U.S. Aircraft Strike ISIS Targets in Iraq

[Alphi]

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.

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?

[umair127]

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.

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.

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

[moni3z]

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'

[umair127]

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.

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?

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

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'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.

[noviapriani]

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 claims they are dead. Baghdadi is claiming direct descendance from the prophet it's now officially a cult.

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.

[umair127]

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[umair127]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[umair127]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[umair127]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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.

[umair127]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

[BCEmporium]

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.

[kuroman]

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.

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?)

[noviapriani]

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).

[Alphi]

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.

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.

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.