http://www.dumpert.nl/embed/6639940/a154d1f0/

 

 

obviously nswf (Not Safe For Work)

 

21 beheaded apparently....

 

Meanwhile I still don't see much action being taken against them.

Edited February 16, 201511 yr by Samus
Added spoilers

Yeah. And did you hear there were some ISIS fighters trying to an attack an airbase in Iraq? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/middleeast/clashes-continue-in-iraq-near-base-of-us-troops.html?_r=0

 

We may be going in again. 

http://www.dumpert.nl/embed/6639940/a154d1f0/  obviously nswf

 

21 beheaded apparently....

 

Meanwhile I still don't see much action being taken against them.

Is this supposed to be news? 21 people? That's not even bad compared to hundreds they've already murdered in cold blood....

Let them solve their own fucking problems. If the Iraqi people can't fight and earn their own future, that's their own problem. We can't just jump in and save every motherfucker in the world from lunatics. We can't even do it in our own nation, why should we be doing it in another?

Freedom is best appreciated when earned. Our jumping in to save their sorry asses will only result in an exact repeat. My opinion is not your opinion. What makes you think the case is different on a vastly larger scale?

 

 

Yeah. And did you hear there were some ISIS fighters trying to an attack an airbase in Iraq? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/middleeast/clashes-continue-in-iraq-near-base-of-us-troops.html?_r=0

 

We may be going in again. 

They took over 1/3 of Iraq and 1/3 of Syria in a single day. What makes a single air field they can't even use a big difference?

None of this is even news. It's just a bunch of pencil pushing desk sitting war monger media cunts calling for a war because hey, it's something interesting to report on. Screw all the dead. They're just statistics and the images of their corpses make for good gritty coverage that people will watch and get emotional over.

Well, guess what? I'm emotional over it. I have very close family and friends in the military and I might actually freak the fuck out if this goes any further. Same for Ukraine. Fuck our government and their self interested bullshit, throwing away lives for the sake of looking powerful on the world stage.

My family is not there for them to boast their fucking egos.

Take it easy, the US wont send ground troops in an active duty there. They have said it like a hundred times. The only thing the US is doing is assisting Irak with air superiority, surveillance and training. 

arm the Kurds and give them Iraq.  Situation will settle down after a couple months.

I have actually thought of that many times, it would be a great way to settle things. I mean the kurds has some claims in Irak and Syria, so it would mean they can take some territory of the Syrian Regime as well. Eventually both Isis and the Regime would fall with the help of US and NSA. 

There's no easy fix for this situation now, or ever. Iraq is a mess and will remain a mess for a long time to come, and I'm sure we can all have a lengthy debate about why that's the case.

 

There will be more videos and shootings, more random acts of 'terror', Islamaphobia will spread like wildfire, and the West as well as the stable countries in the Middle East (Iran, Israel) will continue to pursue their self-interest via differeing levels of dicreet and indiscreet intervention.

 

I would love to come up with something more eloquent or poetic, but suffice to say it's a giant clusterfuck shit show. We'll have to see how this plays out.

I approve of Obama's recent proposal of military action NOT involving US troops on the ground to senselessly lose their lives in another military quagmire. We need to continue bombing, assisting allies in the area and encouraging them to become more and more involved in solving it for themselves. We don't need to spend trillions more on a boots on the ground conflict which won't solve anything anyway, as even is ISIS is defeated someone else will take their place.(Al-Qaeda, even the Taliban is back in business and murdering people, or a new group will always emerge imo) The middle east needs to patrol and control their own region, and the 40-50 majority muslim countries in the world need to properly deal with the extremists who are giving their faith a terrible name.

There's no easy fix for this situation now, or ever. Iraq is a mess and will remain a mess for a long time to come, and I'm sure we can all have a lengthy debate about why that's the case.

 

There will be more videos and shootings, more random acts of 'terror', Islamaphobia will spread like wildfire, and the West as well as the stable countries in the Middle East (Iran, Israel) will continue to pursue their self-interest via differeing levels of dicreet and indiscreet intervention.

 

I would love to come up with something more eloquent or poetic, but suffice to say it's a giant clusterfuck shit show. We'll have to see how this plays out.

 

 

I approve of Obama's recent proposal of military action NOT involving US troops on the ground to senselessly lose their lives in another military quagmire. We need to continue bombing, assisting allies in the area and encouraging them to become more and more involved in solving it for themselves. We don't need to spend trillions more on a boots on the ground conflict which won't solve anything anyway, as even is ISIS is defeated someone else will take their place.(Al-Qaeda, even the Taliban is back in business and murdering people, or a new group will always emerge imo) The middle east needs to patrol and control their own region, and the 40-50 majority muslim countries in the world need to properly deal with the extremists who are giving their faith a terrible name.

Both excellent replies & opinions.

Hello, this is Libya, not IS. Its a fangroup.

Take it easy, the US wont send ground troops in an active duty there. They have said it like a hundred times. The only thing the US is doing is assisting Irak with air superiority, surveillance and training. 

Fuck Iraq. The Shia government in the east has already lost all credibility in the eyes of both Sunnis and Kurds. I don't think there is any repairing that.

The only involvement I'm OK with is arming the Kurds. Air strikes and training can be handled by the people actually there. Like Jordan. Jordan is always boasting it's military. They're obsessed with it. Let them prove their worth.

arm the Kurds and give them Iraq.  Situation will settle down after a couple months.

 

 

I have actually thought of that many times, it would be a great way to settle things. I mean the kurds has some claims in Irak and Syria, so it would mean they can take some territory of the Syrian Regime as well. Eventually both Isis and the Regime would fall with the help of US and NSA. 

NATO won't let that happen. Turkey will not fork up their south-east region. If Syria-Iraq Kurdistan exist it will give the South-East a base to sustain a big revolution. Same with Iran. It took NATO all of it's will power to justify letting 100 Kurds from Turkey into Syria to prevent a genocidal slaughter in Kobani. The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen.

 

The Kurds were created by the Soviets.

 

I approve of Obama's recent proposal of military action NOT involving US troops on the ground to senselessly lose their lives in another military quagmire. We need to continue bombing, assisting allies in the area and encouraging them to become more and more involved in solving it for themselves. We don't need to spend trillions more on a boots on the ground conflict which won't solve anything anyway, as even is ISIS is defeated someone else will take their place.(Al-Qaeda, even the Taliban is back in business and murdering people, or a new group will always emerge imo) The middle east needs to patrol and control their own region, and the 40-50 majority muslim countries in the world need to properly deal with the extremists who are giving their faith a terrible name.

The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran) get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate, and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in force eventually.

The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen.
The Kurds were created by the Soviets.

The Kurds were not created by the Soviets... Where the hell did you get that from? The Kurds are an ancient people far older than Iraq, USSR or any western nation. And we don't hate them. We're rather fond of them in comparison to their neighbors.

 

The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran)
get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate,
and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic
goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United
States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in
force eventually.

Umyeahno... We don't want the area destabilized. We want the opposite so we can actually access said oil. That's why we propped up the government we did. And the US has no control over whether Iran and Saudi Arabia to get involved. Iran is already quite involved in the situation. More so than we are, and for good reason. IS is quite literally waging war against Iran as we speak. They HAVE to be involved.

 

Take it easy, the US wont send ground troops in an active duty there. They have said it like a hundred times. The only thing the US is doing is assisting Irak with air superiority, surveillance and training. 

Fuck Iraq. The Shia government in the east has already lost all credibility in the eyes of both Sunnis and Kurds. I don't think there is any repairing that.

The only involvement I'm OK with is arming the Kurds. Air strikes and training can be handled by the people actually there. Like Jordan. Jordan is always boasting it's military. They're obsessed with it. Let them prove their worth.

 

And I agree with you on that. It is the best choice.

 

And this is for  you James (they might not get independence but UK, Germany and Italy are surely arming and training them):  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/index.html

This is not an entirely serious comment

 

 

Just nuke the swine.

