Pages:
Author

Topic: U.S. Aircraft Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq - page 3. (Read 3804 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 09:04:21 AM
#73
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.
I don't think the argument here is that Iraq shouldn't have a majority shia representation. Side note: Azerbaijan is also predominately shia. They just aren't very close to Iran (politically) and side more with the US and Israel.Islamic extremists have never been united.
That is how some Islamic extremists think. I have been to Kuwait, Qatar, and Israel and I have spoken to Muslims while studying Political Science in college. I also speak fluent Russian (being originally from Ukraine) and can tell you what Chechen militants are saying.

From all this is how I conclude my thoughts when I write them down. This is from Political Science study and first hand experience, and not from reading news articles.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that is just how I feel.
No harshness received or intended on my part either. I was just asking you why you felt that way and pointing out some of the difficulties with being so generic. I have a degree in Political Science as well (not really sure why that matters), and am a prime target for many Jihadis too.

That being said, there are real problems with ignoring the intricacies of realities on the ground as it relates to Iraq. It has cost us in the past during our initial invasion and it will again if we don't pay attention to them now.
You were not being harsh. I just went overboard not caring about the influence of the Gulf States in places like Iraq and Syria. For that I apologize.

I am just saying that I support negotiating with Iran and Syria. Although I am conservative, on the issue of Iran and Syria I am pretty liberal. I feel that ISIS is a greater threat to America, Saudi Arabia, India, and Israel than Assad and Iran can ever be. I don't think Iran is suicidal in building nukes and Assad is giving up his chemical weapons. We should work together to keep equal representation in the Middle East. A Jewish State, a Palestinian State, a Kurdish State, and Sunni and Shia States. I am sick and tired of how some of us here in the States support Al Nusra and Jihadis who behead people in Syria at the expense of Assad, who is more moderate in comparison. I would not have said that in the past, and I am actually shocked that I am saying it now. But we need balance. A balance in the Middle East is needed and not support for the rebels in Syria. I personally think this is in the best interest of both the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India. That is just my opinion. I don't want crazy religious prophecies to come true.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:54:46 AM
#72
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.
I don't think the argument here is that Iraq shouldn't have a majority shia representation. Side note: Azerbaijan is also predominately shia. They just aren't very close to Iran (politically) and side more with the US and Israel.Islamic extremists have never been united.
That is how some Islamic extremists think. I have been to Kuwait, Qatar, and Israel and I have spoken to Muslims while studying Political Science in college. I also speak fluent Russian (being originally from Ukraine) and can tell you what Chechen militants are saying.

From all this is how I conclude my thoughts when I write them down. This is from Political Science study and first hand experience, and not from reading news articles.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that is just how I feel.
No harshness received or intended on my part either. I was just asking you why you felt that way and pointing out some of the difficulties with being so generic. I have a degree in Political Science as well (not really sure why that matters), and am a prime target for many Jihadis too.

That being said, there are real problems with ignoring the intricacies of realities on the ground as it relates to Iraq. It has cost us in the past during our initial invasion and it will again if we don't pay attention to them now.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:49:57 AM
#71
To add, if it keeps a billion Hindus, two billion Christians, and 15 million Jews safe from terrorism and beheadings I would rather have the Middle East divided along Sunni-Shia religious lines. I don't want Shias to be oppressed to the point where they are no longer politically relevant and Sunni insurgent groups decide to focus their entire attention on Christians, Hindus, and Jews.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:41:48 AM
#70
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.
I don't think the argument here is that Iraq shouldn't have a majority shia representation. Side note: Azerbaijan is also predominately shia. They just aren't very close to Iran (politically) and side more with the US and Israel.Islamic extremists have never been united.
That is how some Islamic extremists think. I have been to Kuwait, Qatar, and Israel and I have spoken to Muslims while studying Political Science in college. I also speak fluent Russian (being originally from Ukraine) and can tell you what Chechen militants are saying.

