Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Al-Faisal]

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?

Military action is inevitable. I realize now you don't actually understand what's going on there or what ISIS/ISIL is about, where it came from or what it wants, but realize this is flame that must be extinguished. I'm not certain how you think ignoring it will make the problem go away, or make Iran (their acknowledged enemy already) suddenly not be a target, or save Shi'ites, but you need to discard your mistaken beliefs. The war is already begun. We're only lucky the US didn't bomb Syria and invite ISIS into Damascus.

Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.

I'm not even sure if you mean to be taken seriously now or if you're parodying yourself.

If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.

An occupation is not the only way to wage a war. And believe it or not, Iran may not be fully prepared to wage a war, what with living in constant fear of American attacks. But people are suffering and their national security is threatened, so they have to act. ISIS has been dealt defeats by the Syrian Army before, so Iran certainly has a chance to give the Iraqi army a backbone and take the fight to the extremists.

Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.

At least you acknowledge the origins of these civil conflicts sits with the United States' allies. But it doesn't matter, Iraq's military is a puppet force the Americans created, they need help controlling the enemy. Only ISIS, two Gulf states (and you, apparently) consider this a Sunni-Shia war. The rest are acknowledging the security crisis for what it is, and Iran's prestige has grown for offering to work in conjunction with the US and Europe to contain this Islamist threat.

You are wrong. It is precisely my respect for human rights and my desire for peace that I advocate non-intervention.

That's a coward's game (I don't mean to personally call you a coward, I mean "non-interventionism"). Inaction only encourages religious extremists to think they can act with impunity. And in a situation where the local security forces are a puppet army put together by a corrupt invader, well... they need all the help they can get.

Obviously Saudia Arabia and Qatar will continue to funnel to support to ISIS, but doing nothing until Baghdad is surrounded and Iraq's remaining civil government has collapsed is doing no favors to the millions living there.

President Assad has shown us that these terrorist scum can be fought and beaten in a straight-up fight. Most of Syria has been purged of the Islamist rebels, and reports indicate many of the rebels have packed up and gone home to Saudi Arabia or their other foreign origins. With strength and determination, the same can be achieved in Iraq.

[Al-Faisal]

Does this sh*t ever end? I'm tired of these godd*mn middle eastern wars happening 24/7

Kindly write the US Government to stop fighting Saudi Arabia and Israel's proxies conflicts.

[Blakk Metal]

And why exactly would it not work this time?

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us make a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in the Levant. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't gonna be any consequences.

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us join a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in Europe. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't be any consequences.

[72o]

How has the american invasion hastened conflict between Sunnis and Shias? Saddam's rule was a major factor in depening sectarian divisions, not the US invasion.

For all of Saddam's brutality, the sectarian strife was bottled up to near nonexistence in his regime. Once he was deposed, the sectarianism went out into the open to where Shiite and Sunni were clashing and sectarian killings escalated.

No doubt, but he did at the cost of rising discontent and increasing sectarian hatred. Not 'dampering discontent' as Mkuki suggested. A prolonged reign of saddam would have made the outbreak of sectarian violence worse, not better.

[Mkuki]

Military action is inevitable. I realize now you don't actually understand what's going on there or what ISIS/ISIL is about, where it came from or what it wants, but realize this is flame that must be extinguished. I'm not certain how you think ignoring it will make the problem go away, or make Iran (their acknowledged enemy already) suddenly not be a target, or save Shi'ites, but you need to discard your mistaken beliefs. The war is already begun. We're only lucky the US didn't bomb Syria and invite ISIS into Damascus.

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so. Terrorists groups have been taken out before. Senior terrorist leaders have been assassinated. Scores of low level, uneducated, illiterate, boys who have take up the terrorist banner have been killed. Guess what? Terrorism still continues on. Iran has been relatively safe from hardline groups like ISIL, but that's only because they've been so busy fighting the United States and Western troops across the Middle East. That will change once Iran intervenes. Iran, like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia and Niger, Mali and Yemen, will be besieged by terrorist attacks. That is a near certainty. The United States has been lucky. There is too much distance between the Middle East and North America. Iran won't be so lucky. She's smack dab in the middle of a hornet's nest just waiting to be unleashed.

