opposed?

Brown Bomber

wes wrote: »

I am sure they would argue that this whole thing started a long time ago.

Still, the men were suspected ISIS guys, and its just a likely considering the sectarian make up of the Iraqi government, that they were just random Sunni's.

I have 0 sympathy for ISIS, but the Iraqi government aren't much better themselves, and they haven't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.

This should eliminate any doubt.

Iraq crisis: Mosque massacre kills at least 68 Sunni worshippers ahead of talks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-mosque-massacre-kills-at-least-68-sunni-worshippers-ahead-of-talks-9687158.html


I think you are 100% right though. People want history to have begun yesterday and for ISIS to have been created in a vacuum because they are very, very Muslim. The Sunnis fighting with ISIS were the teenagers whose fathers were killed by the Wolf Brigade, a US-backed, Shia death-squad and the fathers of Depleted Uranium children due to the US bombardment of Fallujah with chemical weapons.



The US has been bombing Muslims for the best part of a quarter of a century now, and they just keeping making things worse.

Brown Bomber

nokia69 wrote: »

not on the same scale

slavery is still common in some muslim countries, and I don't mean low pay and poor working conditions, people are bought and sold as slaves

You might want to look a little closer to home.

Combating trafficking and exploitation

The Immigrant Council of Ireland is an independent human rights organisation and law centre which advocates for the rights of migrants, their families and loved ones. Since 2001 we have been at the forefront in developing responses to Ireland’s changing society and the emergence of issues such as human trafficking.

Over the years we have seen the impact of traffickers and pimps continues to grow. They now operate an evil trade which takes an estimated €250 million a year from Ireland.

Increasingly their targets are children. Almost half of all trafficking victims identified here in 2012 were children.
http://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/key-issues/combating-trafficking-and-exploitation-in-the-sex-industry

Brown Bomber

old_aussie wrote: »

Looks like the al-nusra front is going to rejoin/team up with isis, as al-nusra denounced US-led air strikes as "a war against islam".

We don't want a war against islam on our hands.
The countries fighting against the terrorists should just leave the entire situation, to be sorted out by the locals.

From the news report......

In an online statement, the al-Qaeda-linked group called on jihadists around the world to target Western and Arab countries involved.

But on Saturday al-Nusra spokesman Abu Firas al-Suri threatened the coalition nations.

"These states have committed a horrible act that is going to put them on the list of jihadist targets throughout the world," he said.

"This is not a war against al-Nusra, but a war against Islam."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29398882

Why is it so hard for you to understand that ISIS are a cult and are an abomination to Islam? They are no more representative of Muslims the the Lord's Resistance Army are of Blacks, Africans and Christians.

Brown Bomber

jmayo wrote: »

Remember Irangate (or was it Contragate) ?

Do you mean Iran-Contra? That the US was illegally selling arms ( and trafficking drugs) to Iran via Israel, and with the help of Saudi bagmen, to fund their right-wing death squads in Honduras.

Much the same way the US has trained the ISIS and Nusra fighters through their corrupt friends to fight against Assad.

The scandal was broke by Robert Parry and this guy who when speaking in 1998 had a better understanding of the current situation than Obama now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2u9wh_HWfI

Gatling

Manic Moran wrote: »

Speaking of funding, heard on the radio last night that Ireland had cut a cheque to help out in the fight against ISIS. Anyone know what the dollar amount was?

As to UAE planes, apparently one of the UAE aircraft involved was flown by a woman, which is a little unusual in that neck of the woods.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/25/u-a-e-s-first-female-fighter-pilot-dropped-bombs-on-the-islamic-state/

Sad thing two media personalitys ripped in to her .

nokia69

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it so hard for you to understand that ISIS are a cult and are an abomination to Islam? They are no more representative of Muslims the the Lord's Resistance Army are of Blacks, Africans and Christians.

ISIS have the support of millions of muslims in the middle east and plenty of muslims in the west

I have yet to meet or hear of any christians that support the lords resistance army

Roger Hassenforder

nokia69 wrote: »

ISIS have the support of millions of muslims in the middle east and plenty of muslims in the west

I have yet to meet or hear of any christians that support the lords resistance army

i don't think anyone is really sure what those particular nut jobs are about...
Although they seem big on the 10 commandments among other nonsense.