From all this is how I conclude my thoughts when I write them down. This is from Political Science study and first hand experience, and not from reading news articles.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that is just how I feel.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:33:11 AM
#69
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.
I don't think the argument here is that Iraq shouldn't have a majority shia representation. Side note: Azerbaijan is also predominately shia. They just aren't very close to Iran (politically) and side more with the US and Israel.Islamic extremists have never been united.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:27:07 AM
#68
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.
They are supporting their own protection (in their eyes). They actively fought AQI during the Awakening and were rewarded with a discriminatory state government. Many don't even like the ISIS but figure that they'll deal with Baghdadi after Maliki has been taken care of, others are coerced via threats to cooperate.
I think it is best to keep a Shia Prime Minister in Iraq. That way, Iraq, Iran, and Syria will have Shia leaders. And the rest of the Muslim world will have Sunni leaders. This will keep things balanced.
That's fine I suppose, but it doesn't really do anything to address the concerns of the Sunnis and Kurds. I'm not really sure what metrics you are basing this notion of balance on, but I don't think many Gulf States would agree with you.
I don't care what the Gulf States have to say. This is my personal opinion on a message board. And I said some Islamic extremists, not all.

I don't care what Gulf States have to say if they have a united Sunni Extremist Emirate that wants to target me (as a Jew) or someone else on this forum (as a Christian). All Sunni extremist insurgent groups I see as a threat to both Jews and Christians.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:22:58 AM
#67
That being said, not all Sunni tribes are complicit in ISIS activities. Particularly in Anbar, which is the entire reason why the ISIS had to approach Baghdad from the north through Mosul and Kurdish territory rather than straight from the West.

It doesn't help things that the Maliki government's response has been to shell Sunni areas pretty indiscriminately. It rather reinforces the ISIS' propaganda.

AQ/Jabhat Al Nusra disowned IS nobody likes them https://mobile.twitter.com/JihadNews2/status/498544254005022720

Keeping up with IS twitter accounts is hard since they die so fast. Average shelf life of an IS jihadi is a few weeks until somebody claims they are dead. Baghdadi is claiming direct descendance from the prophet it's now officially a cult.
Sectarianism goes in both directions. Shia militias in Iraq has been known to kill people simply for being Sunnis as well and some of these death checkpoints in Baghdad have been seen to operate with at least the tacit approval of the Maliki Administration. We've also seen anti-Sunni death squads in Syria, particularly in the coastal region where plenty of mass graves will attest to legitimate Sunni concerns of safety.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:08:20 AM
#66
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.
They are supporting their own protection (in their eyes). They actively fought AQI during the Awakening and were rewarded with a discriminatory state government. Many don't even like the ISIS but figure that they'll deal with Baghdadi after Maliki has been taken care of, others are coerced via threats to cooperate.
I think it is best to keep a Shia Prime Minister in Iraq. That way, Iraq, Iran, and Syria will have Shia leaders. And the rest of the Muslim world will have Sunni leaders. This will keep things balanced.
That's fine I suppose, but it doesn't really do anything to address the concerns of the Sunnis and Kurds. I'm not really sure what metrics you are basing this notion of balance on, but I don't think many Gulf States would agree with you.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 08:01:52 AM
#65
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.
hero member
Activity: 899
Merit: 1002
August 12, 2014, 07:54:24 AM
#64
That being said, not all Sunni tribes are complicit in ISIS activities. Particularly in Anbar, which is the entire reason why the ISIS had to approach Baghdad from the north through Mosul and Kurdish territory rather than straight from the West.

It doesn't help things that the Maliki government's response has been to shell Sunni areas pretty indiscriminately. It rather reinforces the ISIS' propaganda.

AQ/Jabhat Al Nusra disowned IS nobody likes them https://mobile.twitter.com/JihadNews2/status/498544254005022720

Keeping up with IS twitter accounts is hard since they die so fast. Average shelf life of an IS jihadi is a few weeks until somebody reports they are dead. 2 of the 3 UK guys in that recruiting vid are dead already. Baghdadi is claiming direct descendance from the prophet it's now officially a cult. Waiting for Baghdadi to write his own dianetics book and start performing 'miracles'
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:43:02 AM
#63
That being said, not all Sunni tribes are complicit in ISIS activities. Particularly in Anbar, which is the entire reason why the ISIS had to approach Baghdad from the north through Mosul and Kurdish territory rather than straight from the West.

