Iraq Civil War?

[DaGaffer]

Interesting; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28190227

Seems they're being serious about asserting their-selves as a nation, and trying to patch up past wrong-doings.

There's little difference between them and Iran in terms of how they operate, just opposite sides of the fence, and I think the Americans will have to make a long and hard decision who they get into bed with.

Same side of the fence. These guys would be aligned with Iran.

 

[Gwadien]

Same side of the fence. These guys would be aligned with Iran.

You sure? I thought Iran were offering to blow the shit out of them?

 

[DaGaffer]

You sure? I thought Iran were offering to blow the shit out of them?

No, these guys are Shia (like the Iranians) fighting against ISIL/ISIS (Sunnis)

 

[Gwadien]

No, these guys are Shia (like the Iranians) fighting against ISIL/ISIS (Sunnis)

Oh, my bad, I thought it was the new ISIS renamed who were setting up their own country..

 

[Job]

Just bumping...we will kill them all..its just a matter of time.

 

[Job]

Isis are simply following the true teachings of their religion..they are destroying mosques and all the trappings of the modern Islamic religion because Mohammed preached that there should be no praying to idols or buildings and to never make a likeness of him incase people start to worship him..its a bit like the catholis-protestants..the catholic church and the protestant church to a lesser degree..gocompletely against the teachings of that made up guy jesus by having all that gold and power and buildings and big hats and listening to some bloke who says hes special.
The same thing has happened in Islam..they have even said they will destroy mecca.

 

[Scouse]

split the remainder in half, one Sunni side, one Shia.

Worked so well with India/Pakistan

 

[SilverHood]

Worked so well with India/Pakistan

Sure, considering that over 1.3 billion people live in the two countries, they get along remarkably well. Certainly no middle east clusterfuck despite their differences. If they hadn't split, we'd probably have 10 smaller countries in the same space, all fighting each other on a regular basis. Don't forget that Bangladesh split from Pakistan too.
The breakup of Yugoslavia went rather well, once they stopped killing each other. Czechoslovakia was a peaceful breakup along ethnic lines too. It can be done... the current situation is obviously not working, and if they put another dictator / strongman in power... then a load of people died for no good reason.

 

[Embattle]

That is more down to the large population imbalance than any thing else.

 

[Gwadien]

Sure, considering that over 1.3 billion people live in the two countries, they get along remarkably well. Certainly no middle east clusterfuck despite their differences. If they hadn't split, we'd probably have 10 smaller countries in the same space, all fighting each other on a regular basis. Don't forget that Bangladesh split from Pakistan too.
The breakup of Yugoslavia went rather well, once they stopped killing each other. Czechoslovakia was a peaceful breakup along ethnic lines too. It can be done... the current situation is obviously not working, and if they put another dictator / strongman in power... then a load of people died for no good reason.

Thing with India/Pakistan and Ulster/Republic of Ireland is that the countries were naturally there in terms of religion, but with the Middle East religion is mixed, Iran is the Shia stronghold and Saudi Arabia is the Sunni stronghold and the countries in between them are mixed, so it's not as simple as splitting them up into Saudi & Iranian satellite states.

 

[DaGaffer]

Thing with India/Pakistan and Ulster/Republic of Ireland is that the countries were naturally there in terms of religion, but with the Middle East religion is mixed, Iran is the Shia stronghold and Saudi Arabia is the Sunni stronghold and the countries in between them are mixed, so it's not as simple as splitting them up into Saudi & Iranian satellite states.

No they weren't, which is why there have been so many conflicts in both places since. People tend to forget that even after partition, there are still more Moslems in India than in Pakistan. If anything, the lines on the map between Shia and Sunni in the Levant are actually easier to draw, and it was colonial lines in the sand drawn with an umbrella that were the roots of all this in the first place. Of course a Sunni caliphate would be a pretty horrible place to live...

 

[Job]

Oh yeah they get on great in a pointing nuclear missiles at each other sort of way..its all that pilock gandis fault

 

[Job]

It's hilarious watching the denials swiftly followed by the reality...Cameron..no military action whatsoever....oh allright then maybe airstrikes...Obama..no troops...oh well maybe a 1000 or so to protect interests...by this time next week it will be full out bombing of ISIS

 

[Madmaxx]

by this time next week it will be full out bombing of ISIS

already started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28715142

 

[Job]

The real gobsmacker in this story is being convicted of stockpiling weapons and explosives for a terror attack in Sydney and getting four years...which seems a little bizarre.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/497974/Boy-seven-poses-with-severed-head-in-Syria

 

[Job]

Months..which means years...which means troops on the ground..Cameron is doing the scaremongering to warm us up and the Generals are planning the campaign...hint get out of the army now if you don't like sand.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28831248

 

[Gwadien]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28867627

I'm a bit concerned to how the west is going react;

The issue is that ISIS is not just a terrorist organisation, it's also an idea, an idea to have a reinstate a caliphate.

I read an article the other day where there were Muslims in the UK saying that I don't like the violence, but I believe we need this caliphate to be properly represented on the planet, if the 'West' go to full out war against ISIS, ISIS will respond with you're attacking the caliphate, not us. It's bigger than fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda, IMO.

 

[Mabs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28867627

I'm a bit concerned to how the west is going react;

The issue is that ISIS is not just a terrorist organisation, it's also an idea, an idea to have a reinstate a caliphate.

I read an article the other day where there were Muslims in the UK saying that I don't like the violence, but I believe we need this caliphate to be properly represented on the planet, if the 'West' go to full out war against ISIS, ISIS will respond with you're attacking the caliphate, not us. It's bigger than fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda, IMO.

its ok, pope can call a crusade, and we can mobilize all of europe and the USA, conscription etc. cos its still the 11th century apparently

 

[Job]

Standard procedure over history to build empires by genocide, everyone's done it, but times have changed the atrocities are recorded in gruesome detail not just myths passed down, how on Earth can they build an empire to be respected on the back of this kind of behavior , the west can hide behind targeted strikes and media blackouts while these idiots are posting pure evil intent on youtube.
The ironic thing is that the early Caliphites (Islamic empires) were highly multicultural and progressive, they produced some of the greatest scientific discoveries and now they have retreated into some ultra conservative anti western cult.
What do they want..an empire to challenge the world, we would bomb them back into the stoneage at the first opportunity.

 

[DaGaffer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28867627

I'm a bit concerned to how the west is going react;

The issue is that ISIS is not just a terrorist organisation, it's also an idea, an idea to have a reinstate a caliphate.

I read an article the other day where there were Muslims in the UK saying that I don't like the violence, but I believe we need this caliphate to be properly represented on the planet, if the 'West' go to full out war against ISIS, ISIS will respond with you're attacking the caliphate, not us. It's bigger than fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda, IMO.

Need a Caliphate to do what exactly? Nothing that isn't already being done by Islamic lunatics from Nigeria to Indonesia. This is just Wahhabi-brand Sunni Islam at its most medieval.

To be honest, I'm not massively concerned about this as it kind of plays into the hands of their enemies; Al-Qaeda was like playing Whack-o-mole; one threat popping up after another; this is a whole crowd of nutjobs fighting a "conventional" war, which means they can be destroyed in detail. Its a strange old situation tbh; The Americans can't let Iraq fail, the Russians don't want to let Assad and the Syrians fail, and Iran wants to protect the Sunnis. Strange bedfellows, but if they wanted to they could collectively destroy ISIS(L - Whatever) in a day, especially as ISIS is a. effectively surrounded, b. relying on captured weapons. Of course the problem for the US/Russia/Iran is they would rather ISIS was beaten by arabs (as much better solution politically), but if ISIS look like making too many gains I'm sure the gloves will come off; they certainly can't let ISIS become a legitimate power, and let's face it, we're probably past the point of no return with a lot of the Sunni world anyway. Maybe this will give us a legitimate reason to tell Qatar they're not getting the World Cup and we're taking Harrods back.

 

[DaGaffer]

The ironic thing is that the early Caliphites (Islamic empires) were highly multicultural and progressive, they produced some of the greatest scientific discoveries and now they have retreated into some ultra conservative anti western cult.

They were progressive eventually, but only a couple of hundred years after they'd cut a bloody path from Spain to India. Islam was built on conversion at sword-point.

 

[Gwadien]

Yeah, as were all empires.

We're past that, but we can't keep telling the Islamic world what to do, they clearly do not like it, educate them, don't force their hand.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yeah, as were all empires.

We're past that, but we can't keep telling the Islamic world what to do, they clearly do not like it, educate them, don't force their hand.

Not the Islamic Empire, Islam itself. Its one of the key differences between Islam and Christianity, and why its a mistake to assume "Jihad" and "Crusade" are the same thing, they're not.

As for "educate them", unfortunately this isn't the 17th century where you can have nasty religious wars that only affect a single region or even continent; like it or not we don't have the time or even the option to let them work out their own version of the Enlightenment.

 

[Gwadien]

Not the Islamic Empire, Islam itself. Its one of the key differences between Islam and Christianity, and why its a mistake to assume "Jihad" and "Crusade" are the same thing, they're not.

As for "educate them", unfortunately this isn't the 17th century where you can have nasty religious wars that only affect a single region or even continent; like it or not we don't have the time or even the option to let them work out their own version of the Enlightenment.

Nor can we just keep bombing them and irritating them, because that will never work, it's like bomb them, let them start again, oh yes, you're voting!, yes! a legit democracy!, No! It's a fundamentalist muslim group in charge, let's send the troops back!

I'm speaking about Libya, Egypt and Syria here too, it's just ridiculous.

It's simple human mentality, if you've got a bloke who's thinking maybe they're wrong, maybe the west aint that bad, maybe we could learn fro- Oh, wait, what's that? Oh, a Eurofighter, Fuckers.

I realise America needs a strong president, much like Russia does, to fight the sworn enemy, it used to be Communists in Vietnam and Korea, now it's the Muslims in the middle east, but maybe one day, people will wake up and understand that the reason they're bombing us is maybe, just perhaps, because we're bombing them?

 

[Job]

Yes and I say it again, we can't stop this till we kill them all, every last one, wipe them from history, bomb them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure,

 

[DaGaffer]

Nor can we just keep bombing them and irritating them, because that will never work, it's like bomb them, let them start again, oh yes, you're voting!, yes! a legit democracy!, No! It's a fundamentalist muslim group in charge, let's send the troops back!

I'm speaking about Libya, Egypt and Syria here too, it's just ridiculous.

It's simple human mentality, if you've got a bloke who's thinking maybe they're wrong, maybe the west aint that bad, maybe we could learn fro- Oh, wait, what's that? Oh, a Eurofighter, Fuckers.

I realise America needs a strong president, much like Russia does, to fight the sworn enemy, it used to be Communists in Vietnam and Korea, now it's the Muslims in the middle east, but maybe one day, people will wake up and understand that the reason they're bombing us is maybe, just perhaps, because we're bombing them?

No-one's bombed anyone in Egypt. No-one's bombed anyone in Syria. No-one bombed anyone in Tunisia, no-one bombed anyone in Libya until they were asked to. In fact, the prevailing Western opinion in Syria was if they want an Islamic state, fine, let them get on with it (ditto Egypt), but ISIS is effectively an invading power, and the justification that took us to war in 1991 against Iraq is just as valid (and to be clear, that war was justifiable, even though the 2003 war was not), if anything more so as the people under ISIS control are being treated far worse than the Kuwaitis were under Saddam.

I actually think the last thing anyone in the west wants to do is get involved here, but it may be that we don't have much choice.

 

[Gwadien]

No-one's bombed anyone in Egypt. No-one's bombed anyone in Syria. No-one bombed anyone in Tunisia, no-one bombed anyone in Libya until they were asked to. In fact, the prevailing Western opinion in Syria was if they want an Islamic state, fine, let them get on with it (ditto Egypt), but ISIS is effectively an invading power, and the justification that took us to war in 1991 against Iraq is just as valid (and to be clear, that war was justifiable, even though the 2003 war was not), if anything more so as the people under ISIS control are being treated far worse than the Kuwaitis were under Saddam.

I actually think the last thing anyone in the west wants to do is get involved here, but it may be that we don't have much choice.

Erm, I completely disagree, I think the world has seen that the 'rebels' are actually Islamic terrorists, so the rhetoric that came from the 'success' story of Libya and Egypt(Which turned out to be false) disappeared.

We'd be much happier to have a dictator that oppresses, rather than having a free democracy that is a potential enemy.

I've said it again, and I've said it before, the 'West' adopts a policy that the British ran in the 19th and earth 20th century - Spread liberalism, so long as it doesn't interfere with British interests.

I think people are pretty naive if they truly believe we're getting involved with ISIS because of the people trapped on the mountain, the masses didn't want another intervention from the West, but this was a perfect scape goat to defeat the potential threat.

 

[Job]

If the war comes home then the backlash against muslims will be epic, this is no looney bunch of terrorists, it will be part of a plan to take on the west in it's home territory with the backing of a 'state', muslims in the UK have simply said fuk all so far, not a peep as they always do, how do we keep the peace.

 

[DaGaffer]

Erm, I completely disagree, I think the world has seen that the 'rebels' are actually Islamic terrorists, so the rhetoric that came from the 'success' story of Libya and Egypt(Which turned out to be false) disappeared.

We'd be much happier to have a dictator that oppresses, rather than having a free democracy that is a potential enemy.

I've said it again, and I've said it before, the 'West' adopts a policy that the British ran in the 19th and earth 20th century - Spread liberalism, so long as it doesn't interfere with British interests.

I think people are pretty naive if they truly believe we're getting involved with ISIS because of the people trapped on the mountain, the masses didn't want another intervention from the West, but this was a perfect scape goat to defeat the potential threat.

I'm not being naive about it all, and frankly have no problem about protecting our interests, but neither is ISIS, in any shape or form, a free democracy. And you know what? Yes, I would rather we had an oppressive dictator than exported fundamentalists. I had absolutely no issue with Saddam running Iraq because it was none of our business, didn't pose a threat to the west, and if his people wanted rid of him good luck to them.When he did pose a threat (in 1991), he was dealt with. In exactly the same way that if people want to topple Assad, go for it, but if they then become a problem (as ISIS are) to other sovereign nations, bomb them to the stone age and salt the Earth. Generally, internal issues should be dealt with internally. The minute they cross borders, we have a stake in the outcome.

Its one of the reasons I'm so uncomfortable about Ukraine; Russia clearly needs to be punished for what its doing, but we don't have any effective means to do so.

 

[Embattle]

The more Holiday terrorists that are killed over there the better.