So, when I hear Iraq is being taken over by I.S.I.S. ...

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 16:42
VIEWED: 15997
PAGE 1 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 13, 2014 8:15 AM

This is what comes to my mind -

I'm thinking - " Alright! Iraq, you could do worse. "

And not so much this -

The EVIL splinter cell of al Qaeda, which is too violent for most militant jihadists!

*******

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which on Tuesday seized control of the Iraqi city of Mosul, has become one of the most powerful terrorist groups in the world. Here are a few details about it.

Q. What is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?

A. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been designated by the United States as an international terrorist organization. It operates in Iraq and Syria and has as its goal the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, or state, in the area now occupied by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and sometimes as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria.

Q. What is its relationship to al Qaida?

A. ISIS was once considered an affiliate of al Qaida, but the two groups have broken over ISIS’ role in Syria. Al Qaida has criticized ISIS for being too brutal and has complained that ISIS’ zeal to establish an Islamic state has distracted from the current push to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. Last year, al Qaida chief Ayman al Zawahiri ordered ISIS’ leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, to withdraw his forces from Syria. Baghdadi ignored the order.

Q. Which is more powerful, al Qaida or ISIS?

A. There is no simple answer to that question but ISIS’ recent military victories and its control of a swath of land larger than many countries in the Middle East suggest that its military power, if not its influence, now exceeds al Qaida’s. It has fielded a conventional army that has bested the Iraqi military and has resisted assaults in Syria by al Qaida’s affiliate there, the Nusra Front. While ISIS’ radical philosophy has been denounced by many jihadis as too bloodthirsty, its military success is likely to win it new adherents. Lastly, unlike al Qaida, whose strength is dependent on “affiliates” that operate in different countries, ISIS is centrally controlled.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/06/10/3500203/some-answers-about-the-isla
mic.html#storylink=cpy

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 13, 2014 12:00 PM

Uh oh, Spaghetti-O's!

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, June 13, 2014 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is what comes to my mind -

I'm thinking - " Alright! Iraq, you could do worse. "

And not so much this -

The EVIL splinter cell of al Qaeda, which is too violent for most militant jihadists!

*******

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which on Tuesday seized control of the Iraqi city of Mosul, has become one of the most powerful terrorist groups in the world. Here are a few details about it.

Q. What is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?

A. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been designated by the United States as an international terrorist organization. It operates in Iraq and Syria and has as its goal the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, or state, in the area now occupied by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and sometimes as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria.

Q. What is its relationship to al Qaida?

A. ISIS was once considered an affiliate of al Qaida, but the two groups have broken over ISIS’ role in Syria. Al Qaida has criticized ISIS for being too brutal and has complained that ISIS’ zeal to establish an Islamic state has distracted from the current push to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. Last year, al Qaida chief Ayman al Zawahiri ordered ISIS’ leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, to withdraw his forces from Syria. Baghdadi ignored the order.

Q. Which is more powerful, al Qaida or ISIS?

A. There is no simple answer to that question but ISIS’ recent military victories and its control of a swath of land larger than many countries in the Middle East suggest that its military power, if not its influence, now exceeds al Qaida’s. It has fielded a conventional army that has bested the Iraqi military and has resisted assaults in Syria by al Qaida’s affiliate there, the Nusra Front. While ISIS’ radical philosophy has been denounced by many jihadis as too bloodthirsty, its military success is likely to win it new adherents. Lastly, unlike al Qaida, whose strength is dependent on “affiliates” that operate in different countries, ISIS is centrally controlled.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/06/10/3500203/some-answers-about-the-isla
mic.html#storylink=cpy

Pretty much like the Tea Party and The Republicans............ha, ha.....

Seriously, let them do each other in. We should butt out and use only drones. Truth be told, they've been going at it for thousands of years, long before America came into existence.

What about terror plots against us? When they finish killing each other off, drop a bomb and be done with it. That will send a message to the rest of the Jihadists. Problem solved!

SGG

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 13, 2014 4:24 PM

Looks like we're gonna do some airstrikes, but I really think the cows are out of the barn now. Too late.

Obama was more busy w/ airlifing illegal children to red states in the SW to concern himself w/ Iraq.

Remember, al qaeda is 'decimated', and its core leadership is on the run.

( But fret not! Obama will release more soon ! )

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 13, 2014 7:46 PM

Islam isn't " thousands " of years old.

But that's a minor point .

