Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[New Skaaneland]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

[Benuty]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

Given Israel isn't in the state or civil war or an incredibly weakened army good luck with that. They have survived onslaughts before especially being the under equipped, and out-manned side.

[New Jordslag]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

If they reach Israel, prepare for Armageddon.

[Blakk Metal]

How long until they reach Israel?

IS explicitly said they wouldn't touch Israel anytime soon.

[Novus America]

More brutal then the FSA? i honestly doub that. Just take a look at the areas controlled by the FSA, in many places there's strict sharia law and people desperate looking for food will get their hands cut off for stealing some, even though it is allowed (according to Sharia) to steal food for survival.
At least Saddam wasn't such an ass. If the FSA would rule, i honestly doubt they'd be any better then Assad.

The FSA does not implement full Sharia law. According to it, it aims to implement a secular democracy. You might disagree with them, but you can't accuse them of being yet another Islamist group.

I don't agree with the FSA either; but the fact is, they aren't Islamist. Muslim, certainly. Islamist, no.

See pretty much everybody is making the mistake of assuming the FSA is some unfied organization with consistent practices and beliefs when this is clearly not the case. It is a very loose coalition of all sorts of groups. Some western leaning liberals, monarchists, some more moderate Islamists, some cut you up physco Islamists, and many more. There are literally hundreds of very different grips of affiliated with the FSA. And we know little about a lot of them. But yes, I do not want the FSA to rule, because we will probably just get another Libya where a loose rebel coalition collapsed under its own internal contradictions when the Islamists inevitably turn on everyone else. Or Iran, but in the case of Iran the Islamists won, and slaughtered, tortured, exiled or oppressed every body else in the loose rebel collation that overthrew the Shah (a corrupt bastard to be sure, but much better than the even more oppressive and corrupt regime that now rules).

Which is why I think the King of Jordan is the way to go.

[Novus America]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

Given Israel isn't in the state or civil war or an incredibly weakened army good luck with that. They have survived onslaughts before especially being the under equipped, and out-manned side.

Israel can handle them, and I doubt they would get close as Israel has Jordan in the East and de facto independent southern Lebanon/ Hezbollahstan to the North, both of whom can probably fight off ISIS without much trouble. ISIS only rises in and defeats weak and fractured states like Iraq and Syria. It is not a conventional threat to any decent military.

[Ganos Lao]

ISIS only rises in and defeats weak and fractured states like Iraq and Syria. It is not a conventional threat to any decent military.

Exactly. ISIS only appeared due to the instability in both countries. You remove that from the equation and ISIS becomes little more than a fool's dream, no different from the rest of them.

The barbarity of ISIS aside, they are no doubt full of Sunnis who are adverse to the religious bias of al-Maliki.

Consider this: Al-Maliki was so partisan in 2006 when he first came to power that he denied that Shiite militias were a security problem. When Gen. David Petraeus came to him in late 2006 with a plan to disarm the Sunni and Shiite militias in Baghdad, al-Maliki insisted that he begin with the Sunni armed groups. When Sunnis rose up to help fight off the extremists, al-Maliki responded by prosecuting them for anti-government activities they had engaged in before they joined the movement. There were 100,000 in total. Al-Maliki took about 17,000 of them, but left the other 83,000 twisting in the wind, without any stipends or pensions and left open for terrorist reprisals. Al-Maliki played favorites with the Shiites of the south, his power base, and neglected to provide the Sunni Arab cities with key services, including enough electricity. He brought in tons of Shiite militia, which provoked the city of Mosul so much that they refused to give services to them and eventually turned pro-ISIS.

In late 2011, Al-Maliki abruptly declared his Sunni vice president, Tareq al-Hashimi, a terrorist, without any due process. He alienated a lot of Sunnis with this action. In 2010, when Sunnis enthusiastically joined the political process and voted in droves for the Iraqiya Party, al-Maliki froze it out of power in favor of a Shiite coalition put together under Iranian pressure. The King of Saudi Arabia did not take too kindly to Iranian influence in Iraq:

The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with al-Maliki. The King said he had met al-Maliki early in al-Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, al-Maliki had little credibility. "I don't trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don't trust?" Al-Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for al-Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

Meanwhile, the Sunnis were angry that they had the largest party in parliament but came away with nothing to show for it.

In winter-spring 2013 when Arab Spring-type demonstrations were mounted by the Sunnis in places like Falluja and Hawija in the Sunni Arab west and north, al-Maliki declared them terrorists and sent in military troops and helicopter gunships to brutally suppress the protests. Sunni Arabs, having been informed that they would be a perpetual defeated minority in parliament were now given the idea that even peaceable assembly would be denied to them as a political tactic. Al-Maliki’s policies gave them no incentive to remain within the system.

[Ganos Lao]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

Given Israel isn't in the state or civil war or an incredibly weakened army good luck with that. They have survived onslaughts before especially being the under equipped, and out-manned side.

Not to mention they would end up having a love/hate relationship with Hamas and other Palestinian groups who've vowed to fight ISIS if they get that far.

[Ganos Lao]

How long until they reach Israel? I'm getting bored.

If they reach Israel, prepare for Armageddon.

I don't think the end of days is going to happen if that happens.

[Gauthier]

If they reach Israel, prepare for Armageddon.

I don't think the end of days is going to happen if that happens.

Daesh is more like some noob at a hot game (MtG, Wow, LoL, what have you) who's having incredible luck against underaged kids or apathetic hipsters who have yet to run into the hardcore pros.

[Ganos Lao]

I don't think the end of days is going to happen if that happens.

Daesh is more like some noob at a hot game (MtG, Wow, LoL, what have you) who's having incredible luck against underaged kids or apathetic hipsters who have yet to run into the hardcore pros.

Exactly. I've said this for a long time now. They just got lucky and wouldn't have arisen at all had Iraq and Syria been stable countries.

Of course, being the Middle East, some movement would've likely arisen any way. But they wouldn't have as much success.

[Gauthier]

Daesh is more like some noob at a hot game (MtG, Wow, LoL, what have you) who's having incredible luck against underaged kids or apathetic hipsters who have yet to run into the hardcore pros.

Exactly. I've said this for a long time now. They just got lucky and wouldn't have arisen at all had Iraq and Syria been stable countries.

Of course, being the Middle East, some movement would've likely arisen any way. But they wouldn't have as much success.

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

[The balkens]

Exactly. I've said this for a long time now. They just got lucky and wouldn't have arisen at all had Iraq and Syria been stable countries.

Of course, being the Middle East, some movement would've likely arisen any way. But they wouldn't have as much success.

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

I mean, its not like said american hardware is helping Deauche all that much. Since....you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH_GKxVjLcU

[Ganos Lao]

Exactly. I've said this for a long time now. They just got lucky and wouldn't have arisen at all had Iraq and Syria been stable countries.

Of course, being the Middle East, some movement would've likely arisen any way. But they wouldn't have as much success.

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

Pretty much.

In fact, in the waning days of December 2013, clashes began when Shia militia kidnapped a Sunni MP and killed some of his relatives. Their tribe rose up in arms. This was the backdrop for ISIS when they first got started. The government in Baghdad pissed off the tribesmen so much that Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, an important tribal leader, said that while tribal militia could defeat ISIS, they would not do anything against ISIS unless Sunnis were given their rights.

After the Anbar clashes came a counter offensive against ISIS. Prior to conducting this counter offensive, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave a controversial speech in which he charactized the military campaign as a continuation of the ancient sectarian war between "the followers of Hussein and the followers of Yazid", a reference to a 7th-century defining battle for Shi'ites, thereby alienating the Sunnis of Anbar who had prior collaborated with the Iraqi government. The Sunnis were so pissed that when al-Maliki summoned Parliament to order a state of emergency, it failed because the Sunnis (and the Kurds) boycotted the session, not wanting to give him any more power.

According to the Economist, most Iraqis view the conflict as a partial Sunni uprising, rather than as a simple lunge for power by ISIS. Tariq al-Hashimi, who was sentenced to death in absentia, said the militancy against the central government was led by Sunni tribes and disenfranchised Sunnis.

Even if we get rid of ISIS, there's a ton of crap left over we'll have to wade through.

[New Jordslag]

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

Pretty much.

In fact, in the waning days of December 2013, clashes began when Shia militia kidnapped a Sunni MP and killed some of his relatives. Their tribe rose up in arms. This was the backdrop for ISIS when they first got started. The government in Baghdad pissed off the tribesmen so much that Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, an important tribal leader, said that while tribal militia could defeat ISIS, they would not do anything against ISIS unless Sunnis were given their rights.

After the Anbar clashes came a counter offensive against ISIS. Prior to conducting this counter offensive, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave a controversial speech in which he charactized the military campaign as a continuation of the ancient sectarian war between "the followers of Hussein and the followers of Yazid", a reference to a 7th-century defining battle for Shi'ites, thereby alienating the Sunnis of Anbar who had prior collaborated with the Iraqi government. The Sunnis were so pissed that when al-Maliki summoned Parliament to order a state of emergency, it failed because the Sunnis (and the Kurds) boycotted the session, not wanting to give him any more power.

According to the Economist, most Iraqis view the conflict as a partial Sunni uprising, rather than as a simple lunge for power by ISIS. Tariq al-Hashimi, who was sentenced to death in absentia, said the militancy against the central government was led by Sunni tribes and disenfranchised Sunnis.

Even if we get rid of ISIS, there's a ton of crap left over we'll have to wade through.

Ah, Maliki. The one guy as universally hated by Sunnis as the Ayatollah of Iran.

[Napkiraly]

*Rule Britannia intensifies*

[Migas999]

*Rule Britannia intensifies*

All hail Britannia

[Migas999]

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

Pretty much.

In fact, in the waning days of December 2013, clashes began when Shia militia kidnapped a Sunni MP and killed some of his relatives. Their tribe rose up in arms. This was the backdrop for ISIS when they first got started. The government in Baghdad pissed off the tribesmen so much that Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, an important tribal leader, said that while tribal militia could defeat ISIS, they would not do anything against ISIS unless Sunnis were given their rights.

After the Anbar clashes came a counter offensive against ISIS. Prior to conducting this counter offensive, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave a controversial speech in which he charactized the military campaign as a continuation of the ancient sectarian war between "the followers of Hussein and the followers of Yazid", a reference to a 7th-century defining battle for Shi'ites, thereby alienating the Sunnis of Anbar who had prior collaborated with the Iraqi government. The Sunnis were so pissed that when al-Maliki summoned Parliament to order a state of emergency, it failed because the Sunnis (and the Kurds) boycotted the session, not wanting to give him any more power.

According to the Economist, most Iraqis view the conflict as a partial Sunni uprising, rather than as a simple lunge for power by ISIS. Tariq al-Hashimi, who was sentenced to death in absentia, said the militancy against the central government was led by Sunni tribes and disenfranchised Sunnis.

Even if we get rid of ISIS, there's a ton of crap left over we'll have to wade through.

We have to find a long term solution for stability and ending the sectarian violence

[Migas999]

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

I mean, its not like said american hardware is helping Deauche all that much. Since....you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH_GKxVjLcU

Even if the equipment gets destroyed giving it to them isn´t good in the first place

[Novus America]

I mean, its not like said american hardware is helping Deauche all that much. Since....you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH_GKxVjLcU

Even if the equipment gets destroyed giving it to them isn´t good in the first place

Yes, giving them tanks we have to destroy with A-10s a month later is hardly an efficient use of resources.

[Migas999]

Even if the equipment gets destroyed giving it to them isn´t good in the first place

Yes, giving them tanks we have to destroy with A-10s a month later is hardly an efficient use of resources.

Resources that could be put to better use killing ISIS

[Novus America]

Pretty much.

In fact, in the waning days of December 2013, clashes began when Shia militia kidnapped a Sunni MP and killed some of his relatives. Their tribe rose up in arms. This was the backdrop for ISIS when they first got started. The government in Baghdad pissed off the tribesmen so much that Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, an important tribal leader, said that while tribal militia could defeat ISIS, they would not do anything against ISIS unless Sunnis were given their rights.

After the Anbar clashes came a counter offensive against ISIS. Prior to conducting this counter offensive, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave a controversial speech in which he charactized the military campaign as a continuation of the ancient sectarian war between "the followers of Hussein and the followers of Yazid", a reference to a 7th-century defining battle for Shi'ites, thereby alienating the Sunnis of Anbar who had prior collaborated with the Iraqi government. The Sunnis were so pissed that when al-Maliki summoned Parliament to order a state of emergency, it failed because the Sunnis (and the Kurds) boycotted the session, not wanting to give him any more power.

According to the Economist, most Iraqis view the conflict as a partial Sunni uprising, rather than as a simple lunge for power by ISIS. Tariq al-Hashimi, who was sentenced to death in absentia, said the militancy against the central government was led by Sunni tribes and disenfranchised Sunnis.

Even if we get rid of ISIS, there's a ton of crap left over we'll have to wade through.

We have to find a long term solution for stability and ending the sectarian violence

Exactly, ISIS is the symptom, not the underlying disease.

[Migas999]

We have to find a long term solution for stability and ending the sectarian violence

Exactly, ISIS is the symptom, not the underlying disease.

I still think the best solution for long term stability is dividing Iraq and fixing Syria(changing the regime)

[Migas999]

If Maliki wasn't such a sectarian douchebag, the Iraqi army would have actually stood ground and excreted Daesh into a septic tank instead of walking away and giving them free American hardware.

I mean, its not like said american hardware is helping Deauche all that much. Since....you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH_GKxVjLcU

Seems like they ain´t too smart either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypgA_MsERAE

[Novus America]

Exactly, ISIS is the symptom, not the underlying disease.

I still think the best solution for long term stability is dividing Iraq and fixing Syria(changing the regime)

I agree, but unfortunately doing that as it would be controversial is unlikely. Forward thinking, strong willed, knowledgable politicians willing to actually solve problems are in short supply. Most of our current leaders, lack the will and understanding to actually solve problems. Take for example Obama, he is clearly to weak to push any real solution, his plan is simply drop some bombs and let the next president deal with it.

Take for example the water shortages is many places including the Middle East. There is an easy solution, desalination. But despite the solution being obvious and achievable many have sat around and done nothing.