Do I think that ISIL can defeat the Iranian military? No. No I do not. However, mauling Iraq isn't going to save anyone. Maybe in the short run ISIL will be run out of Iraq. Maybe ISIL and its leadership will be annihilated. So what? Some other group will replace them in the future. Maybe an even worse group if that's humanly possible. Then again, they said the same about al-Qaeda so I suppose its possible.

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

Justice? No justice is being achieved. All Iran is doing is killing people. The death of terrorists isn't going to give comfort those who have died. They're dead.

I'm not even sure if you mean to be taken seriously now or if you're parodying yourself.

What am I parodying? Please, be specific.

If Iran is doing this out of human decency, as you claim and I sincerely doubt, then they should be prepared to go all in. They can't intervene halfheartedly like the United States did. If the Iranian government thinks that it can solve the problems facing Iraq then it should be prepared to occupy Iraq for decades on end. It should be prepared for the strains that are going to come with such an occupation as well, including, but not limited to, the economic strain, the international strain, the domestic strain, the societal strain, and the military strain.

An occupation is not the only way to wage a war. And believe it or not, Iran may not be fully prepared to wage a war, what with living in constant fear of American attacks. But people are suffering and their national security is threatened, so they have to act. ISIS has been dealt defeats by the Syrian Army before, so Iran certainly has a chance to give the Iraqi army a backbone and take the fight to the extremists.

Its the only way to carry one out in a country like Iraq that is so divided that Christian Protestants scoff. If Iran isn't prepared to occupy then they will solve nothing. They may save some people in the short run, but Iraq's structural problems will be left unattended and be even weaker the next time some group, terrorists or otherwise, decides that Shiite rule over Sunnis is unacceptable.

Let me ask you a question. Where is it that the worst civil wars are taking place? Syria and Iraq. What do those two countries have in common? Well, one thing is that they are friendly with Iran. Another is that they are now being torn apart by civil war. Could it be that Saudi Arabia is interested in further isolating an Iran trying to reconnect with both the Muslim world and the world in general? I think so.

At least you acknowledge the origins of these civil conflicts sits with the United States' allies. But it doesn't matter, Iraq's military is a puppet force the Americans created, they need help controlling the enemy. Only ISIS, two Gulf states (and you, apparently) consider this a Sunni-Shia war. The rest are acknowledging the security crisis for what it is, and Iran's prestige has grown for offering to work in conjunction with the US and Europe to contain this Islamist threat.

I doubt that. I highly doubt that. I think you are underestimating just how much hatred many Sunnis have for Shiite and Iranians. If Iran isn't prepared to slug it out then they've already lost the war.

That's a coward's game (I don't mean to personally call you a coward, I mean "non-interventionism"). Inaction only encourages religious extremists to think they can act with impunity. And in a situation where the local security forces are a puppet army put together by a corrupt invader, well... they need all the help they can get.

Obviously Saudia Arabia and Qatar will continue to funnel to support to ISIS, but doing nothing until Baghdad is surrounded and Iraq's remaining civil government has collapsed is doing no favors to the millions living there.

President Assad has shown us that these terrorist scum can be fought and beaten in a straight-up fight. Most of Syria has been purged of the Islamist rebels, and reports indicate many of the rebels have packed up and gone home to Saudi Arabia or their other foreign origins. With strength and determination, the same can be achieved in Iraq.

I believe that it takes more backbone and more humility to not act rashly than to just send your military out willy nilly. You obviously disagree.

I'd like to see just what the Iraqi military can do before the United States, or any country really, gets involved. I was watching Al Jazeera America and an analyst being interviewed made the excellent point that those Iraqis who dropped their arms and fled were mainly Sunni. The Shiites, more than the Sunni, have a reason to keep the current Iraqi government. Let's see just what the Shi'a Iraqis can do when having to defend Shi'a dominated land before making the situation worse. If every country comes to Iraq's aid when she is in trouble then how is she supposed to learn how to defend herself?

I'd rather not get involved in a debate on Syria. Suffice it to say, though, I oppose intervention into Syria as well.

[Mkuki]

For all of Saddam's brutality, the sectarian strife was bottled up to near nonexistence in his regime. Once he was deposed, the sectarianism went out into the open to where Shiite and Sunni were clashing and sectarian killings escalated.

No doubt, but he did at the cost of rising discontent and increasing sectarian hatred. Not 'dampering discontent' as Mkuki suggested.

I think you are misunderstanding what I was getting at. I did not mean that Saddam actually managed to somehow extinguish some of the sectarianism. What I was saying is that he kept a lid on it. That his strongarm form of leadership kept the country relatively peaceful as far as Sunni-Shi'a tensions go.

A prolonged reign of saddam would have made the outbreak of sectarian violence worse, not better.

You do understand what hasten means, right?

[Al-Faisal]

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so.

When self-defense is the only choice, it can hardly be said to be a decision at all.

So what? Some other group will replace them in the future.

Do nothing because another group could show up? I'm glad you're not a counselor or something. "No, don't report that rape. You'll probably be raped again in the future sometime, so it's pointless."

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

The difference is the US set up a puppet military, while Iran is actually popular with a good portion of the nation.

What am I parodying? Please, be specific.

Yourself.

Its the only way to carry one out in a country like Iraq that is so divided that Christian Protestants scoff.

Please tell me, which military academy or training base did you attend?

I doubt that. I highly doubt that.

You can sit comfortably being wrong.

I believe that it takes more backbone and more humility to not act rashly than to just send your military out willy nilly. You obviously disagree.

Yes, I do. It takes nothing to sit there and do nothing. It takes backbone to stand up to religious extremists. People like you are why extremism isn't squashed. Far too many say "what's the point," or "we wouldn't want to be rash."

I'd like to see just what the Iraqi military can do

Heh, that's why they need help, friend.

Suffice it to say, though, I oppose intervention into Syria as well.

There's a bright spot.
The Lion of Damascus has so far held ISIS off and handed it defeats. May he go on to crush that hated organization and restore peace to Syria.

Fine, we disagree. But I will say I respect your intentions to avoid bloodshed. Poor bloody and bruised Iraq hardly needs more. I suppose we just disagree on how to gain a stable future. It's very disturbing that Al-Douri is allegedly with ISIS. It's a sad day when Ba'athists join a group like ISIS.

[Benuty]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520
I suppose it is now more of a possibility than ever.

[Mkuki]

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so.

When self-defense is the only choice, it can hardly be said to be a decision at all.

Its hardly self-defense for Iran when they haven't been attacked. If anything its a preemptive attack.

So what? Some other group will replace them in the future.

Do nothing because another group could show up? I'm glad you're not a counselor or something. "No, don't report that rape. You'll probably be raped again in the future sometime, so it's pointless."

That response doesn't apply and you know it. If Iran's decision is to intervene only when terrorists threaten Baghdad then its going to end up doing it over and over again, raining death and destruction and inflaming tensions even more each time.

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

The difference is the US set up a puppet military, while Iran is actually popular with a good portion of the nation.

That doesn't matter. If Iraq doesn't learn to defend itself and is forced to rely on other powers then it will never be secure and Shi'a Iraqis will always be under threat and Iraq will continue being a hybrid country that will never experience a day of peace.

What am I parodying? Please, be specific.

Yourself.

Not specific and not true.

Its the only way to carry one out in a country like Iraq that is so divided that Christian Protestants scoff.

Please tell me, which military academy or training base did you attend?

1. Does it matter?
2. If being in the military made someone good at achieving peace then the Iraq War would have been a success and Iraq would be land filled with lollipops and rainbows.
3. Historical instances show that quickly intervening with no intention to stay in the long term solves nothing.

I doubt that. I highly doubt that.

You can sit comfortably being wrong.

Then prove me wrong.

I believe that it takes more backbone and more humility to not act rashly than to just send your military out willy nilly. You obviously disagree.

Yes, I do. It takes nothing to sit there and do nothing. It takes backbone to stand up to religious extremists. People like you are why extremism isn't squashed. Far too many say "what's the point," or "we wouldn't want to be rash."

Uh huh. How is military assault working in countries like Russia and China? They seem pretty intent on crushing Chechnyan and Uighur extremists, respectively. What about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Somalia? Mali? Niger? Nigeria? Sudan? The Central African Republic? How about the Philippines? Myanmar? How about Colombia? Mexico? Brazil? Then there's other places like India, Western Sahara, and Ukraine.

Interestingly enough, it hasn't worked in any of those countries.

I'd like to see just what the Iraqi military can do

Heh, that's why they need help, friend.

Did you just ignore what I said about the analyst on AJAM and how it was mainly Sunni soldiers who gave up?

Suffice it to say, though, I oppose intervention into Syria as well.

There's a bright spot.
The Lion of Damascus has so far held ISIS off and handed it defeats. May he go on to crush that hated organization and restore peace to Syria.

Fine, we disagree. But I will say I respect your intentions to avoid bloodshed. Poor bloody and bruised Iraq hardly needs more. I suppose we just disagree on how to gain a stable future.

"Lion of Damascus"? Riiiiight...

It's very disturbing that Al-Douri is allegedly with ISIS. It's a sad day when Ba'athists join a group like ISIS.

It makes perfect sense when you consider that the Shi'a helped run them out and that they are now in charge of Iraq.

Iraq has structural problems that, like Saiwania said, may warrant it being dismantled and divided.

[Stabkon]

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us make a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in the Levant. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't gonna be any consequences.

"Ahhhh! My sister is dead!"

"Dead by what?"

"BOMBS! BOMBS FROM THE AMERICAN CRIMINALS! BOMBS KILLED MY SISTER!"

"I tell you! Join us! We would fight those Americans and avenge your sister! Let us join a group that will serve as justice for your sister's death!"

"DEATH TO AMERICA!"


Just a hypothetical situation that emphasizes one of the danger's of further American meddling in Europe. Even though American intervention has some good things in it there could never be a guarantee that there won't be any consequences.

This is the problem with Americans...they must have faith!

Yeah, i agree, times are now grave and now America's forceful methods to maintain countries to act according to how it wants them to act are no longer applicable, we are now in a world of factions of not states, but cultures, cultures who often (violently) clash with one another, it may be a culture of religion, patriotism, nationalism, individual rights. If America cannot resolve to put an end to the already non violent culture clashes inside its own nation (Democrats vs republicans), then what more to the violent bloody culture clashes outside its own borders?

America's style is obsolete.

[Lackadaisical2]

I said this a ways back as well, and so have other people. The West needs to take a leaf out of the Ottoman Empire's book and split Iraq in three.

You mean the Rashidun?
Iraq was divided into three provinces by Umar, the second Rashidun caliph (alt. spelled Omar), in to Basra, Kufa, and Jazira, making up south, middle, and upper Iraq respectively.\
Also, dividing Iraq is not the west's decision. It's Iraq's decision. We have no right to tell them how to govern their country.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, however, there is something to be said for saying we wouldn't interfere if they decided to break the country apart... (rather than bombing anyone who tries to form a Sunnistan, eg)

This news is from three hours ago from Reuters. Its on the Kurds. It really seems we will be getting a new nation in that part of the world.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... 6U20140613

Has for the Iraqi central government saying they have hit back, some think its all hype.

They say even US advisors on an airbase just North of the Iraqi Capital have left. Some wonder if they are making sure US weapons do not fall into enemy hands.

Awesome article... Hope the Kurds get away with it.

[Senkaku]

What a cute way to dismiss a life-or-death battle for thousands of civilians. Maybe you're just ignorant of the situation, maybe you're just ignorant of life over there, but the situation "getting worse" is a outcome achieved by ignoring the flame and hoping it does not spread. ISIS is already murdering hundreds of POWs and civilians. It's a humanitarian crisis.

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?

Firstly, military action will slow, halt, or roll back the ISIL advance.
Secondly, if ISIL's advance is slowed, that gives the Iraqi and Kurdish governments breathing room, improving the situation.
Thirdly, you act like there isn't already a Sunni-Shia war. That ship already sailed, pal.
And the way you help the men, women, and children being tortured, enslaved, and killed, is not by doing as you suggest and indiscriminately raining death on Iraqi cities like we did in the Tokyo firebomb raids, but by using these nifty things called drones, guided missiles, and laser-guided bombs, to kill as few civilians as possible while eliminating the ISIL threat.

Military action is inevitable. I realize now you don't actually understand what's going on there or what ISIS/ISIL is about, where it came from or what it wants, but realize this is flame that must be extinguished. I'm not certain how you think ignoring it will make the problem go away, or make Iran (their acknowledged enemy already) suddenly not be a target, or save Shi'ites, but you need to discard your mistaken beliefs. The war is already begun. We're only lucky the US didn't bomb Syria and invite ISIS into Damascus.

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so. Terrorists groups have been taken out before. Senior terrorist leaders have been assassinated. Scores of low level, uneducated, illiterate, boys who have take up the terrorist banner have been killed. Guess what? Terrorism still continues on. Iran has been relatively safe from hardline groups like ISIL, but that's only because they've been so busy fighting the United States and Western troops across the Middle East. That will change once Iran intervenes. Iran, like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia and Niger, Mali and Yemen, will be besieged by terrorist attacks. That is a near certainty. The United States has been lucky. There is too much distance between the Middle East and North America. Iran won't be so lucky. She's smack dab in the middle of a hornet's nest just waiting to be unleashed.

Do I think that ISIL can defeat the Iranian military? No. No I do not. However, mauling Iraq isn't going to save anyone. Maybe in the short run ISIL will be run out of Iraq. Maybe ISIL and its leadership will be annihilated. So what? Some other group will replace them in the future. Maybe an even worse group if that's humanly possible. Then again, they said the same about al-Qaeda so I suppose its possible.

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

So, basically, because other terrorist groups will appear at some point, there's no point and we might as well let ISIL in because if we kill them someone worse could come along.
Okay. Makes total sense.

No.

[Purpelia]

Just pause for a moment and let's consider a hypothetical. Say these people get everything they want. They tale the whole of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon was it? What happens next? In particular, what happens next that actually effects people outside of the territory they conquered and its immediate neighbors.

[Stabkon]

Just pause for a moment and let's consider a hypothetical. Say these people get everything they want. They tale the whole of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon was it? What happens next? In particular, what happens next that actually effects people outside of the territory they conquered and its immediate neighbors.

It has been the ISIL's plan to far outreach Al Qaeda and establish a world Calhpihate.

They claim to "fight to succeed where Zawahiri and his Al Qaeda is currently failing at".

[Mkuki]

What makes you think that military action will solve anything? What makes you think that it will make this crisis better? How is igniting a Sunni-Shi'a war going to solve anything? All of those women, men, and children that are being enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered, how are you going to help them by raining death and destruction on Iraqi cities?

Firstly, military action will slow, halt, or roll back the ISIL advance.
Secondly, if ISIL's advance is slowed, that gives the Iraqi and Kurdish governments breathing room, improving the situation.
Thirdly, you act like there isn't already a Sunni-Shia war. That ship already sailed, pal.
And the way you help the men, women, and children being tortured, enslaved, and killed, is not by doing as you suggest and indiscriminately raining death on Iraqi cities like we did in the Tokyo firebomb raids, but by using these nifty things called drones, guided missiles, and laser-guided bombs, to kill as few civilians as possible while eliminating the ISIL threat.

1. No doubt.
2. In the short run, yeah.
3. I consider it more of a smolder rather than a wildfire, but whatever.
4. ISIL isn't some rag tag militia group with no combat experience. If you think drones, missiles, and planes can save Iraq and maintain any semblance of stability, let alone peace, then you are even more naive than Al-Faisal. They haven't worked in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and they won't work in Iraq.

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so. Terrorists groups have been taken out before. Senior terrorist leaders have been assassinated. Scores of low level, uneducated, illiterate, boys who have take up the terrorist banner have been killed. Guess what? Terrorism still continues on. Iran has been relatively safe from hardline groups like ISIL, but that's only because they've been so busy fighting the United States and Western troops across the Middle East. That will change once Iran intervenes. Iran, like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia and Niger, Mali and Yemen, will be besieged by terrorist attacks. That is a near certainty. The United States has been lucky. There is too much distance between the Middle East and North America. Iran won't be so lucky. She's smack dab in the middle of a hornet's nest just waiting to be unleashed.

Do I think that ISIL can defeat the Iranian military? No. No I do not. However, mauling Iraq isn't going to save anyone. Maybe in the short run ISIL will be run out of Iraq. Maybe ISIL and its leadership will be annihilated. So what? Some other group will replace them in the future. Maybe an even worse group if that's humanly possible. Then again, they said the same about al-Qaeda so I suppose its possible.

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

So, basically, because other terrorist groups will appear at some point, there's no point and we might as well let ISIL in because if we kill them someone worse could come along.
Okay. Makes total sense.

No.

I'm going to assume right now that you didn't read the rest of my post. My point is that intervening into Iraq will only work in the short term. It won't make Iraq stable. It won't help Sunnis and Shi'as get along. It won't stop terrorism in Iraq.

[Purpelia]

Just pause for a moment and let's consider a hypothetical. Say these people get everything they want. They tale the whole of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon was it? What happens next? In particular, what happens next that actually effects people outside of the territory they conquered and its immediate neighbors.

It has been the ISIL's plan to far outreach Al Qaeda and establish a world Calhpihate.

They claim to "fight to succeed where Zawahiri and his Al Qaeda is currently failing at".

That's the propaganda they are pitching sure. But given that their methods seem to be simply conventional warfare we know full well they know full well that it's an impossible goal. Maybe we should just give them some land to play in and satisfy their lust for blood and than bomb them back to those borders if they try and expand further.

[Rio Cana]

So we have Sunni radicals fighting Sunni moderates. Shites fighting Sunni radicals. Shites and all Sunni (radical and not radical) hating each other. Then we have Iran, Iran possibly getting into this. Then the Kurds and possibly Turkey. What a mess.

I would guess that when all these groups and nations wear each other down that the following player will come into the game and take all the spoils.

You never know, it could happen even though not likely.

This is what they looked like centuries ago.
Large map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Empire.png

[Stabkon]

That's the propaganda they are pitching sure. But given that their methods seem to be simply conventional warfare we know full well they know full well that it's an impossible goal. Maybe we should just give them some land to play in and satisfy their lust for blood and than bomb them back to those borders if they try and expand further.

Great bombing them would cause even more civilian casualties causing the friends and relatives of the dead to seek to avenge the dead and join the Islamists even more!

A grave option, good for the short term, not for the long term, and given the reluctance of the Obama administration to do such things.

[Purpelia]

This is what they looked like centuries ago.
Large map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Empire.png

Of all the great historical empires that controlled that region you picked to show these guys?

