The Fall of Iraq

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has just seized the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit, and is close to taking control of the nation’s largest oil refinery -- indicating that the jihad between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims is raging hotter now than it has in centuries, and isn’t going to die down anytime soon.

ISIS, a Sunni group, according to the Washington Post now “effectively governs a nation-size tract of territory that stretches from the eastern edge of the Syrian city of Aleppo to Fallujah in western Iraq -- and now also includes the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.”

What’s more, it has the resources to outlast its foes in a long conflict. ABC News reports that the jihadists “looted $429 million from Mosul banks, making them richer than some small countries.”

However, Iraq’s Shi’ite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has vowed to retake the city, blaming its fall on a “conspiracy” and adding: “Today, the important thing is that we are working to solve the situation. We are making preparations and we are regrouping the armed forces that are in charge of clearing Ninevah from those terrorists.”

Maliki may indeed be able to clear the region of the Sunni jihadists, for behind him stands the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also backs the Alawite Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. But it is unlikely that they will be able to achieve total victory, for Sunni jihadists from all over the world have flocked to Syria in order to fight against Assad, and Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting the Sunni jihadists in Iraq.

American analysts had naively hoped that both Sunnis and Shi’ite would have been able to put all this behind them. Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained in January 2007: “There’s still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms. But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that.”

Seven years later, they still haven’t. In fact, the idea that the Sunni-Shi’ite divide, which is 1,400 years old and goes all the way back to the murky origins of Islam, is something that can without undue difficulty be “overcome” is a sterling manifestation of the general superficiality of Washington’s analysis of the Middle East, during both the Bush and the Obama administrations.

Unbeknownst to the analysts and policymakers who have influenced Washington policy for decades now, the Sunni-Shi’ite divide cannot be bridged by negotiations, or by bribes (“aid”), or by anything but the full surrender of one group to the other -- which is not going to happen. This is because the divide has enough roots in each side’s differing understandings of Islam for hardliners in both camps to label the other “unbelievers,” and thus people who can lawfully be killed.

Islamic tradition holds that after Muhammad died (which is supposed to have happened in 632 AD), the Muslim community chose his companion Abu Bakr to succeed him as caliph, or successor of Muhammad as the military, political and spiritual leader of the Muslims. But one group among them thought that the leadership belonged by right to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of his first followers, and after him to a member of the prophet’s household.

Ali finally did become caliph after Abu Bakr had been succeeded by two other companions of Muhammad, Umar and Uthman, but was assassinated only a few years later. Then in the year 680, his son Hussein was killed in battle with the caliph Yazid I at Karbala in Iraq, and the split between those who believed that the caliph should be the best man in the community (the Sunnis) and those who believed the Muslims should be led by a relative of Muhammad (the Shi’ites) became formal, bitter and everlasting.

There is not much doctrinal difference between the two camps, but since each believes that the other has departed from the truth of Islam, and each (particularly the Shi’ites) nurses centuries-old grudges over ancient wrongs done to them, this split is not going to be “overcome.” Saddam Hussein kept a lid on it in Iraq by brute force, but now that he is gone and a Shi’ite government is in power there, the Sunnis are determined to wrest control back from them, and the Shi’ites and their Iranian patrons are just as determined to keep it.

It is a recipe for endless warfare, until the Mahdi returns and reveals whether he has come as the Sunni or the Shi’ite version. In the meantime, the strength of ISIS, the Shi’ites’ determination to win back the territory they have lost, and the very real possibility that Sunni-Shi’ite war could engulf the entire Middle East, are grim monuments to the price of Washington’s faulty analysis.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/world/article/the-fall-of-iraq-5809214739972096?page=2

Who Lost Iraq?