BuilderPlumber

jmayo wrote: »

Remember Irangate (or was it Contragate) ?
The Iranians helped the Americans aginst the Taliban and supposedly were getting on well until Bush put his foot in it with his Axis of Evil speech.
And yes Iranians are Persians and not Arabs, a big difference.

No my point was that you could have American and Irianian soldiers fighting side by side against the common enemy ISIS.
That would be a first AFAIK.

International relations can be a funny old beast and circumstance can often mean two countries diametrically opposed and supposed enemies can end up on the same side.

People tend to forget, or in this day and age don't even bloody know in the first place, that USSR invaded Poland at same time as Germany and they carved the place up between them.

Bush I think threw in Iran and the late Kim Jong Il into his axis of 'evil' list for convenience. It irked many in Iran who hoped for more normal relations. Bush just listed these 2 as an excuse to say he was not specifically going after just Saddam which of course was his only mission.

I think too that the 1990s-2005 reformist era in Iran was counter to US aspirations in the Middle East. The US never did anything to threaten the Islamic Republic status quo (similarly no support was given to Mousavi's 2009 movement) and perhaps was scared of a democratic and progressive Iran.

Ahmadinejad was the kind of staged clown the West loved. His act was too Saddam-ish to be real and it was all some sort of an act to be divisive in Iran and weaken things. I would not be surprised at all if he was Mossad or CIA.

The current president is a reformist era person and offers genuine hope of reform but it is really up to the West. Hardliners and set up 'hardliners' who work AGAINST Iran's interests fed off the likes of Bush. Khatami's admin could have transformed things 100% if America embraced it more. Now, Rouhani has the same potential if again he gets support from the West.

BuilderPlumber

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

i don't think anyone is really sure what those particular nut jobs are about...
Although they seem big on the 10 commandments among other nonsense.

The LRA are big on disobeying the 10 commandments especially the Thou shalt not kill and steal ones! The 10 commandments are the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: yet people kill and steal in the name of all three.

nokia69

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Bush I think threw in Iran and the late Kim Jong Il into his axis of 'evil' list for convenience. It irked many in Iran who hoped for more normal relations. Bush just listed these 2 as an excuse to say he was not specifically going after just Saddam which of course was his only mission.

I think too that the 1990s-2005 reformist era in Iran was counter to US aspirations in the Middle East. The US never did anything to threaten the Islamic Republic status quo (similarly no support was given to Mousavi's 2009 movement) and perhaps was scared of a democratic and progressive Iran.

Ahmadinejad was the kind of staged clown the West loved. His act was too Saddam-ish to be real and it was all some sort of an act to be divisive in Iran and weaken things. I would not be surprised at all if he was Mossad or CIA.

The current president is a reformist era person and offers genuine hope of reform but it is really up to the West. Hardliners and set up 'hardliners' who work AGAINST Iran's interests fed off the likes of Bush. Khatami's admin could have transformed things 100% if America embraced it more. Now, Rouhani has the same potential if again he gets support from the West.

there was no reformist era in iran from the 90s to 2005, the system is still the same

I don't think you understand how politics work in Iran, ahmadinejad, rouhani ect don't have the power to change the system, the real power is still held by the clerics

I don't think there will be real reform while the clerics hold so much power

BuilderPlumber

nokia69 wrote: »

there was no reformist era in iran from the 90s to 2005, the system is still the same

I don't think you understand how politics work in Iran, ahmadinejad, rouhani ect don't have the power to change the system, the real power is still held by the clerics

I don't think there will be real reform while the clerics hold so much power

I know this of course. Only the 1990s offered a hope when a velvet revolution could develop and engulf the unelected elite culminating in a popular uprising akin to how Milosevic and his cronies were ejected off the throne of Serbia in 2000. But 9/11 and Bush's policies gave the regime's unelected paranoid elite excuses to shut down a rising movement.

2009 was a dangerous year for the regime in Iran. But yes the system has remained the same: a military junta fronted by a gang of conservative, manic depressive, culchie, out of touch/out of their depth/dithering but mega rich and corrupt old priests with an average age of near 80. Both the sadistic Revolutionary Guards and the greedy clergy need each other but neither can use violence and voodoo to hang onto power forever. Putting Khomeini on the throne as Shah and using him as symbol to unite and then killing opponents and assassinating regime insiders who blocked the progression of certain elites worked in the 1980s and the use of Khomeini as a cult, shaman, witchdoctor was able to be used the Rev Guards when Saddam invaded with all these children walking on mines and given 'keys to heaven'. All that worked in the 1980s when Iran's people were gullible and easily fooled by a cruel military junta akin to the Khmer Rouge fronted by corrupt priests and Khomeini as a symbolic priest and ex revolutionary from the 1960s. But not now. That Rouhani was allowed be president and not Jalili tells us the regime inclusive of top dogs Jafari, Suleimani and Khamenei has to give small concessions to survive. I predict Iran will be closely following China: improve the economy, loosen alcohol laws to allow alcohol consumption but not tolerate violent drunkenness, abolish dress codes and er follow Islam's true teachings. They can put the past laws down to 'emergency wartime legislation no longer relevant' along the lines of how China's newer leaders distanced themselves from the excesses of early communist rule in China.

The Islamic Republic of Iran can only survive if it adapts. It already has survived for this reason. It is not the dark and depressed place it was in 1981 now for example and freedoms no matter how small have been won over 30 years. If Jalili had been rigged to win, Iran would be in a state of civil war and the junta knew enough to avoid this even if their favourite puppet and ex military hero was beaten by their least favoured candidate.

Clerical rule will not end in the near future I predict but the nature of it will. Ironically, Ahmadinejad wanted to ditch it entirely and perhaps certain clerics (certainly Rafsanjani, maybe even Khamenei) pragmatically favoured fellow cleric Rouhani over a non cleric Jalili (even if Rouhani was a moderate) in fear that the military could take over 100% without needing a partnership to front for them. I don't think a total military dictatorship will emerge in Iran either. Ahmadinejad tried that and he and his designated successor, the almost Pahlavi-inspired Esfandiar Rahim Mashae was outed. a fear of the revolutionary guards is evident with many clerics and there is a huge division in reality in what is portrayed a as united front.

Roger Hassenforder

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The LRA are big on disobeying the 10 commandments especially the Thou shalt not kill and steal ones! The 10 commandments are the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: yet people kill and steal in the name of all three.

People dont seem to understand how religon works.
Its all about who you kill, steal or rob from!

Egginacup

wes wrote: »

I am sure they would argue that this whole thing started a long time ago.

Still, the men were suspected ISIS guys, and its just a likely considering the sectarian make up of the Iraqi government, that they were just random Sunni's.

I have 0 sympathy for ISIS, but the Iraqi government aren't much better themselves, and they haven't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.

I saw on TV the other night a news reporter talk to an Iraqi MP. When the Iraqi MP began to speak I noticed he was none other than Ahmed Chalabi. I almost vomited. This is the piece of sh!t that the US tried to install as their stooge scumbag following the toppling of Saddam in 2003. Chalabi is a convicted embezzler and is wanted in Jordan and Syria on charges of mass fraud. The guy makes Jordan Belfort look like Gandhi. Seems the US managed to shoe-horn their rat into government after all and he's busy now cutting deals with all kinds of US corporations and getting a fat kickback for each one.

MadYaker

So the Brits and the Americans are bombing Iraq and Syria. Again. They say it's to destroy ISIS but pretty much everyone accepts that airstrikes aren't going to do it. It's been proven time and time again that invasions by western christian nations into muslim nations "to destroy terrorism" doesn't do anything of the sort. These military campaigns just lead to more radicalisation of muslims. Since "the war on terror" started after 9/11 there has been a marked increase in radicalised muslim terrorist groups. It has spread from Pakistan and Afghanistan to all over the Middle East and Africa. Id imagine it becomes a lot easier for groups like ISIS to recruit young men to their cause once the American and British bombs start dropping, civilian casualties are an absolute certainty. There is no way ISIS could have spread the way they have without support of the local populations.

Obama and Cameron are not stupid men, and neither were there predecessors. So if they know that their "solution" simply makes the problem worse then why do they do it? I don't believe anymore that their true goal is to defeat terrorism, how could it be? So what is it then?

ISIS formed from groups that were armed and supported by the Americans when they fought against Al Assad's regime in Syria. Now all of a sudden these people are the enemy and the Americans are arming the Kurds, a large ethnic group spread over many nations in the middle east, including Turkey, a sort of ally of the US, where they have been making noise about independence for the Kurdish people for the last few years. In 10 years time will we see a similar situation where the Kurds start to cause trouble trying to set up their own state using all the money and arms they got from the US and it all starts again?

The leaders like Cameron and Obama talk about learning from the mistakes of the past but there is no evidence of that at all.