Great bombing them would cause even more civilian casualties causing the friends and relatives of the dead to seek to avenge the dead and join the Islamists even more!

A grave option, good for the short term, not for the long term, and given the reluctance of the Obama administration to do such things.

You did not address anything I said at all. You literally completely missed the point. My point is that we should NOT bomb them now and that we should let them kill whom ever they want in the middle east as long as they stay out of our hair. And if they do try and expand into Europe or somewhere else important we can just exterminate them like rats.

[Mkuki]

So we have Sunni radicals fighting Sunni moderates. Shites fighting Sunni radicals. Shites and all Sunni (radical and not radical) hating each other. Then we have Iran, Iran possibly getting into this. Then the Kurds and possibly Turkey. What a mess.

I would guess that when all these groups and nations wear each other down that the following player will come into the game and take all the spoils.

You never know, it could happen even though not likely.

This is what they looked like centuries ago.
Large map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Empire.png

Armenia will have to cleanse the shit out of Azerbaijan, though. Having a mortal enemy must be a pain.

[Stabkon]

You did not address anything I said at all. You literally completely missed the point. My point is that we should NOT bomb them now and that we should let them kill whom ever they want in the middle east as long as they stay out of our hair. And if they do try and expand into Europe or somewhere else important we can just exterminate them like rats.

Ah, forgive me for my short attention span.

But things would be different if the Saud family in Arabia (along with Arabian oil) gets replaced and controlled by a bunch of Sunni Islamists. With the extremism and Sharia law...wait, i see no difference.

[Purpelia]

Ah, forgive me for my short attention span.

But things would be different if the Saud family in Arabia (along with Arabian oil) gets replaced and controlled by a bunch of Sunni Islamists. With the extremism and Sharia law...wait, i see no difference.

Honestly I think we need to differ to Dune on this one. If I might paraphrase, the oil must flow.
What happens to the people in the region is as far as I am concerned irrelevant as long as that happens.

[Rio Cana]

So we have Sunni radicals fighting Sunni moderates. Shites fighting Sunni radicals. Shites and all Sunni (radical and not radical) hating each other. Then we have Iran, Iran possibly getting into this. Then the Kurds and possibly Turkey. What a mess.

I would guess that when all these groups and nations wear each other down that the following player will come into the game and take all the spoils.

You never know, it could happen even though not likely.

This is what they looked like centuries ago.
Large map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Empire.png

Armenia will have to cleanse the shit out of Azerbaijan, though. Having a mortal enemy must be a pain.

The problem for Armenia in taking over the region would be its small population.

But I do think that the military of even the small Armenian Republic of Nagorno Karahakh is much better then the Iraqi military. And they will fight unlike the Iraqi military which for all intended purposes with all the US training and money they got should be up there among the best.

Video of Nagorno Karabakh tank forces - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusM5HpADIw

[Calimera II]

Armenia will have to cleanse the shit out of Azerbaijan, though. Having a mortal enemy must be a pain.

The problem for Armenia in taking over the region would be its small population.

But I do think that the military of even the small Armenian Republic of Nagorno Karahakh is much better then the Iraqi military. And they will fight unlike the Iraqi military which for all intended purposes with all the US training and money they got should be up there among the best.

Video of Nagorno Karabakh tank forces - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusM5HpADIw

Nobody is in for a war.

[Mkuki]

Armenia will have to cleanse the shit out of Azerbaijan, though. Having a mortal enemy must be a pain.

Problem for Armenia would be its small population.

But I do think that the military of even the small Armenian Republic of Nagorno Karahakh is much better then the Iraqi military. And they will fight unlike the Iraqi military which for all intended purposes with all the US training and money they got should be up there among the best.

Video of Nagorno Karabakh tank forces - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusM5HpADIw

If you don't have the will to fight then the weapons aren't worth a damn.