Iraq’s disintegration may be imminent, as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears incapable of stopping the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The terrorist offshoot of al Qaeda now has its sights set on the capital city of Baghdad. Adding to the chaos, the city of Kirkuk was overtaken by Kurdish soldiers absent any resistance by government forces. After having ignored the prescient warnings of Iraq’s fragility post-U.S. abandonment, the Obama administration and Democratic Party’s determination to end America’s involvement in Iraq irrespective of events on the ground is rapidly approaching its inevitable—and disastrous—conclusion.

Those events on the ground are changing dramatically and quickly. On Tuesday, after only five days of resistance, the city of Mosul fell into terrorist hands as ISIS seized government buildings, the airport, and large quantities of U.S.-supplied weaponry, when Iraqi security forces and police reportedly abandoned their posts and joined the 500,000 refugees fleeing the city of 1.8 million residents. ISIS fighters also freed up to 2,400 prisoners from jails in the northern Nineveh province, reprising the successful raids they conducted against the Abu Ghraib and Taji prisons last July. On Wednesday the Turkish consulate was also taken and its diplomatic staff was kidnapped, precipitating an emergency gathering of Turkish officials by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss their options.

Yet by far the most daunting aspect of Mosul’s seizure are reports that the terrorist organization gained access to $500 billion Iraqi dinars, or $425 million, making it one of the richest, if not the richest, terrorist organization in the world. Gunmen initially looted Mosul’s central bank, and according to Atheel al-Nujaifi, the governor of the Nineveh province, they garnered additional funds from numerous banks across the city as well as a “large quantity of gold bullion.” Regional analyst Brown Moses tweeted that such a windfall will “buy a whole lot of Jihad,” further noting that “with $425 million, ISIS could pay 60,000 fighters around $600 a month for a year.”

In Kirkuk, Kurdish security forces known as the “Peshmerga” took control Tuesday of the oil-rich city that has been the focus of a long-running dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurds. The Kurds have autonomous control of their own region in the northern part of the nation, and while Kirkuk sits just outside of that area, the Kurds have long considered it to be their historical capital. And once again, government security forces fled without a fight. “The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga,” said Secretary-General of the Ministry of Peshmerga Jabbar Yawar. “No Iraqi army remains in Kirkuk now.”

Maliki, who in an earlier televised conference called a national emergency while urging the public and government to unite “to confront this vicious attack, which will spare no Iraqi,” alluded to the fact that military was disloyal. He also called for a 10 PM curfew in Baghdad and the surrounding towns, while Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the formation of “peace units to defend the holy sites of both Muslims and Christians in Iraq, in cooperation with the government.” Other Shi’ite leaders reported that four brigades known as the Kataibe Brigade, the Assaib Brigade, the Imam al-Sadr Brigade and the armed wing of the Badr Organization had been hastily assembled to protect Baghdad and the government. Each group contains 2500-3000 fighters.

Wednesday also saw the capture of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s former hometown, by ISIS forces, but by yesterday, state-run Iraqiya TV claimed the city had been re-captured by government forces. Yet a later report by Al-Sumaria television indicated the battle for control of the city was ongoing.

By late Wednesday, ISIS was joined by Sunni militants alienated from Maliki’s Shi’ite-dominated government, and together they were battling government forces at the northern entrance of Samarra, a city only 70 miles north of Baghdad. Samarra is home to the Askariya Shrine, one of the Shi’ites’ most treasured religious symbols. Its golden dome was shattered by a bomb in 2006 in an effort to ignite a sectarian civil war, and ISIS commanders once again threatened to destroy it if those defending it refused to lay down their arms.

It was initially reported that government soldiers offered little resistance, leading to speculation that they have been ordered to surrender. In an interview, a local commander in the Salahuddin Province that contains the city of Tikrit, confirmed that assessment. “We received phone calls from high-ranking commanders asking us to give up,” he claimed. “I questioned them on this, and they said, ‘This is an order.’ ” Residents of Tikrit also reported that government soldiers willingly gave up their weapons and uniforms to the militants, a notable deviation from the expectation that they would be killed on the spot.