 

I'm afraid it's a loose / loose situation. Fuck Iraq? Iraq falling into ISIS hands. Nuking them? Would cause a serious outrage in arabic world - add 100.000 extremist recruits to their cause and create a big headache for Western diplomacy. Support Kurds, ok but they won't be able to solve problem - Turkey will not let them grow to strong.

 

They're like growing ulcer right now and there's no way to stop them. USA is the only one that could try, but frankly they can't afford to get into one more full scale war at this point. I don't think they'll spread much further however as they're to weak to dominate Middle East. What I'm concerned with is that they'll endure and spread their influence in the region. And if they manage to infect Pakistan it will be a game changer for much worse.

I'm afraid it's a loose / loose situation. Fuck Iraq? Iraq falling into ISIS hands. Nuking them? Would cause a serious outrage in arabic world - add 100.000 extremist recruits to their cause and create a big headache for Western diplomacy. Support Kurds, ok but they won't be able to solve problem - Turkey will not let them grow to strong.

 

They're like growing ulcer right now and there's no way to stop them. USA is the only one that could try, but frankly they can't afford to get into one more full scale war at this point. I don't think they'll spread much further however as they're to weak to dominate Middle East. What I'm concerned with is that they'll endure and spread their influence in the region. And if they manage to infect Pakistan it will be a game changer for much worse.

 

Indeed... could you imagine the potential for carnage if they got hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Or even just the equipment for a partially modernised army? 

 

arm the Kurds and give them Iraq.  Situation will settle down after a couple months.

 

 

I have actually thought of that many times, it would be a great way to settle things. I mean the kurds has some claims in Irak and Syria, so it would mean they can take some territory of the Syrian Regime as well. Eventually both Isis and the Regime would fall with the help of US and NSA. 

NATO won't let that happen. Turkey will not fork up their south-east region. If Syria-Iraq Kurdistan exist it will give the South-East a base to sustain a big revolution. Same with Iran. It took NATO all of it's will power to justify letting 100 Kurds from Turkey into Syria to prevent a genocidal slaughter in Kobani. The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen.

 

The Kurds were created by the Soviets.

 

I approve of Obama's recent proposal of military action NOT involving US troops on the ground to senselessly lose their lives in another military quagmire. We need to continue bombing, assisting allies in the area and encouraging them to become more and more involved in solving it for themselves. We don't need to spend trillions more on a boots on the ground conflict which won't solve anything anyway, as even is ISIS is defeated someone else will take their place.(Al-Qaeda, even the Taliban is back in business and murdering people, or a new group will always emerge imo) The middle east needs to patrol and control their own region, and the 40-50 majority muslim countries in the world need to properly deal with the extremists who are giving their faith a terrible name.

The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran) get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate, and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in force eventually.

 

Middle East politics is much more than USA letting or not someone do something. Even if we assume they've been behind past years turmoil, situation has long ago got out of their control. Extremists in Syria were armed to fight Assad but they backfired and became independent player. We can obviously assume it was all orchestrated by some powers for some unknown goals, but the history shows otherwise.

Truth is no one is really interested (maybe apart from Iran) in taking out ISIS completely. Definitely not Turkey, not Saudi Arabia. West is terrified with their f...up but they are not ready to pay the political price (and let's be honest, there's no real western leader currently, no real personality that could get them together).

 

Kurds will be given help as much as possible in a given situation (no matter Turkish feud - though it's reducing possible aid volume significantly) because they're small pill of aspirin - they won't save middle east but will ease the pain for some time. Past soviet affiliation plays no role (they're perceived as tools and the only thing western countries may hate is lack of money).

 

.....

 

Indeed... could you imagine the potential for carnage if they got hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Or even just the equipment for a partially modernised army? 

 

I don't want to be a doomsayer, but I seriously wonder if world "when" isn't more suitable here.

 

 

.....

 

Indeed... could you imagine the potential for carnage if they got hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Or even just the equipment for a partially modernised army? 

 

I don't want to be a doomsayer, but I seriously wonder if world "when" isn't more suitable here.