THGRRI

Friday, June 13, 2014 9:31 PM

OK, this is what the Republicans have been saying from the start. It they go back as they did here and start showing clips on what was said to get us into this war there will be no reprieve for those guilty of all the lies. I can see them starting to sweat and the harder they push this onto Obama the more these kinds of tapes should be aired in the news.

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/john-mccain-told-you-so-279987779524

si shen

THGRRI

Friday, June 13, 2014 10:14 PM

A reminder of some of the things said by The Republicans to justify invading Iraq. I look at this along with what I learned about the Middle East, especially in the last decade and I find it hard to blame Obama.

I am watching the experts discuss this amongst themselves. I have no idea at the moment what we should do. This is is a mess.

http://zfacts.com/iraq-war-quotes

Who benefited:

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheney
s-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war

si shen

SECOND

Friday, June 13, 2014 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Looks like we're gonna do some airstrikes, but I really think the cows are out of the barn now. Too late.

Obama was more busy w/ airlifing illegal children to red states in the SW to concern himself w/ Iraq.

Remember, al qaeda is 'decimated', and its core leadership is on the run.

( But fret not! Obama will release more soon ! )

You blame the President when you ought to blame Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. I assume Iraq is NOT the 51st State of the USA.

Iraq's Problems Are Not Ones That America Can Solve
—By Kevin Drum www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/06/iraqs-problems-are-not-ones-ame
rica-can-solve
| Thu Jun. 12, 2014 2:56 PM EDT

One of the things that liberals chattered about endlessly in the latter stages of the Iraq War—and which seemed to annoy conservatives just as endlessly—was the simple claim that Iraq's problems were fundamentally political, not military. There would be no lasting peace in Iraq unless and until there was a political accommodation between the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni—especially the latter two. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed completely uninterested in reaching any sort of genuine power-sharing agreement with the Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq in Saddam's day, and no amount of cajoling from Americans swayed him even a little. Without that, any kind of durable peace in Iraq was out of reach, so it made sense for us to leave in 2011. Why remain when there was little we could do that would truly make a difference?

This is why our withdrawal from Iraq is no more than a tiny peripheral factor in the growing jihadist Sunni rebellion that's overwhelming Iraq right now. Ditto for our reluctance to arm "moderates" in the Syrian civil war. Laying the blame there is mostly just a tired but convenient talking point for the Fox News set and the dwindling but noisy band of unrepentant neocons. Marc Lynch takes up the story from there:

The more interesting questions are about Iraq itself. Why are these cities falling virtually without a fight? Why are so many Iraqi Sunnis seemingly pleased to welcome the takeover from the Iraqi government by a truly extremist group with which they have a long, violent history?

....The most important answers lie inside Iraqi politics. Maliki lost Sunni Iraq through his sectarian and authoritarian policies. His repeated refusal over long years to strike an urgently needed political accord with the Sunni minority, his construction of corrupt, ineffective and sectarian state institutions, and his heavy-handed military repression in those areas are the key factors in the long-developing disintegration of Iraq. In late 2012, protests had swelled across Sunni areas of Iraq, driven by genuine popular anger but backed by many of the political forces now reportedly cooperating with ISIS’s advance (essential background here). The vicious assault on the Huwija protest camp by Iraqi security forces, in the midst of political negotiations, galvanized hostility to the Iraqi state and paved the way for growing popular support for a returning insurgency. Maliki’s heavy-handed security response to the escalating insurgency across Anbar, including the bombardment of Fallujah, has predictably driven more and more Sunnis into their ranks. Maliki’s purges of the Sunni leadership discredited or removed Sunni leaders willing to play the inside game, and pushed some of them toward supporting insurgency. His exclusionary policies, attempts to monopolize power and rough security practices radicalized a Sunni community that might have been brought into the system following the civil war. Iraq’s political class as a whole has done little better.

Lynch offers a few additional thoughts on whether Maliki is likely to change course in the face of the threat from ISIS insurgents. So far, it doesn't seem likely. And as long as that's true, there's little reason that America should get invol

THGRRI

Friday, June 13, 2014 11:47 PM

Thank you, I was too lazy to put that much effort into explaining it all to those who can not read. That sounds harsh but if they could and understood some of the history they would not be so quick to place blame.

Unless to them the facts do not matter?

si shen

THGRRI

Saturday, June 14, 2014 1:07 AM

New Strategy Vindicates Ex-Army Chief Shinseki

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?_r=0

si shen

I say go ahead to all of you here who think you can criticize this mans service to the United States.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE