Bitcoin Forum

U.S. conducts airstrikes on ISIS militants in Iraq
By Tom Cohen and Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 1:28 PM EDT, Fri August 8, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. F/A-18 jet fighters bombed artillery of Sunni Islamic extremists in Iraq on Friday, escalating America's military involvement more than two years after President Barack Obama brought home forces from the country.

Obama authorized "targeted airstrikes" if needed to protect U.S. personnel from fighters with ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State. The U.S. military also could use airstrikes to prevent what officials warn could be a genocide of minority groups by the ISIS fighters.

Meanwhile, a senior Kurdish official told CNN that ISIS militants captured Iraq's largest hydroelectric dam, just north of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. According to the official, the militant fighters have been using U.S.-made weapons seized from the Iraqi army, including M1 Abrams tanks.

There had been conflicting reports about who controlled the dam on the Tigris River, with heavy fighting under way between ISIS fighters and Kurdish forces, known as Peshmerga. U.S. officials have warned that a failure of the dam would catastrophic, resulting in flooding all the way to Baghdad.

In other fighting, an Iraqi airstrike killed 45 ISIS fighters and injured 60 Friday in the northern town of Sinjar, the country's state-run National Media Center said.

Sinjar is the town that ISIS raided last weekend, causing members of the Yazidi minority there to flee into surrounding mountains without food, water or shelter and prompting concerns of a potential genocide.

are there any images of the air strikes, I saw this on many media outlet but no images were provided

US airforce is now working side by side with Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Iraqi and Russians airforce targeting ISIS. I hope they will destroy ISIS for good.

They will not, force doesn't work at all, the only thing force could do, is lower ISIS capabilities which a good thing to do right now, but deal with ISIS you need to deal with the source of the problem, and the flow on new recruites coming mainly from devastated areas and people suffering and this should be the real long terms plan, doing just military action ill just strengthens Extrimism in general as proven in the last decade

no pictures,here is the link were i read the news : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/us-begins-air-strikes-iraq-isis

Unsurprising, US military direct involvement was just a matter of time after the Iraqi Army turned tail and ran from a numerically inferior ISIS force. And given that we had a pretty large part in creating this mess, I can't say I take much issue with it vs. other military campaigns.

There's live updates on the Guardian website: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/11/iraq-crisis-us-air-strikes-help-kurds-retake-territory-live-updates

Also a video of the first airstrike here:  http://www.ibtimes.com/us-airstrikes-watch-planes-bomb-isis-targets-iraq-video-1653972

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2014/08/09/us-airstrike-isis.png

It's probably inevitable that they're going to go back into Iraq. These Isis tools are pretty brutal and unfortuantly need to be stopped. They're just slaughtering people.

wise words...

although the people do not want to go back to Iraq.. this was a mess created by western governments and so we should clean it up.
I personally was deeply ashamed when my country went to war just because my prime minister had his head so firmly wedged up George w. bushes ass.

Saddam was a threat to the region but very little threat to the world... ISIS is much more of a threat both to the region and to the entire world.

I guess it was part of the purpose of the Iraq war. Without war, there wouldn't be a war industry

Obama was warned that ISIS is very dangerous, but the smartest man in the world just blew it off by calling them 'JV". Obama has made lots of blunders, but this is one that's going to get lots of people killed. I used to think that I didn't want Obama to step down because that meant we'd have Joe Biden the idiot in charge, but now I think Biden might actually be better.

americans are like illnesses. They are always there but nobody wants them.

The video is a nice catch, well I guess will have to wait till information are dis-classified

lol.. Syrians are not involved at all. Turks and Russians are limiting their role to delivering food and water aid. Iranians are active on ground, but they are not conducting any air missions.

I absolutely detest the people who gave the US; George bush, liberal gun laws and the Tea party. but in all honesty... you guys would probably be safer with someone like John McCain running the place in a time of crisis at least he would stick to his convictions and make tough decisions.  Obama on the other hand .. you don't know what he's going to do next... I know it must be tough trying to get things done when congress is blocking everything.. but he seems to just change direction every-time he thinks he is going to make a political enemy.

oh no I wont get tough on Isreal they are going to get angry at me.. oh no I cant support the revolution in Libya, Syria and Egypt then more Muslims might get angry... oh no I better not close down gwantanamo more angry people might be let loose. better not deploy US troops all those soldiers angry mothers are going come at me....

when he first came in to office I had high hopes for Obama and the world, but I'm really starting to wonder what happened to "Yes we can"

what simply happened to Obama is just what happens to the any naïfs politician that thinks that he has the power of decision, well reality is the US is rulled by strong lobbies, being it economical ones, such as the energy sector and among them Oil of course, or defense and weapon cartels that wants to sell more weapon, and political foreign lobbies, such AIPAC which by far has the US helf by the balls, or Saudi Arabia for example

as a wise man pointed out to me recently however... its Obama's second term.. he cant run for president again.. so he should just man up and play hard ball where it counts.
the world wont remember the little president that could... the world is only going to remember the great president that did stand up for what he personally believed in.
Obama care was a great idea but it may yet get torn down.... a real and lasting peace agreement somewhere... now that would be worthy of a nobel peace prize.

Maliki 'forced out' as Iraq's prime minister

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/nouri-al-maliki-iraq-forced-out-prime-minister

Iraq's embattled prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, appeared to have lost his job on Monday, after the country's president appointed a rival Shia candidate to form a new government.
In a major defeat for Maliki, Iraq's largest coalition of Shia political parties nominated Haider al-Abadi, a member of Maliki's Shia Islamist Dawa party, to take over as prime minister.

I agree with this and I thought about this for a while, but it doesn't matter really as any decision he'll make would be blocked anyway, not only that but he needs to take into consideration his carrier after his presidency, I guess it's hard to go counter the flow of things, and the only president to do in our dear west in recent years is probably Jacques Chirac, which wasn't a tool that flow anything he was told.

they should take it in turns and have 3 leaders run the country.. one sunni one shia and one kurd.
 that worked for the romans

This is a mess we created. A little foresight could have avoided this but getting our troops out of the country was apparently more important than maintaining a stable situation. Our foreign policy is so ham handed.

ISIS is terrible. They have a habit of beheading people and literally crucifying Christians.Good thing we are spending millions of dollars to bomb millions in tanks and apcs that we paid for.

The senior staff in all the companies of the defense industry must be walking around with giant raging erections. Its the ideal scenario for them.

Will have to see where it goes. Mission creep is always a big possibility, but for now President Obama seems to want to keep any engagement very limited and doesn't want to be seen as taking the offensive for the Iraqi government or Kurds.

mission creep a possibility? how long did George bush say this war in Iraq was going to take? 6 months? how long ago was that?  lolz

the problem is that politicians never have any long term vision. Obama was happy to keep kicking george bush's can down the road as long as the proverbial sh*t didn't hit the fan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5547635.html

Reported ISIS Member Says They Will Destroy The Kaaba In Mecca, 'Kill Those Who Worship Stones' [UPDATE]

UPDATE 4:14 PM--
The Twitter account https://twitter.com/nm8smyh, which sent the original message, has been suspended. The authenticity of the account as belonging to an ISIS member has not been verified.

A reported member of the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which recently dubbed itself simply as The Islamic State, has declared that they will destroy the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which is Islam's most holy site.

APA quoted alleged ISIS member Abu Turab Al Mugaddasi based on reports from Turkish media, who said on Twitter:

If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah.
ISIS reportedly is planning to take over the city of Arar in Saudi Arabia, which is very close to the Iraq border. It is a fifteen-hour drive away from Mecca, the site of the Hajj pilgrimage which all observant Muslims are expected to do at least once.

If indeed the statement is from an ISIS member, it's a shocking one even for them, considering that ISIS has been attempting to increase recruitment from Muslims worldwide by declaring the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate.

According to John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, "In terms of legitimacy- unless you're someone who's ready to join a terrorist group at this point, for the vast majority of Muslims there is no legitimacy with this group." This most recent threat reinforces Esposito's point, particularly as it comes during the holy month of Ramadan.

This piece has been updated to reflect the lack of authentication behind the reported tweet.

Wow if that is accurate this could get really ugly. We definitely do not want to get dragged into fights between Muslim sects.

There is no such group as ISIS or ISIL. They are now just IS.
In any case, it should not be a surprise to anyone. We lost the war in Iraq then refused to help in Syria.  Now the the civil war is underway to determine the future of the region. Airstrikes are not going to do anything without trained and motivated ground fighters.
This should concern us. Members of IS have aspirations of a global caliphate base in Raqqa. It's not going to work, but they are going to hurt a lot of people before they lose.

Not yet, they are probably busy on the phone pushing and lobbying for a larger military operation so they can sell more arms, not only that but sell more to Iraqi goverment and all the proximity countries

The renaming of ISIS/L to IS makes clear of their true intentions. Their ultimate aim is to establish an Islamic Caliphate (al dawlah al islamīyah) all over the world. If someone thinks that they just want Islamic rule over Syria and Iraq, then they are grossly mistaken.

I have been waiting for something like this to happen. A group of Savages to really take their savagery too far and want to destroy Mecca or even the Dome of the Rock.

Either way the other Savages will find a way to blame America or "Tha Jews" for it.

imo there just is no way that that tweet could be authentic.. an Islamic fundamentalist group that declares war against all of Islam has got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

chances are it is propaganda that was planted to stir up sectarian violence against ISIS in the region... but even if it is ISIS.. it will only serve to hasten their demise.  there is not a single regime on earth that can exist on fear and hatred alone without any external help.

if you think ISIS has nothing to do with US or Israeli foreign policy then you must be living under a rock.
there is even some suggestion in some parts of the media that ISIS were initially trained by the US and Mossad to fight the Assad regime... I do not know how credible those reports and they may very well be based on Iranian propaganda but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they turned out to be at least partially true.

I think only ed snowden has the real truth about how much the US and Isreal were involved so we have to wait to see what he shows the world.

here is some food for thought

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-how-us-involvement-in-iraq-shaped-the-rise-of-isis-leader/articleshow/40061144.cms

I suspect so. The alternative is just too crazy. Maybe if accurate it is a good thing for Muslims to see how extreme this group is.

What was this air strike conducted with? I thought they didn't have anything but Cessna's with bottle rockets.

This one works with Singapore too.  :D

They have gathered a few MiG's over the last several years (some bought, others found in Serbia where Hussein sent them in the 80s for repairs and could never bring them back after sanctions were imposed), and more recently bought some Su-25s specifically for combating the ISIS forces.

Basically they have a bunch of 30-40 year old jets.

So basically they were lucky the aircraft itself wasn't the strike package. Too little, too late. He should have done this the minute they first started marching East across that wide open desert.

If we ever have to go back to Iraq, he owns that. And Maliki refusing to step down just makes things perfect.

A few weeks ago, the Iraqi Armed Forces purchased a few second hand Su-25 fighter jets from Belarus. A few were also sold by Russia. These jets are quite old ones, some were reportedly of the Soviet era. But that doesn't matter, as the ISIS is not armed with any SAM batteries. Let's hope that no 9K38 Igla or  9K31 Strela reaches their hands.

And I've been waiting for moderate Muslims to stand up for themselves rather than join then or turn and run.

This is all just another example of how Religion ruins everything.
A bunch of people in the desert fighting over who can hear the magic voice in their ear clearer than the next guy.

So ridiculous, on so many levels.

Don't blame all the religions. Some religions are pacifist, while some are not.

Moderate Muslims have to stand up to ISIS or ISIS may even destroy the Kaaba. Does Maliki use Twitter? Maybe The Regime can start a new hashtag and that will get him to step down .I bet that will work. You could get a job in the admin for that one.

Can you explain how is this a religion fault? you have some psychopaths using religion to justify their crimes as any other criminal did does in history, finding an excuse for their crimes.


Due geopolitical reasons outside intervention from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Kuweit ect is not possible or at least directly due to previous conflicts with Iraq, and more importantly due Iran influence in current Iraq. Also the US will not let such a thing happen, the only way for other countries to intervene and they asked for it in current case of Libya which is turning to be a second Iraq is trough UN and UN keeping force

1.) President Obama absolutely should not have bombed ISIS when they entered Iraq. That would have only made them stronger in the long run on an ideological level where they are currently, the weakest. A ground expansion can be afforded, and contained, ideological spread is much harder to reign in.

2.) Moderate Muslims have always fought against AQI, ISI, ISIS, and now IS. They have also fought on their side as well. Most fighters that are "invading" Iraq aren't religious radicals, nor are they IS.

3.) Twitter is relied upon heavily by terrorist and militant organizations like the Taliban, the IS, Al Nusra, AQAP, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab. Ignoring or downplaying the presence of Jihadis in these spaces to try to engage in domestic petty politicking is rather douchey, and intellectually dishonest.

People blame Maliki as if his 'sins' justify what ISIS are doing. Wahhabism is the root of the problem. It's politics. Give them time to commit their atrocities, so the US will look like the great saviour.That being said, I fully support any country that will bomb these fucks out of existence.

Your comment was dumb, not because I think you lack for intelligence, but rather because it was obvious that you made it in the absence of any knowledge of what is going on in Iraq. Simply put, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Al Maliki himself is part of the problem. His ultra-bias towards the Shiite Arabs forced at least a section of the Sunni Arabs to ally with the ISIS and to extract revenge (even those who are secular, such as the supporters of the Ba'ath party). Wahabbism is the root problem, but ISIS would have never grown this big without the extreme incompetence from Nouri Al Maliki.

Malikis faults here is that he actually to prosecute and mistreated or at least didn't do his job to protect Sunnis, Sunnis in Iraq became second class citizen after Shiites took control hence creating tensions in the country this obviously facilitated the access of ISIS into Iraq, not only that but I think the fact that the country getting split is also his fault in part (I don't know if Kurds deserves their country or not as I'm literate enough on their history) and providing no proper defense to his people.

ISIS are doing whatever sense, in Iraq while even Lebanon is dealing with them without a proper heck even Hezbollah has no problem to deal with them which is a prove that it doesn't require much to deal with them.

He should have had US forces intervene when the ISIS started to be more then a small nuisance. It was several weeks that the ISIS was fighting until they started making serious headway in taking over most of Iraq. From the time they took over a few cities to the time they took over most of the country was a very short amount of time as the Iraqi military was ill prepared.

U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel
Baghdadi of ISIS Pushes an Islamist Crusade

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html)

Was going to start another thread but thought I'd tuck this one in here.

Considering the IS hates Saudi Arabia, simply blaming Wahhabism is a bit reductionist, and not very accurate. And yes, Maliki is a large part of the current problem. the IS aren't the majority actors in this fighting and Maliki had a direct role in killing the momentum of the Awakening movement against Al Qaeda.

This doesn't have anything to do with our hesitancy in the subject. With a deeply sectarian and divisive leader of Iraq (Maliki) it isn't a good tactic to promote said individual when the IS garners most of its support by relying on that sectarian imagery and threat from Maliki.

How will ISIS get support when it is threatening to destroy the Kaaba?

I do not defend Al Qaeda, or anything like that, but Al Qaeda disagrees with ISIS because they say that if they are not at war with someone or being invaded by someone, like the Yazidis, or the Iraqi Christians, then they leave them alone. Also, Al Qaeda wants to take the Kaaba from Saudi Arabia but they do not support destroying it the way some members of ISIS do. Also, ISIS is unnecessarily barbaric. Al Qaeda only believes in beheading those who they are at war with or who they feel is occupying their land. I'm not defending Al Qaeda, but ISIS is even too extreme for Al Qaeda.

It isn't currently relying on theological support. It is relying on the fact that the Maliki government is viewed as a hostile government to Iraqi Sunnis and represents itself as the means for which Iraqi Sunnis can protect themselves from said hostile government. It has essentially tapped into that sectarian argument and political oppression to organize and direct Sunni Tribal groupings and former Saddam loyalists against the Maliki government. Most fighters attacking the government are not members of ISIS.

And I only think Maliki is disliked by Sunnis because he is a Shia. I do not find him divisive. I just think being a Shia makes it harder for him to get respect from Sunnis.

Al Qaeda disagrees with the ISIS on a number of things. One of the big ones is sectarianism (which al Qaeda's ideological old guard is against). They also disagree with the formation of Islamic states, preferring instead to work towards a greater caliphate (through the establishment of emirates). It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has big theological implications as well. They also disagree strongly on who should lead a future Islamic caliphate with Al Qaeda supporting Muhammad Omar of the Taliban while the IS supports Baghdadi.

that's true.. but even the pacifist religions can be corrupted to meet a political agenda..

and its not just religions either its a problem with all ideologies.

It is a big mistake for Iraqi Sunnis to support ISIS. They are supporting barbarians.

Yes, Al Qaeda is against sectarianism. And yes, Al Qaeda wants a Caliphate from Morocco through Pakistan. Israel is interfering with that dream of a greater Caliphate. ISIS had better be careful not to tick off Israel because Israel may launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. should continue airstrikes against ISIS. They should attack ISIS positions in Syria as well.

I would rather have Assad in power in Syria rather than ISIS. I think Shias are more moderate than radical Sunnis; which I think is obvious.

They are supporting their own protection (in their eyes). They actively fought AQI during the Awakening and were rewarded with a discriminatory state government. Many don't even like the ISIS but figure that they'll deal with Baghdadi after Maliki has been taken care of, others are coerced via threats to cooperate.

the people living in rebel held towns in syria would disagree with you.

the human rights abuses being committed by the Assad regime are almost as bad as ISIS.

dropping barrels filled with explosives from helicopters into crowded civilian areas... is that so much less barbaric?

I think it is best to keep a Shia Prime Minister in Iraq. That way, Iraq, Iran, and Syria will have Shia leaders. And the rest of the Muslim world will have Sunni leaders. This will keep things balanced.

That being said, not all Sunni tribes are complicit in ISIS activities. Particularly in Anbar, which is the entire reason why the ISIS had to approach Baghdad from the north through Mosul and Kurdish territory rather than straight from the West.

It doesn't help things that the Maliki government's response has been to shell Sunni areas pretty indiscriminately. It rather reinforces the ISIS' propaganda.

AQ/Jabhat Al Nusra disowned IS nobody likes them https://mobile.twitter.com/JihadNews2/status/498544254005022720

Keeping up with IS twitter accounts is hard since they die so fast. Average shelf life of an IS jihadi is a few weeks until somebody reports they are dead. 2 of the 3 UK guys in that recruiting vid are dead already. Baghdadi is claiming direct descendance from the prophet it's now officially a cult. Waiting for Baghdadi to write his own dianetics book and start performing 'miracles'

There are some radical Muslims that believe that they have do destroy different Sects (Shia) first before they move on to the Christians and Jews and then Allah will reveal Himself. It keeps the balance when at least several Muslim countries have a Shia Prime Minister. If Iraq and Syria fall to Sunni insurgents, then the only Shia-led State left will be Iran. This would unite Islamic extremists against Christians and Jews next.

Edit: There are even some Sunnis Muslims who believe that Shias are not even real Muslims.

That's fine I suppose, but it doesn't really do anything to address the concerns of the Sunnis and Kurds. I'm not really sure what metrics you are basing this notion of balance on, but I don't think many Gulf States would agree with you.

Sectarianism goes in both directions. Shia militias in Iraq has been known to kill people simply for being Sunnis as well and some of these death checkpoints in Baghdad have been seen to operate with at least the tacit approval of the Maliki Administration. We've also seen anti-Sunni death squads in Syria, particularly in the coastal region where plenty of mass graves will attest to legitimate Sunni concerns of safety.

I don't care what the Gulf States have to say. This is my personal opinion on a message board. And I said some Islamic extremists, not all.

I don't care what Gulf States have to say if they have a united Sunni Extremist Emirate that wants to target me (as a Jew) or someone else on this forum (as a Christian). All Sunni extremist insurgent groups I see as a threat to both Jews and Christians.

I don't think the argument here is that Iraq shouldn't have a majority shia representation. Side note: Azerbaijan is also predominately shia. They just aren't very close to Iran (politically) and side more with the US and Israel.Islamic extremists have never been united.

That is how some Islamic extremists think. I have been to Kuwait, Qatar, and Israel and I have spoken to Muslims while studying Political Science in college. I also speak fluent Russian (being originally from Ukraine) and can tell you what Chechen militants are saying.

From all this is how I conclude my thoughts when I write them down. This is from Political Science study and first hand experience, and not from reading news articles.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that is just how I feel.

To add, if it keeps a billion Hindus, two billion Christians, and 15 million Jews safe from terrorism and beheadings I would rather have the Middle East divided along Sunni-Shia religious lines. I don't want Shias to be oppressed to the point where they are no longer politically relevant and Sunni insurgent groups decide to focus their entire attention on Christians, Hindus, and Jews.

No harshness received or intended on my part either. I was just asking you why you felt that way and pointing out some of the difficulties with being so generic. I have a degree in Political Science as well (not really sure why that matters), and am a prime target for many Jihadis too.

That being said, there are real problems with ignoring the intricacies of realities on the ground as it relates to Iraq. It has cost us in the past during our initial invasion and it will again if we don't pay attention to them now.

You were not being harsh. I just went overboard not caring about the influence of the Gulf States in places like Iraq and Syria. For that I apologize.

I am just saying that I support negotiating with Iran and Syria. Although I am conservative, on the issue of Iran and Syria I am pretty liberal. I feel that ISIS is a greater threat to America, Saudi Arabia, India, and Israel than Assad and Iran can ever be. I don't think Iran is suicidal in building nukes and Assad is giving up his chemical weapons. We should work together to keep equal representation in the Middle East. A Jewish State, a Palestinian State, a Kurdish State, and Sunni and Shia States. I am sick and tired of how some of us here in the States support Al Nusra and Jihadis who behead people in Syria at the expense of Assad, who is more moderate in comparison. I would not have said that in the past, and I am actually shocked that I am saying it now. But we need balance. A balance in the Middle East is needed and not support for the rebels in Syria. I personally think this is in the best interest of both the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India. That is just my opinion. I don't want crazy religious prophecies to come true.

This edit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You seem to be assigning Islamic terrorists MUCH more power than they have ever had. I also don't see how your concerns for safety are furthered by the stance of yours on Iraq that you proposed. Ignoring the Sunni population in Iraq is what created the viable space for the ISIS to grow and survive in the first place, I'm not sure why you would see the continuation of that failed approach in combating radicalism as a good option moving forward.

That is all. Remember, I have been studying religion too. So I know how Jihadis think. I think more on the religious realm rather than the political realm. And we are in trouble if we let the majority not let the minority have rights. And that includes Israel not letting a Palestinian state be created, and that also includes the Arab world not recognizing Israel as a Jewish State. Both Jews and Palestinians are minority groups that need to be recognized in the Greater Middle East.

Edit: While I am secular, I feel that religion plays a lot of factors in the Greater Middle East.

Which is fairly surprising to me given your security concerns and given the fact that Iran and Syria have probably been the two largest net exporters of terrorism against the Israeli state (think Hamas and Hezbollah).

Where is Saddam when we need him? Oh... wait... they sold "Democracy" there.
How long until US realizes that "Democracy" has huge requirements to be a good thing? Sell "Democracy" to people filled up with monkeys in the head and fearing imaginary friends, is like trying to install Windows 8.1 in a ZX Spectrum 48K! The population doesn't met any of the minimum requirements for it to work.
The best weapons are schools, science and culture, before that is in place no democracy can work anywhere.

I don't know what logic is this, this is not a numbers question and your point is not related in any to the problem and will not solve population diversity issues, tribal aspects of iraq and internal conflicts, The big problem Al Maliki is not the fact that he is Shiite, it's because of his discrimination towards Sunnis to the point of isolation and favoritism towards Shiits any leader no matter which current he follows if he doesn't involve all parties in his government, and he does not treat all the population indifferently, Iraq will remain a rumble of dust after it was one of the most scientifically advanced country in the region with strong economy and cultural diversity. (euh proper democracy?)

I don't see the ISIS as being a threat to India. It doesn't have the capabilities of extending itself that far. Likewise, it is too focused internally to be a huge threat to us in the States at the moment (which was always another criticism of Al Qaeda's), Iran's funding of Hamas weaponry has had a much larger impact to date on Israel than anything that AQI has ever been able to muster (though their threat there is growing in Syria), and Saudi Arabia would 100% disagree with you as Iran is there primarily military threat (though they are worried about radicalism now too).

I agree.. the middle east has been divided along sectarian lines for decades and it has not provided any stability in the region.
people who adopt extremist views and travel to the middle east to fight do so because they are unwilling or unable to integrate into the societies in which they currently live.
dividing up communities and making them exclusive rather than inclusive only makes the issue worse.

furthermore it is extremely difficult to de-radicalize someone once they have become radicalized so the best approach is to break down the cultural/sectarian barriers and prevent them from being marginalized and then radicalized in the first place.

this is why foreign policies that support tyrannical regimes and allow them to carry out brutal acts of indiscriminate violence have been so ineffective at combating terrorism.
and so has direct military intervention.

if you want to prevent terrorism you need to cut it off at the source. i.e. target those people who are using religion as a smoke screen to further their own political ambitions. but you need to target them in a way that discredits them rather than reinforcing their extreme views or turning them into martyrs.

almost every liberal and pluralist country has radical preachers but most people laugh at them because they can see with their own eyes and well educated brains that they are preaching nonsense. in countries and places where people are less well off, less well educated and disenfranchised those kinds of preachers are taken very seriously.

this has more to do with understanding psychology than it does understanding religion.

Assad and Maliki's governments or the gulf states for that matter aren't built on the notion of equal representation. they are built on the notion of dictatorial control.
This is exactly how Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc operate. I guess I am seeing some disconnect between your stated ideology and your policy suggestions.

I am saying in the Greater Middle East. Not necessarily per country, but have most countries as a whole represented by majorities and a few countries represented by minorities.

For example 3 Shia-led States, a Jewish State, and a bunch of Sunni States. And then India on the Eastern End.

Not have a bunch of Sunni States with India and an endangered Israel. Israel, the U.S., and Iran can work together against ISIS. I think negotiations can work here.

you have an interesting view of the world.. Isreal is actually run by a minority group (oh right Palestinians don't count as people of Isreal even though they live under Isreali military law and live on the same land),  so is Syria, Jordan, and arguably Lebanon, Iraq, Eqypt....

WTF?????????


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/26/2604c8c350d537bb08322a3ea7a94a0fcf8606b56e39ba1f62301224aa417e84.jpg

So Shia existance made it that the Islamic extremist are not united against Jews and Christians ? lol?


I don't from where you are getting such informations from, and I'm sorry to say so you are just speaking non sense in your post here. If Sunnis wanted to destroy Shiites they would have done so centuries ago.........

As for your edit, Yes there are a minority of Sunnis that thinks Shiites are not real muslim and the other way around is true as well, and it is the same for every religion, Christianism : Catholic Vs Protestant (among others of course as there are dozens of currents in Christianity), Jews : Karaite Judaism vs Orthodox Judaism ...ect)

Right, so if you see it as a problem for the whole region, then why wouldn't it be a problem when it comes to a country by country basis?
Shia states have been just as antagonistic towards Israel, not sure how promoting them is supposed to automatically keep Israel safer.

The religious argument goes in here. I want to keep a balance of Shia and Sunni control so that Sunni insurgents do not overthrow Shia States and then turn to attacking Israel and the U.S.

So you want to perpetuate endless sectarian fighting so that Israel is never targeted? Or how exactly would that work to protect israel and the US?

No, I don't want Sectarian fighting, but I do want different Sects to control different countries. This keeps the Middle East in balance. My nightmare would be the Syrian and Iraqi Governments being toppled and being replaced with a Sunni ultra-religious State. This would drag Israel into war with it and would cause even more chaos in the Middle East.

I understand your point but I'm trying to say it's quire simplistic thinking, if you didn't know Iran which is mostly Shiite has called or at least their religious leader called for the destruction of Israel. but that not the point

-Shia is just one current in Islam as there are many, is as if you are saying Orthodoxs, Protestant, Evangelist, Jehovah Witness..... ect should have their perspective countries, it doesn't make sense at all
-Sunnite are not a minority in Iraq, and what you are saying can only work when you have a minority of population hence it is working Iran or Israel, but in Iraq, you need to share power and have everyone threated equally if you want to solve the problems
-Isis are using the devision within Iraq to their advantage, Kurd, Sunnit, Shiite ... ect if there was no division this woudn't be an issue, if you want to solve the issue you need to solve the devision


This is once again is a wrong argument, Sects controlled countries are usually racists, and Israel is a good example of that, where non jewish people are considered second class citizens, on the other hand when things are done properly at least from this aspect, you don't find this kind of issues, and we can take countries like Tunisia or Morocco or Turkey as examples here. In Iraq Sunnites like i said before are not a minority, no matter who's the leader and what his personal convictions he needs to treat everyone equally

Give me some proof for this statement. There is enough evidence to prove that the Saudi sheikhs are supporting IS in Syria. In fact, Saudi is the no.2 sponsor, after Qatar. And Wahabbism is the driving ideology behind IS.

No, lack of inclusiveness is the problem in this case. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Maliki refusing to step down even though he has virtually no support.

It still doesn't excuse the formation of ISIS. They're too radical regardless of how Sunnis feel excluded.

the number 1 sponsor of the Saudi regime is the USA...
the Saudi regime is seen as a puppet of the US by everyone in the middle east (its not like it was ever a secret)

but does that mean that the US is behind IS?
IS are a threat to everyone not just the US and Isreal.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah see IS (ISIS) as a threat.. lets not get too carried away with the idea of state sponsored terrorism.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/08/07/Lebanon-Saudi-Arabia-ISIS-and-Hezbollah.html

Shia states aren't much better... That's the main issue, there's no peace in Islam, never been and never will be. Other than Shias and Sunnis, you still have Sufists, Amahddya and a whole lot of Islamic shreds, every of them hating others and none better than others.
The only solution is to move them towards secularism, like Turkey, other than that they will keep fighting. But a move to secularism has to come from within them, not imposed at gun point, and that can only be achieved by providing them with schools - not shitty Madrassas - and providing protection to those willing to move away from Islam.
To sum this up: an Arab born Arab, nobody born Muslim (or Christian or whatever), that's imposed to them at young age by a dark aged culture, and this is what needs to be stopped. But as long as the ignorant elders are in control, new generations are sunk into ignorance as well.

Israel on the other hand is well able to keep by itself. It was already attacked by a joint muslim force, with no success.

He wasn't explaining the formation of the ISIS. He was explaining why Iraqi Sunnis would rebel against the central Iraqi government which creates a space for ISIS to operate in.

Hmm.... Iran and Hezbollah have reasons to hate the ISIS. But what about Saudi Arabia and Hamas? Right now, the ISIS pose no danger to Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are more concerned about the Shia population in the oil producing Eastern province (Dhahran / Dammam region), than any Sunni Arab terrorist organizations.

ill post the link again since I added it while you were typing.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/08/07/Lebanon-Saudi-Arabia-ISIS-and-Hezbollah.html

Hamas is a national liberation movement.. if they were taken over by ISIS there would be no Palestine and no point to Hamas. Hamas do not want to be part of Isreal and they certainly do not want to be part of some caliphate.. they want to rule over Palestine by and for themselves just like the Zionists do..

Saudi motivations are also clear.. being a puppet regime of the US they need US backing to stay in power.
they don't get US backing if they do anything to support ISIS.

Much of said "support" has nothing to do with theological beliefs, but practical concerns of sectarian violence and concerns of political marginalization.

I agree it has always been about political manoeuvring and rivalries. they all see IS as a threat because IS wants to destroy all national borders between them.

if the IS caliphate existed the way they want it.. there would be no Syria, No Iraq, No Iraqi kurdistan, no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Palestine and no Isreal.

that is why it was called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) originally. the Levant + Iraq is the fertile crescent which takes in all of those countries.

It's true. Shias and Sunnis have been fighting in Iraq for over a decade and Sunnis feel marginalized.But at the same time, it's like making a deal with the devil.I wish Iraq's Sunnis had a better way to help their people rather than rely on those ISIS monsters.

That's where a more inclusive government other than Maliki's administration comes into play, and why mover said that Maliki was part of the problem.

From MSN News

US sending arms directly to Kurds in Iraq

AP 10 hr ago By LOLITA C. BALDOR of Associated Press

SYDNEY (AP) — The Obama administration has begun directly providing weapons to Kurdish forces who have started to make gains against Islamic militants in northern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.

Previously, the U.S. had insisted on only selling arms to the Iraqi government in Baghdad, but the Kurdish peshmerga fighters had been losing ground to Islamic State militants in recent weeks.

The officials wouldn't say which U.S. agency is providing the arms or what weapons are being sent, but one official said it isn't the Pentagon. The CIA has historically done similar quiet arming operations.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation publicly.

The move to directly aid the Kurds underscores the level of U.S. concern about the Islamic State militants' gains in the north, and reflects the persistent administration view that the Iraqis must take the necessary steps to solve their own security problems.

A senior State Department official would only say that the Kurds are "getting arms from various sources. They are being rearmed."

To bolster that effort, the administration is also very close to approving plans for the Pentagon to arm the Kurds, a senior official said. In recent days, the U.S. military has been helping facilitate weapons deliveries from the Iraqis to the Kurds, providing logistic assistance and transportation to the north.

The additional assistance comes as Kurdish forces on Sunday took back two towns from the Islamic insurgents, aided in part by U.S. airstrikes in the region. President Barack Obama authorized the airstrikes to protect U.S. interests and personnel in the region, including at facilities in Irbil, as well as Yazidi refugees fleeing militants.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking to reporters here, said the airstrikes "have been very effective from all the reports that we've received on the ground." He declined to detail how or when the U.S. might expand its assistance to Iraq, or if military assessment teams currently in Baghdad would be moving to a more active role advising the Iraqi forces.

"We're going to continue to support the Iraqi security forces in every way that we can as they request assistance there," Hagel said during a press conference with Australian Defense Minister David Johnston.

At the same time, the administration is watching carefully as a political crisis brews in Baghdad, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Iraq's embattled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to maintain calm among the upheaval.

"We believe that the government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining the stability and calm in Iraq," Kerry said. "And our hope is that Mr. Maliki will not stir those waters."

Speaking in Australia on Monday, Kerry said there should be no use of force by political factions as Iraq struggles form a government. He said the people of Iraq have made clear their desire for change and that the country's new president is acting appropriately despite claims of malfeasance by al-Maliki.

Maliki is resisting calls to step down and says he'll file a complaint against the president for not naming him prime minister.

Kerry noted that Maliki's Shia bloc has put forward three other candidates for the prime minister job and says the U.S. stands with the new president, Fouad Massoum.

Maliki has accused Massoum of violating the constitution because he has not yet named a prime minister from the country's largest parliamentary faction, missing a Sunday deadline.

Hagel and Kerry are in Sydney for an annual meeting with Australian defense and diplomatic leaders.

___

AP White House correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.

I'm not thinking of this discussion, but I'm always amazed by the way people avoid thinking about the consequences of things. In Iraq, people think of Saddam as a homicidal maniac, which of course was true. But while he was mostly secular, he was Sunni, and ran a ruthless dictatorship that oppressed everyone, but the Shia were probably worse off than everyone other than the Kurds.

So Saddam gets overthrown, and the continuation is oppression to some extent of the Sunnis and Kurds. That was the Bush unintended legacy, and I don't know whether Obama wasn't able, or wasn't particularly interested in waking Maliki up. I find the situation to be very similar in Israel/Gaza. People don't think of the consequences. I dislike Hamas, and there are elements that are idiotic. But they exist because of a need...a vacuum that existed. If Israel were successful in eliminating Hamas, people seem to think things would be great and unicorns would shit rainbows. The truth is that something more similar to ISIS would likely emerge. The political side of Hamas is pretty similar to Likud. The various militant groups are the bigger problem. The former can be negotiated with if a way could be found to make it look like they got at least a bit of a win.

lol... the Sunni Arab vs Shia Arab vs Kurd fight is centuries old. The Sunnis were holding power for most of the time (from the Ottoman times onward), while the Shiites, despite forming the majority of population were left with little political power. After Saddam Hussain was toppled, the previously marginalized Shiites began to dominate the politics, thereby creating a backlash from the Sunni Arabs.

All in all, I find most situations there to be too complex to easily discuss like this. There are so many conditions that have to be made with any statement to make it consistent.

Maybe the reason we didn't wake Maliki up is because he made it easier for us to walk away. If true, you can be pretty certain it will never be acknowledged.

Maliki don't want to woke up. He is too arrogant. He knows that he has the support of the Shiite Arabs, who forms 60% of the population. In a democracy, it is all that matters.

In relation to the article post by umair^ it seems that much of these light armaments are of Russian origin. Like, CIA sources are sitting on random caches of these in unknown areas just waiting to funnel these in under the table. Should be obvious to most people by now what kind of actions this CIA is usually involved in. They likely funded, armed and trained these so-called militants/rebels/terrorist ISIS motherfuckers in or around Jordan to beef them up to claim certain parts of Syria who now crept into Iraq to destabilize once again making the case or need to arm/support the opposition that fully completes the circle that they originally started to begin with.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis)

Arming Kurd instead of Iraqi army is a really bad move in my opinion, considering the situation of Kurds this might create more wars in the region considering that Kurds want a piece of land in the region from Turkey, North Iraq and Syria, I'm discussing here if they have the right to have their own country as I don't know the historical circumstances but creating more mess in this mess will not help

Creating more conflicts for the future and more armaments already in place to be used when needed.

Just like under Bush, Obama's mission in Iraq is evolving after the fact. The justification for the recent strikes was twofold: protecting U.S. personnel in Erbil and freeing refugees trapped on Mt. Sinjar. Well, U.S. personnel are out of harm's way and it turns out there were far fewer refugees than estimated and none were in real danger. But the intervention continued, going after the Mosul dam. And now it promises to continue even longer with unclear goals.

Given the massacres, water shortage, and lack of medical supplies I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Yazidi on Sinjar weren't in any danger, just that their situation was less desperate than mainstream sources indicated. That being said, I'm fine with the US using airstrikes to contain the ISIS from spreading too far into Kurdish areas. Less fine with the offensive use of them for now. Then again, I'm not privy to all of the facts.