Battle to establish Islamic state across Iraq and Syria

[Hollie]

Did you notice Syrians no longer control the same border with Turkey they did five years ago?

Borders have been contested and at time fluid.
Sunnis have been marginalized in government despite the fact they are the majority.
The refugee problem will be exploding and identity will mean nothing. This is not about a state but religion. This battle has been on going for more than 1500 years. There is not simple solution for any country.

The feud between Sunni and Shia has been going on for 1500 years. Over the last 100 years rival imperial powers like France, the UK, and the US have deliberately used religion and ethnicity to advance their own colonial interests. Sunni and Shia are victims as much as they are perpetrators of violence in the Middle East. Most of the blame lies with bankers in New York and the City of London.

Uh, no. Here’s a sobriety check point for your loopy conspiracy theories. I'd suggest listening and actually paying attention to what the peaceful inner strugglers™ are saying. The most virulently hateful rhetoric that exists on the planet comes straight from the Mosques of the Islamic Middle East, courtesy of the Imams, Clerics and Sheiks during Friday prayers. Jews as beasts, Christians as blasphemers, infidels as dirty, the competing tribe of Islam is heretical, etc., etc. and all part and parcel of Islamist government sponsored hate mongering.

Do a search for the snuff films recently released by ISIS. You will see the result of the latest skirmish in a 1,400 year long religious war pitting the Sunni against the Shia.

 

[georgephillip]

Now, a most interesting aspect of recent developments in Iraq is that they may lead to joint US and Iranian operations against ISIS.

Now, I find the thought of such joint military operations rather humorous.

I don't think the word "humorous" applies; however, Bashar Assad is likely to benefit from an Iranian/US crackdown on ISIS since US bombing targets would have to include locations inside Syria.

"The ultra-extremists have flourished in Syria by seizing territories that were poorly run by opposition factions. Brutal takeovers have been followed by what Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, describes as 'soft-power outreach.'

"ISIS holds anti-regime forums in neighborhood squares and fun activities for children to gain early support, and also hands out charity while promoting its mandate. Zelin adds: 'ISIS is attempting to lay the groundwork for a future Islamic state by gradually socializing Syrians to the concept.'

"A stronger ISIS bodes ill for Assad.

"Facing two battles, one to keep or reclaim territory and the other to win back hearts and minds, he could benefit from outside help to beat the insurgency.

"One idea proposed by a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation is a deal between Damascus and the West to bring peace to vulnerable areas and allow Assad to focus on regaining land: 'Assad could help NATO and other willing partners focus time and resources on ISIS, which poses the greatest threat.'"

Now, that's

Iraq: 6 Things You Should Know About ISIS Offensive - TIME

 

[irosie91]

Now, a most interesting aspect of recent developments in Iraq is that they may lead to joint US and Iranian operations against ISIS.

Now, I find the thought of such joint military operations rather humorous.

how interesting. years ago I found the Hezbollah incursion into Lebanon (sunni/Christian Lebanon)---
kinda macabre in a Kafkaesque way-----but that was before I knew that the perverted
ophthalmologist ------to wit bastard bashir--------is kinda Shiite. I do hope that the white
house understands that any interaction with or concerning iran, isis, Hezbollah etc etc constitutes
a nose dive into the cosmic cesspool of the family feud that was galvanized 1400 years ago by
the death of the rapist pig of mecca.-------------why take a stroll into a viper's nest----and try
to develop a friendship with a cobra?

 

[Roudy]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

 

[irosie91]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

Roudy dear....... I am not checking the stats-----but it is my impression that
Shiites are so OVERWHELMIGLY a majority in Iran (historically being damned
good at ethnic cleansing) -------and kinda cohesive
as a group (Shiites against the world) ------that little interest groups do not
stand a chance.

 

[IchKampfe]

The US invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with what the ISIS did. The best connection one could make would be that the US taking out Saddam indirectly allowed the ISIS (among other jihadist groups) to operate. Bush, or any military and political leader at the time probably couldn't imagine that taking out a regime in 2003 would lead to a large Islamic jihadist uprising in 2014. Neither could anybody see that, really. No one has that amount of insight to connect all the little dots and see what could happen decades after an event happens, nor can we see into the future to see how it affects people decades from now, and if we sat on our asses calculating the probability something bad happens as a result of our actions then nothing would get done. This is an unfortunate event, yes. Jihadists are a threat to the United States, Europe, Russia, and the civilians on the ground in the areas they control. However, blaming our country for this is not a good course of action. Not to mention, it is highly incorrect, and cold, in its attempts to pin the suffering of hundreds of thousands on the United States simply because the OP doesn't like the foreign policy of the United States.

 

[irosie91]

The US invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with what the ISIS did. The best connection one could make would be that the US taking out Saddam indirectly allowed the ISIS (among other jihadist groups) to operate. Bush, or any military and political leader at the time probably couldn't imagine that taking out a regime in 2003 would lead to a large Islamic jihadist uprising in 2014. Neither could anybody see that, really. No one has that amount of insight to connect all the little dots and see what could happen decades after an event happens, nor can we see into the future to see how it affects people decades from now, and if we sat on our asses calculating the probability something bad happens as a result of our actions then nothing would get done. This is an unfortunate event, yes. Jihadists are a threat to the United States, Europe, Russia, and the civilians on the ground in the areas they control. However, blaming our country for this is not a good course of action. Not to mention, it is highly incorrect, and cold, in its attempts to pin the suffering of hundreds of thousands on the United States simply because the OP doesn't like the foreign policy of the United States.

ICH dear, you are beating a dead horse-------in fact more like a horse born
dead. The US did not attack Iraq in order to get back at bin laden-----the
only persons who so claim are jihadists--------HOWEVER-----the non-predictable
insight you present is so true. We cannot say what will happen regarding
actions that involve jihadists (whether with or against) but history has
taught us that the outcome ALWAYS STINKS

 

[Roudy]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

Roudy dear....... I am not checking the stats-----but it is my impression that
Shiites are so OVERWHELMIGLY a majority in Iran (historically being damned
good at ethnic cleansing) -------and kinda cohesive
as a group (Shiites against the world) ------that little interest groups do not
stand a chance.

Iran like Iraq has been held together by rule of brute force. Before this regime it was the Shah that stamped out these separatist movements. He was a patriot and did what he thought was right for his country and his people.

The Sunnis in the south will want to join up with their brethren across the border, and there are several islands in the Gulf plus control of the Gulf in general that Iran has been fighting over with the Arab Sunnis for decades.

The Kurds of course will want to join with their brethren across the border in autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, and take some Iranian land with them to make Kurdistan bigger.

The Azari Turks in the north will also want to join with Azerbaijani Turks and take some land there with them there as well. And that's just part of it, there's also going to be a lot of political infighting, Iranians in general like the rest of the Middle East are a cronyistic society that is used to a brutal strongman taking power. If you leave it up to them, they will fight and argue for decades before they can agree on a leader.

If you think the ethnic fighting in Iraq is bad, Iran will make it look like a cakewalk.

 

[Roudy]

The US invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with what the ISIS did. The best connection one could make would be that the US taking out Saddam indirectly allowed the ISIS (among other jihadist groups) to operate. Bush, or any military and political leader at the time probably couldn't imagine that taking out a regime in 2003 would lead to a large Islamic jihadist uprising in 2014. Neither could anybody see that, really. No one has that amount of insight to connect all the little dots and see what could happen decades after an event happens, nor can we see into the future to see how it affects people decades from now, and if we sat on our asses calculating the probability something bad happens as a result of our actions then nothing would get done. This is an unfortunate event, yes. Jihadists are a threat to the United States, Europe, Russia, and the civilians on the ground in the areas they control. However, blaming our country for this is not a good course of action. Not to mention, it is highly incorrect, and cold, in its attempts to pin the suffering of hundreds of thousands on the United States simply because the OP doesn't like the foreign policy of the United States.

ISIS happened because our president screwed up in Iraq with the pullout, and then capitulated in Syria. Leaving a huge void for the Islamic Sunni terrorists to take over.

Perhaps its time to repair his campaign slogan "GM is alive and Al Queda is on the run".

This guy is probably the worst president in history.

 

[IchKampfe]

ICH dear, you are beating a dead horse-------in fact more like a horse born
dead. The US did not attack Iraq in order to get back at bin laden-----the
only persons who so claim are jihadists--------HOWEVER-----the non-predictable
insight you present is so true. We cannot say what will happen regarding
actions that involve jihadists (whether with or against) but history has
taught us that the outcome ALWAYS STINKS

When did I say we attacked Iraq to get back at Bin Laden? We went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, I never stood against this fact. However, the US toppling the regime allowed other groups to arrive (such as the jihadists like the Islamic State of Iraq.) While the outcome is always awful when jihadists and foreign policy combine, we as a country need to stop these individuals and groups, and it is better to attack them in their homes rather than have them attack us in our homes. Otherwise, more acts of terrorism will surely be done to destroy the nations of the world.

 

[irosie91]

ICH dear, you are beating a dead horse-------in fact more like a horse born
dead. The US did not attack Iraq in order to get back at bin laden-----the
only persons who so claim are jihadists--------HOWEVER-----the non-predictable
insight you present is so true. We cannot say what will happen regarding
actions that involve jihadists (whether with or against) but history has
taught us that the outcome ALWAYS STINKS

When did I say we attacked Iraq to get back at Bin Laden? We went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, I never stood against this fact. However, the US toppling the regime allowed other groups to arrive (such as the jihadists like the Islamic State of Iraq.) While the outcome is always awful when jihadists and foreign policy combine, we as a country need to stop these individuals and groups, and it is better to attack them in their homes rather than have them attack us in our homes. Otherwise, more acts of terrorism will surely be done to destroy the nations of the world.

Ich dear-----I did not actually accuse you of BELIEVING that the US attacked Iraq because of
9-11---------the notion that "most americans BELIEVE' we did it for that reason is part and parcel
of islamo Nazi propaganda (btw is Kampf ----or kampfen? a verb in german??-----
what does it mean? are you a "KAMPFER"???? do people get GEKAMPFED?-----
(its been a long time----believe it or not-----I did ace german 101 and 102----long long ago)

 

[georgephillip]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and his cabinet on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project)"

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MHunterB]

How adorable that the Holocaust denier is so concerned about "attacks" on this one poster who has called so many other posters 'Satan'......

A new USMB record!!

This thread made it to post #10 before a zionist Juden brought up the Holohoax. ..

Quoth the sinnerturd, the l'il lump of pigshit who has Holocaust denial in its avatar...... YOU mention it every single time you post, O small-brained licker of other people's bottoms.

 

[georgephillip]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Simply give the Iraqis enough aid to keep the Shi'ites in front of Baghdad for the next years while we develop energy independence in the US.

 

[aris2chat]

map is neither new nor relevant to today. It is a map some 40 yrs old and was only a proposition, not a reality or serious plan.

 

[Roudy]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and his cabinet on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project)"

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shah was a patriot who did a lot for Iran, leading it into the 20th century. He loved his people, and got up and left when he saw that they didn't want him, as opposed to slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands like Assad or many of the Arab dictators did. The Shah's overthrow was also orchestrated by the West. The medieval, barbaric, terroristic Islamist regime that replaced him did to the people of Iran what they couldn't imagine in their worst nightmares.

Just because the West orchestrated a coup once doesn't mean they can't orchestrate a coup on the Shah. Here is why he was removed, educate yourself, fool:

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ciAEQMEtgNo"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ciAEQMEtgNo[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

Iran is next on the chopping block. After the current regime falls (and it will), the country will be divided into several autonomous regions. Just as in Iraq, there are also many groups there that would rather be separated, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, etc.

The people of Iran will end up paying a big price for overthrowing the Shah and bringing in this bloodthirsty terrorist Islamist regime.

Sad but true.

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and his cabinet on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project)"

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shah was a patriot who did a lot for Iran, leading it into the 20th century. He loved his people, and got up and left when he saw that they didn't want him, as opposed to slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands like Assad or many of the Arab dictators did. The Shah's overthrow was also orchestrated by the West. The medieval, barbaric, terroristic Islamist regime that replaced him did to the people of Iran what they couldn't imagine in their worst nightmares.

Just because the West orchestrated a coup once doesn't mean they can't orchestrate a coup on the Shah. Here is why he was removed, educate yourself, fool:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ciAEQMEtgNo]Iran Live News | Shah Of Iran criticizing British foreign policy towards Iran - YouTube[/ame]

He was removed because he hated democracy?
Right, Moron

 

[georgephillip]

map is neither new nor relevant to today. It is a map some 40 yrs old and was only a proposition, not a reality or serious plan.

What's your source for that opinion?

"Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

"This map of the 'New Middle East' seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I.

"This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

"The map of the 'New Middle East' was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5"

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq's new borders are being seriously drawn in blood as we speak.

 

[aris2chat]

map is neither new nor relevant to today. It is a map some 40 yrs old and was only a proposition, not a reality or serious plan.

What's your source for that opinion?

"Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

"This map of the 'New Middle East' seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I.

"This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

"The map of the 'New Middle East' was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5"

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq's new borders are being seriously drawn in blood as we speak.

Map was proposed by Professor Bernard Lewis in 1979
>>He formally proposed the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines especially among the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahwaz project), the Baluchis (the Pakhtunistan project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan project) and the Azarbaijanis (the Greater Azarbaijan Project). <<

It was soon after the Iranian Revolution, when fears of oil supplies were high.