Topic: U.S. Aircraft Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq - page 2. (Read 3804 times)

the number 1 sponsor of the Saudi regime is the USA...
the Saudi regime is seen as a puppet of the US by everyone in the middle east (its not like it was ever a secret)

but does that mean that the US is behind IS?
IS are a threat to everyone not just the US and Isreal.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah see IS (ISIS) as a threat.. lets not get too carried away with the idea of state sponsored terrorism.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/08/07/Lebanon-Saudi-Arabia-ISIS-and-Hezbollah.html

It still doesn't excuse the formation of ISIS. They're too radical regardless of how Sunnis feel excluded.

No, lack of inclusiveness is the problem in this case. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Maliki refusing to step down even though he has virtually no support.

Give me some proof for this statement. There is enough evidence to prove that the Saudi sheikhs are supporting IS in Syria. In fact, Saudi is the no.2 sponsor, after Qatar. And Wahabbism is the driving ideology behind IS.

I understand your point but I'm trying to say it's quire simplistic thinking, if you didn't know Iran which is mostly Shiite has called or at least their religious leader called for the destruction of Israel. but that not the point

-Shia is just one current in Islam as there are many, is as if you are saying Orthodoxs, Protestant, Evangelist, Jehovah Witness..... ect should have their perspective countries, it doesn't make sense at all
-Sunnite are not a minority in Iraq, and what you are saying can only work when you have a minority of population hence it is working Iran or Israel, but in Iraq, you need to share power and have everyone threated equally if you want to solve the problems
-Isis are using the devision within Iraq to their advantage, Kurd, Sunnit, Shiite ... ect if there was no division this woudn't be an issue, if you want to solve the issue you need to solve the devision


This is once again is a wrong argument, Sects controlled countries are usually racists, and Israel is a good example of that, where non jewish people are considered second class citizens, on the other hand when things are done properly at least from this aspect, you don't find this kind of issues, and we can take countries like Tunisia or Morocco or Turkey as examples here. In Iraq Sunnites like i said before are not a minority, no matter who's the leader and what his personal convictions he needs to treat everyone equally

No, I don't want Sectarian fighting, but I do want different Sects to control different countries. This keeps the Middle East in balance. My nightmare would be the Syrian and Iraqi Governments being toppled and being replaced with a Sunni ultra-religious State. This would drag Israel into war with it and would cause even more chaos in the Middle East.

So you want to perpetuate endless sectarian fighting so that Israel is never targeted? Or how exactly would that work to protect israel and the US?

The religious argument goes in here. I want to keep a balance of Shia and Sunni control so that Sunni insurgents do not overthrow Shia States and then turn to attacking Israel and the U.S.

Right, so if you see it as a problem for the whole region, then why wouldn't it be a problem when it comes to a country by country basis?
Shia states have been just as antagonistic towards Israel, not sure how promoting them is supposed to automatically keep Israel safer.

WTF???




So Shia existance made it that the Islamic extremist are not united against Jews and Christians ? lol?


I don't from where you are getting such informations from, and I'm sorry to say so you are just speaking non sense in your post here. If Sunnis wanted to destroy Shiites they would have done so centuries ago.........

As for your edit, Yes there are a minority of Sunnis that thinks Shiites are not real muslim and the other way around is true as well, and it is the same for every religion, Christianism : Catholic Vs Protestant (among others of course as there are dozens of currents in Christianity), Jews : Karaite Judaism vs Orthodox Judaism ...ect)

you have an interesting view of the world.. Isreal is actually run by a minority group (oh right Palestinians don't count as people of Isreal even though they live under Isreali military law and live on the same land),  so is Syria, Jordan, and arguably Lebanon, Iraq, Eqypt....

I am saying in the Greater Middle East. Not necessarily per country, but have most countries as a whole represented by majorities and a few countries represented by minorities.

For example 3 Shia-led States, a Jewish State, and a bunch of Sunni States. And then India on the Eastern End.

Not have a bunch of Sunni States with India and an endangered Israel. Israel, the U.S., and Iran can work together against ISIS. I think negotiations can work here.

Assad and Maliki's governments or the gulf states for that matter aren't built on the notion of equal representation. they are built on the notion of dictatorial control.
This is exactly how Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc operate. I guess I am seeing some disconnect between your stated ideology and your policy suggestions.

I agree.. the middle east has been divided along sectarian lines for decades and it has not provided any stability in the region.
people who adopt extremist views and travel to the middle east to fight do so because they are unwilling or unable to integrate into the societies in which they currently live.
dividing up communities and making them exclusive rather than inclusive only makes the issue worse.

furthermore it is extremely difficult to de-radicalize someone once they have become radicalized so the best approach is to break down the cultural/sectarian barriers and prevent them from being marginalized and then radicalized in the first place.

this is why foreign policies that support tyrannical regimes and allow them to carry out brutal acts of indiscriminate violence have been so ineffective at combating terrorism.
and so has direct military intervention.

if you want to prevent terrorism you need to cut it off at the source. i.e. target those people who are using religion as a smoke screen to further their own political ambitions. but you need to target them in a way that discredits them rather than reinforcing their extreme views or turning them into martyrs.

almost every liberal and pluralist country has radical preachers but most people laugh at them because they can see with their own eyes and well educated brains that they are preaching nonsense. in countries and places where people are less well off, less well educated and disenfranchised those kinds of preachers are taken very seriously.

this has more to do with understanding psychology than it does understanding religion.

I don't see the ISIS as being a threat to India. It doesn't have the capabilities of extending itself that far. Likewise, it is too focused internally to be a huge threat to us in the States at the moment (which was always another criticism of Al Qaeda's), Iran's funding of Hamas weaponry has had a much larger impact to date on Israel than anything that AQI has ever been able to muster (though their threat there is growing in Syria), and Saudi Arabia would 100% disagree with you as Iran is there primarily military threat (though they are worried about radicalism now too).

I don't know what logic is this, this is not a numbers question and your point is not related in any to the problem and will not solve population diversity issues, tribal aspects of iraq and internal conflicts, The big problem Al Maliki is not the fact that he is Shiite, it's because of his discrimination towards Sunnis to the point of isolation and favoritism towards Shiits any leader no matter which current he follows if he doesn't involve all parties in his government, and he does not treat all the population indifferently, Iraq will remain a rumble of dust after it was one of the most scientifically advanced country in the region with strong economy and cultural diversity. (euh proper democracy?)

Where is Saddam when we need him? Oh... wait... they sold "Democracy" there.
How long until US realizes that "Democracy" has huge requirements to be a good thing? Sell "Democracy" to people filled up with monkeys in the head and fearing imaginary friends, is like trying to install Windows 8.1 in a ZX Spectrum 48K! The population doesn't met any of the minimum requirements for it to work.
The best weapons are schools, science and culture, before that is in place no democracy can work anywhere.

Which is fairly surprising to me given your security concerns and given the fact that Iran and Syria have probably been the two largest net exporters of terrorism against the Israeli state (think Hamas and Hezbollah).

That is all. Remember, I have been studying religion too. So I know how Jihadis think. I think more on the religious realm rather than the political realm. And we are in trouble if we let the majority not let the minority have rights. And that includes Israel not letting a Palestinian state be created, and that also includes the Arab world not recognizing Israel as a Jewish State. Both Jews and Palestinians are minority groups that need to be recognized in the Greater Middle East.

Edit: While I am secular, I feel that religion plays a lot of factors in the Greater Middle East.

This edit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You seem to be assigning Islamic terrorists MUCH more power than they have ever had. I also don't see how your concerns for safety are furthered by the stance of yours on Iraq that you proposed. Ignoring the Sunni population in Iraq is what created the viable space for the ISIS to grow and survive in the first place, I'm not sure why you would see the continuation of that failed approach in combating radicalism as a good option moving forward.