By Thursday, the battle for Samarra had reportedly tilted in the government’s favor. The Long War Journal noted attempts by ISIS to enter the city had been blunted by government forces that stopped an armed convoy from entering the city. Aircraft deployed by the government were part of the equation, as were the aforementioned Shi’ite brigades organized for the battle.

The battle for Tikrit had reportedly turned as well—courtesy of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Two battalions of the Quds Forces have been sent to aid Maliki, and combined Iraqi-Iranian forces have retaken 85 percent of that city, according to security forces from both nations. The combined forces were also helping the government retain control of Baghdad and Najaf and Kabala. While Iran is helping a fellow Shi’ite ally, keeping ISIS out of Najaf and Kabala, which are sacred sites on a par with Mecca and Medina.

Unfortunately, Thursday also saw Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish factions boycott a meeting of the Iraqi parliament preventing a quorum from being attained for a vote on declaring the national state of emergency requested by Maliki, two days earlier. The factions, already alienated by Maliki’s preferential treatment of the nation’s Shi’ite majority, were adamantly opposed to giving extraordinary powers to the Shi’ite Prime Minister.

That reality was also reflected by reports that a number of former Ba’athist military commanders from the Hussein era had joined forced with ISIS in the effort to overthrow the Maliki regime. “These groups were unified by the same goal, which is getting rid of this sectarian government, ending this corrupt army and negotiating to form the Sunni Region,” said Abu Karam, a senior Baathist leader and a former high-ranking army officer, who said planning for the offensive had begun two years ago. “The decisive battle will be in northern Baghdad. These groups will not stop in Tikrit and will keep moving toward Baghdad.”

In other words, the ultimate stability of the government—and Iraq itself— remains very much in question.

In the meantime, reports indicate that Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider providing air support to his government, in the form of drones, airmen and drone pilots. “What we really need right now are drone strikes and air strikes,” said a senior Iraqi official Wednesday. Such appeals have so far been rebuffed. Bernadette Meehan, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on the requests. “We are not going to get into details of our diplomatic discussions,” she said in a statement. “The current focus of our discussions with the government of Iraq and our policy considerations is to build the capacity of the Iraqis to successfully confront” ISIS. However, on Thursday afternoon, President Obama hinted at some flexibility. “I don’t rule out anything,” he said in response to a question about possible air strikes. “We do have a stake in making sure these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria.”

Such a statement strains credulity. For the last three years the president and his administration have done nothing to mitigate the rise of ISIS, which has transformed itself from a terrorist group into a full blown army that controls a cross-border swath of territory from Mosul up through the Anbar province, and west to the Syrian town of Al Bab on the outskirts of Aleppo. “This organization has grown into a military organization that is no longer conducting terrorist activities exclusively but is conducting conventional military operations,” said retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, who was a key advisor to Gen. David Petraeus during the war in Iraq. “They are attacking Iraqi military positions with company-and battalion-size formations. And in the face of that the Iraqi security forces have not been able to stand up to it.”

That inability is a direct consequence of Obama’s determination to completely withdraw from Iraq in December of 2011, irrespective of events on the ground and advice of military commanders. Withdrawal was precipitated by the president’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed some U.S. troops to remain in country. And while the media prefer to blame Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the fault lies squarely with a president who demonstrated a calculated indifference towards negotiating a deal in 2011 similar to the one George W. Bush procured in 2008 under far more difficult circumstances.

The result was President Obama’s commitment of only 3000-5000 troops to Iraq following the 2011 withdrawal. That number seriously undercut the recommendations of his military commanders who had asked for 20,000 troops to carry out such missions as counterterrorist operations, diplomat support — and the training and support for Iraqi security forces. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen would have been satisfied with 10,000 troops, but Obama rejected this. The Maliki government, already risking a domestic backlash for keeping any troops in the nation, concluded that the political risks involved weren’t worth it when Obama was so transparently unserious.

His fellow Democrats are no better. Ever since the 2004 presidential campaign, when anti-war activist Howard Dean temporarily vaulted to the head of the Democratic pack of presidential contenders, many of the same Democrats who initially supported the war began their long and ultimately successful campaign to undermine it in order to gain political advantage. This includes current Secretary of State John Kerry, who had said there was “no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has to be toppled one way or another,” Vice President Joe Biden, who said that “Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power,” and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who cast her vote for war authorization “with conviction.” By the 2004 election, however — after unanimously voting to demolish the country’s existing political infrastructure — these Democrats spoke of little else but abandoning Iraq and allowing it to degenerate into the sectarian chaos on display today.

After ten years, the Left’s wish for Iraq has finally been realized. Democrats are now in a lurch justifying the descent of the country. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thursday, Clinton hypocritically bemoaned the “dreadful, deteriorating situation,” which she herself played a role in engineering, and claimed she “could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create a new state.” However, the rise of ISIS, due to the dramatic withdrawal of U.S. forces, has been predicted for quite some time. Just last February, a threat assessment by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency asserted that the ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria . . . as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah,” due to the weak security environment “since the departure of U.S. forces at the end of 2011.”

Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party received ample warning about where their sabotage of Iraq would lead. And despite the clear disaster unfolding in the country, Obama and his party will reprise the same inadequate troop level/scheduled departure strategy in Afghanistan. Does a similar fiasco await us there? Americans should expect nothing less from a party at the helm that conflates abandoning wars with winning them.

Iraq crisis: Obama is paying the price for abandoning the Arab World

The takeover of large swathes of Iraq by Islamist militants should be seen as a damning indictment of Obama's ill-judged decision to abandon the country to its fate so early in his presidency.

Throughout his tenure at the White House Mr Obama has made much political capital out of his claim to be an anti-war president: the man who brought America's decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end.

But in his desperation to distance himself from the Bush administration, Mr Obama made no real effort to understand the implications of authorising a wholesale American withdrawal from Iraq three years ago.

There were many Americans – including many prominent Democrats – who took the view that, after the terrible cost that the US had paid for ridding the country of Saddam Hussein and establishing Iraq's first democratic constitution, the White House owed it to the American people to make sure Iraq continued to develop as a functioning democratic state.

But for that to happen, Washington needed to make a commitment to maintain a residual military presence in Baghdad to ensure that Nouri al-Maliki's government did not renege on his commitment to reconcile his political differences with the country's Kurdish and Sunni minorities.

But after Mr Obama lost patience with Mr al-Maliki, and ordered a unilateral withdrawal of American forces three years ago, Mr al-Maliki felt he was no longer under any obligation to honour his commitments. Instead, he cultivated deeper ties with neighbouring Iran, thereby further inflaming Sunni tribal leaders who felt increasingly disfranchised in post-Saddam Iraq.

The result is the current crisis, which has seen the radical Islamist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), seize control of large areas of the country, including Mosul – the country's second largest city – and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

As a result the President now finds himself in a difficult quandary: does he provide military support to the Maliki government to defeat ISIS, or does he stand idly by and allow the militants to establish a hardline Islamist state in northern and western Iraq?

If Mr Obama were to go for the former option, he would stand accused of making a gross error of judgment for withdrawing from Iraq in the first place. But if he does nothing – which has usually been his preferred option when faced with an international crisis – then he could see the emergence of a radical Islamist state in the heart of the Arab world that would pose an existential threat to some of Washington's close allies in the region, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

Either way, whichever option Mr Obama decides to pursue, he will be deeply aware that he is now facing a crisis which is very much of his own making.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100276090/iraq-crisis-obama-is-paying-the-price-for-abandoning-the-arab-world/

Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Syria have begun creeping toward neighboring countries, sources close to the Islamic fundamentalists revealed this week.

The terrorists, who belong to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS -- known as DAESH in Arabic] and are said to be an offshoot of al-Qaeda, are planning to take their jihad to Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula -- after having already captured large parts of Syria and Iraq, the sources said.

The capture this week by ISIS of the cities of Mosul and Tikrit in Iraq has left many Arabs and Muslims in the region worried that their countries soon may be targeted by the terrorists, who seek to create a radical Islamist emirate in the Middle East.

According to the sources, ISIS leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi recently discussed with his lieutenants the possibility of extending the group's control beyond Syria and Iraq.

One of the ideas discussed envisages focusing ISIS's efforts on Jordan, where Islamist movements already have a significant presence. Jordan was also chosen because it has shared borders with Iraq and Syria, making it easier for the terrorists to infiltrate the kingdom.

Jordanian political analyst Oraib al-Rantawi sounded alarm bells by noting that the ISIS threat to move its fight to the kingdom was real and imminent. "We in Jordan cannot afford the luxury of just waiting and monitoring," he cautioned. "The danger is getting closer to our bedrooms. It has become a strategic danger; it is no longer a security threat from groups or cells. We must start thinking outside the box. The time has come to increase coordination and cooperation with the regimes in Baghdad and Damascus to contain the crawling of extremism and terrorism."

The ISIS terrorists see Jordan's Western-backed King Abdullah as an enemy of Islam and an infidel, and have publicly called for his execution. ISIS terrorists recently posted a video on YouTube in which they threatened to "slaughter" Abdullah, whom they denounced as a "tyrant." Some of the terrorists who appeared in the video were Jordanian citizens who tore up their passports in front of the camera and vowed to launch suicide attacks inside the kingdom.

Security sources in Amman expressed deep concern over ISIS's threats and plans to "invade" the kingdom. The sources said that King Abdullah has requested urgent military aid from the U.S. and other Western countries so that he could foil any attempt to turn Jordan into an Islamist-controlled state.

Marwan Shehadeh, an expert on Islamist groups, said he did not rule out the possibility that ISIS would target Jordan because it views the Arab regimes, including Jordan's Hashemites, as "infidels" and "apostates" who should be fought.

The recent victories by ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria have emboldened the group and its followers throughout the Middle East. Now the terrorists are planning to move their jihad not only to Jordan, but also to the Gaza Strip, Sinai and Lebanon.

This is all happening under the watching eyes of the U.S. Administration and Western countries, who seem to be uncertain as to what needs to be done to stop the Islamist terrorists from invading neighboring countries.

ISIS is a threat not only to moderate Arabs and Muslims, but also to Israel, which the terrorists say is their ultimate destination. The U.S. and its Western allies need to wake up quickly and take the necessary measures to prevent the Islamist terrorists from achieving their goal.

Failure to act will result in the establishment in the Middle East of a dangerous extremist Islamist empire that will pose a threat to American and Western interests.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4354/isis-jordan

cant wait till afghanistan goes tits up

Do they really believe it's a religion of peace?

If Islam is perfect, then why aren’t Muslims flocking to areas
where it is taken most seriously - instead of fleeing from them?

Tesstacious wrote:

  

"obammy"

Geez ! YOU really are a filthy racist slut, aren't you, Dogs'breath !!!

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:

  

"obammy"

Geez ! YOU really are a filthy racist slut, aren't you, Dogs'breath !!!

I've posted sillier pictures of Milliband - how the fuck is that racist? You really do devalue the term as an insult, peabrain.

 

I MUST say that I am becoming a big fan of smelly's total illiteracy, and his demonstrated ability to c&p entire online articles, with zero editing and condensing on his part...

NOTHING like flooding a thread with totally erroneous and irrelevant bullshit from his usual favourite propagandist warmongering sites, to get the blood racing among his fascist cohorts..

SAVES a lot of time and reading simply zipping right past his standard blitherings and blatherings, and simply checking to see if any of we great unwashed liberal-socialist-commie usurpers have added any witty remarks !  ::smthg:: 

just wait till ISIS turns its eye on spain..as we all know, historically, a Muslim caliphate.

then france and so on.....

but its only a few....

victorisnotamused wrote:just wait till ISIS turns its eye on spain..as we all know, historically, a Muslim caliphate.

then france   and so on.....

but its only a few....

Sure, and any moment now Germany's going to invade Poland again ...

Lone Wolf wrote: 

I MUST say that I am becoming a big fan of smelly's total illiteracy, and his demonstrated ability to c&p entire online articles, with zero editing and condensing on his part...

NOTHING like flooding a thread with totally erroneous and irrelevant bullshit from his usual favourite propagandist warmongering sites, to get the blood racing among his fascist cohorts..

SAVES a lot of time and reading simply zipping right past his standard blitherings and blatherings, and simply checking to see if any of we great unwashed liberal-socialist-commie usurpers have added any witty remarks !    ::smthg:: 

Seems to a big moderator removal happening............................  Not seen any

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:just wait till ISIS turns its eye on spain..as we all know, historically, a Muslim caliphate.

then france   and so on.....

but its only a few....

Sure, and any moment now Germany's going to invade Poland again ...

So you dont think they would? or could?

you dont think one massive caliphate under ISIS (and who or whats gonna stop it happening?) wouldnt turn its eye to europe???

recon they are scared to or what....these guys DONT negotiate.....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sure, and any moment now Germany's going to invade Poland again ...

So you dont think they would? or could?

you dont think one massive caliphate under ISIS (and who or whats gonna stop it happening?) wouldnt turn its eye to europe???

recon they are scared to or what....these guys DONT negotiate.....

Oh behave Victor that is utter nonsense, I find this a golden opportunity, where many extremists have gathered to take them all out and it will end up uniting many Muslims against them. This could end up being the catalyst that unites Muslims to finally take a stand. How you claim they could achieve invading Europe though is just complete unhinged lunacy. The extremists are doing what they do best, using the fear factor, playing on as much publicity as they can to instill fear by committing atrocities, which I think this time is going to backfire. I hope more of the extremists are drawn to the area which then provides as stated a golden opportunity to take them out

Yes didge...and who...exactly....is going to "take them out"?

the Muslim nations....pffft...

the west??? equally pffft....

they will win their desired caliphate in the middle east you know....

there is NOT one nation over there, capable of dealing with them...even jordan with its famed jordanian air force is quaking in fear, and in sufficient numbers they could overwhelm israel in a day....

If they capture the whole of Iraq and Syria it's onwards into Turkey, the backdoor of Europe. Why the hell would they stop there Didge, really?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:just wait till ISIS turns its eye on spain..as we all know, historically, a Muslim caliphate.

then france   and so on.....

but its only a few....

Sure, and any moment now Germany's going to invade Poland again ...

my name is ben ----------->

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes didge...and who...exactly....is going to "take them out"?

the Muslim nations....pffft...

the west???   equally pffft....

they will win their desired caliphate in the middle east you know....

there is NOT one nation over there, capable of dealing with them...even jordan with its famed jordanian air force is quaking in fear, and in sufficient numbers they could overwhelm israel in a day....

i disagree

Israel will never be overrun

the Muslims tried on several occasions to do it, in 1948 more than 5 countries sent their military to take out Israel and were wiped out for their efforts.

Israel doesn't fight wars, they win them

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

So you dont think they would? or could?

you dont think one massive caliphate under ISIS (and who or whats gonna stop it happening?) wouldnt turn its eye to europe???

recon they are scared to or what....these guys DONT negotiate.....

Oh behave Victor that is utter nonsense, I find this a golden opportunity, where many extremists have gathered to take them all out and it will end up uniting many Muslims against them. This could end up being the catalyst that unites Muslims to finally take a stand. How you claim they could achieve invading Europe though is just complete unhinged lunacy. The extremists are doing what they do best, using the fear factor, playing on as much publicity as they can to instill fear by committing atrocities, which I think this time is going to backfire. I hope more of the extremists are drawn to the area which then provides as stated a golden opportunity to take them out

Unites Muslims to take a stand??

a stand against what exactly???

Islam??

you think Muslims will take a stand against their own holy warriors fighting for their own religion??

smelly_bandit wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes didge...and who...exactly....is going to "take them out"?

the Muslim nations....pffft...

the west???   equally pffft....

they will win their desired caliphate in the middle east you know....

there is NOT one nation over there, capable of dealing with them...even jordan with its famed jordanian air force is quaking in fear, and in sufficient numbers they could overwhelm israel in a day....

i disagree

Israel will never be overrun

the Muslims tried on several occasions to do it, in 1948 more than 5 countries sent their military to take out Israel and were wiped out for their efforts.

Israel doesn't fight wars, they win them

MMMM...dunno so much smelly....without taking the grave risk of going nuclear, COULD Israel stand against a determined attack by vastly superior numbers....I mean if they take iraq syria and all the rest, they could potentially out number Israel 10:1 and its boots on the ground that matters......Dunno...

victorisnotamused wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

i disagree

Israel will never be overrun

the Muslims tried on several occasions to do it, in 1948 more than 5 countries sent their military to take out Israel and were wiped out for their efforts.

Israel doesn't fight wars, they win them

MMMM...dunno so much smelly....without taking the grave risk of going nuclear, COULD Israel stand against a determined attack by vastly superior numbers....I mean if they take iraq syria and all the rest, they could potentially out number Israel 10:1  and its boots on the ground that matters......Dunno...

history shows us they can

in 1948 Israel was attacked by overwhelming numbers, from 5 nations, from three directions at once

well over half a million Arabs attacked them, the Israeli forces numbered approx 150,000, and Israel emerged victorious, and that was back in the day before technology became a game changer

in the six day war in 67',Israel was once again engaged in a war of survival against overwhelming numbers, 200,000 Israelis Vs 1 million Muslims (approx), in this war Israeli suffered less than 800 casualties,their attackers suffered a total of 18,000 casualties collectivity

in 73', once again they were attacked by over a million arabs and still held out with only 200,000

secondly and MOST importantly if Israel is in danger of being overrun they WILL go nuclear because i doubt they Israelis will sit idly by and allow themselves to face a second genocide

smelly_bandit wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes didge...and who...exactly....is going to "take them out"?

the Muslim nations....pffft...

the west???   equally pffft....

they will win their desired caliphate in the middle east you know....

there is NOT one nation over there, capable of dealing with them...even jordan with its famed jordanian air force is quaking in fear, and in sufficient numbers they could overwhelm israel in a day....

i disagree

Israel will never be overrun

the Muslims tried on several occasions to do it, in 1948 more than 5 countries sent their military to take out Israel and were wiped out for their efforts.

Israel doesn't fight wars, they win them

Then why do you fear them so much?   

I have no fear, none of them could take Australia (particularly with allies) and England Still has a larger military than Australia    Do you really think Englishmen suck that much    Because even I think they could fight off any invading force such a caliphate could bring   
mind you it would help if you converted more of them to secularism    but brain dead racists often don't see that   

Its not the ability of our forced i doubt, Its the will power of the govts that I worry about...

Where do they get all their funding from.  Who is paying the fighters, supplying the original armaments..................  I appreciate they are now using equipment from the overrun Iraqis but still this level of engagement requires huge sums.

Is it Saudia Arabia alone and if of why what have they to gain

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

i disagree

Israel will never be overrun

the Muslims tried on several occasions to do it, in 1948 more than 5 countries sent their military to take out Israel and were wiped out for their efforts.

Israel doesn't fight wars, they win them

Then why do you fear them so much?   