It doesn't help things that the Maliki government's response has been to shell Sunni areas pretty indiscriminately. It rather reinforces the ISIS' propaganda.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:41:19 AM
#62
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.
They are supporting their own protection (in their eyes). They actively fought AQI during the Awakening and were rewarded with a discriminatory state government. Many don't even like the ISIS but figure that they'll deal with Baghdadi after Maliki has been taken care of, others are coerced via threats to cooperate.
I think it is best to keep a Shia Prime Minister in Iraq. That way, Iraq, Iran, and Syria will have Shia leaders. And the rest of the Muslim world will have Sunni leaders. This will keep things balanced.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
August 12, 2014, 07:40:14 AM
#61
I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:31:35 AM
#60
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.
They are supporting their own protection (in their eyes). They actively fought AQI during the Awakening and were rewarded with a discriminatory state government. Many don't even like the ISIS but figure that they'll deal with Baghdadi after Maliki has been taken care of, others are coerced via threats to cooperate.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:20:10 AM
#59
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
August 12, 2014, 07:13:49 AM
#58
This is all just another example of how Religion ruins everything.

Don't blame all the religions. Some religions are pacifist, while some are not.

that's true.. but even the pacifist religions can be corrupted to meet a political agenda..

and its not just religions either its a problem with all ideologies.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:12:26 AM
#57
Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:08:12 AM
#56
And I only think Maliki is disliked by Sunnis because he is a Shia. I do not find him divisive. I just think being a Shia makes it harder for him to get respect from Sunnis.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 07:02:00 AM
#55
This doesn't have anything to do with our hesitancy in the subject. With a deeply sectarian and divisive leader of Iraq (Maliki) it isn't a good tactic to promote said individual when the IS garners most of its support by relying on that sectarian imagery and threat from Maliki.
How will ISIS get support when it is threatening to destroy the Kaaba?

I do not defend Al Qaeda, or anything like that, but Al Qaeda disagrees with ISIS because they say that if they are not at war with someone or being invaded by someone, like the Yazidis, or the Iraqi Christians, then they leave them alone. Also, Al Qaeda wants to take the Kaaba from Saudi Arabia but they do not support destroying it the way some members of ISIS do. Also, ISIS is unnecessarily barbaric. Al Qaeda only believes in beheading those who they are at war with or who they feel is occupying their land. I'm not defending Al Qaeda, but ISIS is even too extreme for Al Qaeda.
It isn't currently relying on theological support. It is relying on the fact that the Maliki government is viewed as a hostile government to Iraqi Sunnis and represents itself as the means for which Iraqi Sunnis can protect themselves from said hostile government. It has essentially tapped into that sectarian argument and political oppression to organize and direct Sunni Tribal groupings and former Saddam loyalists against the Maliki government. Most fighters attacking the government are not members of ISIS.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 12, 2014, 06:57:50 AM
#54
This doesn't have anything to do with our hesitancy in the subject. With a deeply sectarian and divisive leader of Iraq (Maliki) it isn't a good tactic to promote said individual when the IS garners most of its support by relying on that sectarian imagery and threat from Maliki.
How will ISIS get support when it is threatening to destroy the Kaaba?

I do not defend Al Qaeda, or anything like that, but Al Qaeda disagrees with ISIS because they say that if they are not at war with someone or being invaded by someone, like the Yazidis, or the Iraqi Christians, then they leave them alone. Also, Al Qaeda wants to take the Kaaba from Saudi Arabia but they do not support destroying it the way some members of ISIS do. Also, ISIS is unnecessarily barbaric. Al Qaeda only believes in beheading those who they are at war with or who they feel is occupying their land. I'm not defending Al Qaeda, but ISIS is even too extreme for Al Qaeda.
Pages:
Jump to: