Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, captured by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - page 3.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: Welcome to the machine on June 10, 2014, 07:27:08 PM

Not surprised by this, after all the entire country is comprised of cowards.

They Won't fight, they drop their weapons and shed their uniforms when confronted but yet they are brave enough to stone women to death.

Cowards.

And yet they won the war. Huh

The scariest fighters I have come across hide and bide their time. They only fight when it's in their interest and the odds are good. That is how you fight asymmetrically. They simply know more about this than you do.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 12, 2014, 08:42:06 AM

Quote from: niothor on June 12, 2014, 08:04:06 AM

The Ennahda movement is probably the best thing that could happen to tunisia.
Also Hamadi is not in power anymore and he was not part of the islamic brotherhood , he was a moderate islamic.

Ennahda is the Tunisian version of Islamic Brotherhood, which is funded by Saudi Arabia. They call themselves moderate Islamists, but in truth they are even more hard-line than the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood.

Of course...
That's why this happened:

http://www.spc.rs/eng/patriarch_theodoros_ii_alexandria_visits_president_tunis

Really , you have no clue about what's going there , admit it

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/tunisia-constitution-democracy-2014516161024354720.html

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: niothor on June 12, 2014, 08:04:06 AM

The Ennahda movement is probably the best thing that could happen to tunisia.
Also Hamadi is not in power anymore and he was not part of the islamic brotherhood , he was a moderate islamic.

Ennahda is the Tunisian version of Islamic Brotherhood, which is funded by Saudi Arabia. They call themselves moderate Islamists, but in truth they are even more hard-line than the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 12, 2014, 05:11:43 AM

Quote from: 5flags on June 12, 2014, 03:42:29 AM

The US has been encouraging Islamic extremism in the Middle East for years. Every time the US decides to smash secular nationalism, you can guarantee that something more sinister will take its place. It's like a 5 year old is in charge of US foreign policy.

For the first time, I'll agree with you.

Iraq: Pan-Arabic nationalist Ba'ath party (under Saddam Hussain) replaced by the Islamic Da'awa Party. Power shifted from Sunni Arab to Shiite Arab.
Syria: Pan-Arabic nationalist Ba'ath party (under Bashar al Assad) is about to be replaced by the FSA, which includes Islamist factions such as the ISIL/ISIS.
Egypt: Secular ruler Hosni Mubarak replaced with Mohammed Morsi of the Islamic Brotherhood.
Tunisia: Secular government by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali replaced by Hamadi Jebali of the Islamic Brotherhood.

The only exception has been Libya.

The Ennahda movement is probably the best thing that could happen to tunisia.
Also Hamadi is not in power anymore and he was not part of the islamic brotherhood , he was a moderate islamic.

http://www.thedailystar.net/tunisias-successes-and-egypts-regressions-27936

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: 5flags on June 12, 2014, 03:42:29 AM

The US has been encouraging Islamic extremism in the Middle East for years. Every time the US decides to smash secular nationalism, you can guarantee that something more sinister will take its place. It's like a 5 year old is in charge of US foreign policy.

For the first time, I'll agree with you.

Iraq: Pan-Arabic nationalist Ba'ath party (under Saddam Hussain) replaced by the Islamic Da'awa Party. Power shifted from Sunni Arab to Shiite Arab.
Syria: Pan-Arabic nationalist Ba'ath party (under Bashar al Assad) is about to be replaced by the FSA, which includes Islamist factions such as the ISIL/ISIS.
Egypt: Secular ruler Hosni Mubarak replaced with Mohammed Morsi of the Islamic Brotherhood.
Tunisia: Secular government by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali replaced by Hamadi Jebali of the Islamic Brotherhood.

The only exception has been Libya.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

The US has been encouraging Islamic extremism in the Middle East for years. Every time the US decides to smash secular nationalism, you can guarantee that something more sinister will take its place. It's like a 5 year old is in charge of US foreign policy.

jaberwock

legendary

Activity: 2660

Merit: 1074

The only country that can save Iraq from falling from Al Qaeda is Iran.

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 11, 2014, 02:03:25 AM

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on June 11, 2014, 01:41:47 AM

Iraq needed a federal republic after the occupation. Each region with real representation in the legislature would go a long way toward their various groups feeling enfranchised. Of course not breaking it in the first place would have been good as well.

Well, at least initially that was the plan. But there is a very serious problem. Most of the oil wells are located in the Sunni and Kurd areas, and not in the Shiite inhabited regions. Shiites constitutes somewhere around 60% of the Iraqi population, and they want the oil wealth to go to the central government. And obviously the Sunnis and Kurds are opposed to this.

All stuff we should have thought if before going in. Assuming of course we would still have gone in if we had simply thought it through in that much detail.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Ron~Popeil on June 11, 2014, 01:41:47 AM

Iraq needed a federal republic after the occupation. Each region with real representation in the legislature would go a long way toward their various groups feeling enfranchised. Of course not breaking it in the first place would have been good as well.

Well, at least initially that was the plan. But there is a very serious problem. Most of the oil wells are located in the Sunni and Kurd areas, and not in the Shiite inhabited regions. Shiites constitutes somewhere around 60% of the Iraqi population, and they want the oil wealth to go to the central government. And obviously the Sunnis and Kurds are opposed to this.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

There is a larger theme playing out here.

The Sykes-Picot agreement is burning. May it rot in hell.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 11, 2014, 01:51:58 AM

I bet if we dropped you off in the middle of Iraq we could find you again by following the trails of piss and shit you leave behind you...

Lol, careful, "Welcome to the machine" is a pretty formidable warrior. At least when tapping on his keyboard from the comfort of his parent's basement. He plays Call of Duty several times per day. Watch yourself.

galbros

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

This is bad no doubt. However, I think it also has a lot to do with the civil war in Syria as well. Especially since I thought the north was supposed to be a lot more stable.

I'm not sure Iraq not signing a status of forces agreement would have made that much difference - US forces might have been too small to stop the offensive or not committed quickly enough as this seems to have been something of a surprise.

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

last week's episode of through the wormhole implied that people from africa and the middle east had too much diversity, so it made something about their genes more sectarian. through the research, they found that the societies with the a good balance of diversity, but not too much, would be the ones that have the most success as societies.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Welcome to the machine on June 10, 2014, 07:27:08 PM

Not surprised by this, after all the entire country is comprised of cowards.

They Won't fight, they drop their weapons and shed their uniforms when confronted but yet they are brave enough to stone women to death.

Cowards.

I bet if we dropped you off in the middle of Iraq we could find you again by following the trails of piss and shit you leave behind you...

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 11, 2014, 01:38:38 AM

No one can unite the people of Iraq. They are divided along the sectarian lines.

There is no Iraqi nation, no Iraqi people. There is no reason on Earth for there to be a country called "Iraq".

Ron~Popeil

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 10, 2014, 08:58:40 PM

Iraq is a deeply polarized society, with Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and other minorities deeply distrustful of each other. Despite this, Saddam Hussain was able to unite them, although by applying force. He suppressed the radical Islamists as well, making the lives of minorities (Christians, Yazidis, Mandeans.etc) easier. Once the Americans overthrew him, the Islamist radicals immediately rose to power and caused problem for the minorities. 80% of the minority population has vanished from Iraq during the last decade.

Iraq needed a federal republic after the occupation. Each region with real representation in the legislature would go a long way toward their various groups feeling enfranchised. Of course not breaking it in the first place would have been good as well.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: 5flags on June 11, 2014, 01:34:11 AM

Yes, you're absolutely right. Saddam oppressed the people of Iraq, he didn't unite them. This is just the latest in the ramifications of the Blair-Bush war of aggression that they got away with.

No one can unite the people of Iraq. They are divided along the sectarian lines. But during Saddam's rule, people were afraid to talk about the sects. Saddam gave his emphasis for pan-Arab nationalism. He despised the divides between the Shia and Sunni. He did whatever he could, to eliminate the sects.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

This is yet further proof that the lines drawn on maps by the imperial powers after WWI are fading. They don't mean anything. People are clinging to the European-style nation state as the only way of organising geography.

Those lines are artificial. They don't mean anything. They appear on the maps, but there is no state there. There is no country called "Iraq" that has the same shape that it does on a map.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: RiverBoatBTC on June 10, 2014, 09:11:17 PM

Really, I mean really? Are you going to say that he just suppressed the islamist? How about it was do what I say or I kill you regardless of race, color, creed, or religion?
I mean it is easy to suppress uprising and violence when you just suppress everyone......

Yes, you're absolutely right. Saddam oppressed the people of Iraq, he didn't unite them. This is just the latest in the ramifications of the Blair-Bush war of aggression that they got away with.

RiverBoatBTC

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Really, I mean really? Are you going to say that he just suppressed the islamist? How about it was do what I say or I kill you regardless of race, color, creed, or religion?
I mean it is easy to suppress uprising and violence when you just suppress everyone......

Topic: Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, captured by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - page 3. (Read 3712 times)