 

 

I suppose it depends on the route they take... I think the US would be obligated to defend Afghanistan (for a bit at least). The Saudi's might decided to get properly involved if things get closer to them (they have already offered after all). The other problem is that while the western media is focused on ISIS / ISIL, there is still significant unrest in most of Northern Africa and even sub-sahara you have groups like Boko Haram doing equally vile things. which really should be intervened against (though Africa should really be more than capable of dealing with that). Additionally, the more involved western powers get in the affairs of the middle east the more stress will be placed on their own internal security systems. 

 

Who knows, maybe one day ISIS will be a threat so large Europe, America, Russia, China, India, Saudi, Japan (only as they have stated a side) and whoever else stands to be impacted will work together and in doing so briefly usher a period of unprecedented international cooperation. Even if we all know they'd end up infighting over how to split up the land afterwards as I can't see Russia / China not wanting some degree of territorial spoils.

 

The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen.

The Kurds were created by the Soviets.

The Kurds were not created by the Soviets... Where the hell did you get that from? The Kurds are an ancient people far older than Iraq, USSR or any western nation. And we don't hate them. We're rather fond of them in comparison to their neighbors.

 

The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran)

get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate,

and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic

goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United

States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in

force eventually.

Umyeahno... We don't want the area destabilized. We want the opposite so we can actually access said oil. That's why we propped up the government we did. And the US has no control over whether Iran and Saudi Arabia to get involved. Iran is already quite involved in the situation. More so than we are, and for good reason. IS is quite literally waging war against Iran as we speak. They HAVE to be involved.

 

If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the 50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.

 

 

 

Take it easy, the US wont send ground troops in an active duty there. They have said it like a hundred times. The only thing the US is doing is assisting Irak with air superiority, surveillance and training. 

Fuck Iraq. The Shia government in the east has already lost all credibility in the eyes of both Sunnis and Kurds. I don't think there is any repairing that.

The only involvement I'm OK with is arming the Kurds. Air strikes and training can be handled by the people actually there. Like Jordan. Jordan is always boasting it's military. They're obsessed with it. Let them prove their worth.

 

And I agree with you on that. It is the best choice.

 

And this is for  you James (they might not get independence but UK, Germany and Italy are surely arming and training them):  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/index.html

 

 

They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

I don't think Africa is a concern to the West. It does not have much strategical value. If natives will not be able to fight on their own Boko Haram and other groups will continue to thrive. Saudis are not endangered directly as long as Iraq exists and even then USA will probably be very motivated to help them survive (loosing SA would mean definitive end to USA politics in Middle east). I expect there to be a status quo with neither of the parties being able to take down their opponents (not until we face another wave of crisis - for how much longer will America be able to print $ ?)

 

What I'm almost certain is that there will be no global alliance against ISIS. There are so many divergent interest groups. For instance why should ever China get concerned with something that's not a direct threat to them? (sure they have Uyghur minority - but that's minority and as soon as some serious shit hits the fan worldwide they will be able to stomp them easily on their own) They're to smart to get their hands dirty with cleaning someone's else shit. Same goes for Russia. Weakened West is their opportunity to playing their imperial politics unhindered.

Other thing is that ISIS won't be able to seriously threat non arabic cultures until they get their hands on the nuclear stockpile or at least get a billion souls worth Muslim nations under their feet. That's because fighting organized and ethnically different nation is not the same as praying on post Saddam Iraq which as a country has no soul and no ideology to gather people around against ISIS.

 

 

If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the 50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.

 

You're mostly right though it's not just setting fires for the fun of the fire. There's no love in USA for causing trouble and not many nations are running to them for help (show me a nation that begs for their help, even new Iraqi gov said "give me your money and GTFO"). They're in fact spending a lot of their political capital on such game (they're no saviors, arab world - not gov but those common people hate them). 

It's always a game between dominant powers (we do have a clear picture on how it goes currently in Ukraine) and there were players from all over the globe in Africa&Middle East, even China (who wasn't doing it old Russian&USA style with political&military force but rather economical influence).

So much is being said here and yet the only sentence I will share with you is..

"Not our war. We ought to have known that right from the start."