I have no fear, none of them could take Australia (particularly with allies) and England Still has a larger military than Australia    Do you really think Englishmen suck that much    Because even I think they could fight off any invading force such a caliphate could bring   
mind you it would help if you converted more of them to secularism    but brain dead racists often don't see that   

what?!?!?

oh shit - dead Muslims everywhere  ::D:: 

TEL AVIV – The deployment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to Iraq came after the Obama administration quietly gave its approval of the Shiite troop movement, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

The Obama administration pressed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to allow battalions of the Quds Force to aid the Iraqi military in its fight against the Sunni Muslim Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The Quds Force is special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for international operations.

According to numerous press reports the Iranian forces were dispatched Thursday to fight in Tikrit, which was initially held by the ISIS but was subsequently liberated by the Iraqi army with help from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reported two Guards’ units were further tasked with protecting Baghdad and the Shiite holy sites in the cities of Karbala and Najaf.

Obama’s actions give clarity to State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki’s statement on June 12 that Iran could play a “constructive” role in Iraq.

“Clearly, we’ve encouraged them in many cases to play a constructive role,” she said. “But I don’t have any other readouts or views from our end to portray here today.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., further told CNN the U.S. should work with Iran to fight the Sunni extremists who could overrun Iraq. He compared such cooperation with the U.S. working with Joseph Stalin during World War II.

“The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn’t fall. We need to coordinate with the Iranians and the Turks need to get in the game and get the Sunni Arabs back into the game, form a new government without [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki,” Graham added on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The direct military involvement of Iran, however, could trigger larger regional Shiite-Sunni clashes and may even represent the start of a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Shiite leadership of Tehran.

WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.

The Jordanian regime sources told WND they fear the sectarian violence will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.

ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/obama-approved-irans-revolutionary-guard-in-iraq/#HsA02IVY6X0C6ptL.99

Would not surprise me if Jordan is next on their shopping list.

Will add huge problems to the region as more than 100,00- refugees from Syria are in the country.

gerber wrote:Would not surprise me if Jordan is next on their shopping list.

Will add huge problems to the region as more than 100,00- refugees from Syria are in the country.

Jordan seem pretty secure for now. But you never know.

i always equate these places with the dark ages and dont understand why they don`t want to be part of the 21st centuary well i guess thats medievel religions for you
thats the only good word i have for chritianity and the other religions that moved with the times

they for the most part moved on

Original Quill wrote:

gerber wrote:Would not surprise me if Jordan is next on their shopping list.

Will add huge problems to the region as more than 100,00- refugees from Syria are in the country.

Jordan seem pretty secure for now.  But you never know.

 " 
ccording to the sources, ISIS leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi recently discussed with his lieutenants the possibility of extending the group’s control beyond Syria and Iraq.
One of the ideas discussed envisages focusing ISIS’s efforts on Jordan, where Islamist movements already have a significant presence. Jordan was also chosen because it has shared borders with Iraq and Syria, making it easier for the terrorists to infiltrate the kingdom.
Jordanian political analyst Oraib al-Rantawi sounded alarm bells by [url=http://khaberni.com/article-126498-30-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 %D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8B %D9%88%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8B%D8%8C %D9%81%D9%85%D8%A7 %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%D8%9F]noting[/url] that the ISIS threat to move its fight to the kingdom was real and imminent. “We in Jordan cannot afford the luxury of just waiting and monitoring,” he cautioned. “The danger is getting closer to our bedrooms. It has become a strategic danger; it is no longer a security threat from groups or cells. We must start thinking outside the box. The time has come to increase coordination and cooperation with the regimes in Baghdad and Damascus to contain the crawling of extremism and terrorism.”
https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/tag/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham-isis/

I do hope you are right.  This is a similar posting to Smelly's.

Nothing will be done though until Israel is under threat.

Then hell will break loose from the US.

By then to little too late.