Isis 'could be close to reaching Mediterranean', former Libyan prime minister claims

Isis could reach the Mediterranean if order is not restored in Libya, the country’s former prime minister has reportedly suggested.

Ali Zeidan warned Libya’s fractured government and its access to weapons and ammunition seized during the fall of Colonel Gaddafi has made it more susceptible to the activities of jihadists, according to The Times.
The country has seen fierce fighting between rival militias since Gaddafi was overthrown during the 2011 Arab Spring.
Mr Zeidan fled to Europe after losing a vote of confidence in parliament as the country struggled to fill the power vacuum created by Gaddafi’s ousting.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/isis-could-be-close-to-reaching-mediterranean-former-libyan-prime-minister-claims-10038513.html

Scare tactic.  We see a lot of this from the Arab world.  

ISIL is the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, Iraq.  It is composed of the former secret police and security, military and politicians of that era. Naturally, it has enemies, including those running Iraq today.  It is really a sub-set of the Islamic civil war, between Sunnis and the Shi'ite.

Those enemies are keen to enlist the aid of powerful western allies, including the US, Britain, France, and if possible, Germany.  In one form or another, they have been doing this (enlisting) since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.  It's nice to have outsiders fight your civil war for you.  If you're quiet and stay out of the way, you can sit on the lawn and watch...

You What!!!!!

As the retired major-general was led away to the vehicle draped in the trademark black and white Islamist flag, his son and wife feared the worst.

"I have been asking the families of other officers and no one knows why they were taken," his son said by phone, breaking down in tears.

In the past week, Sunni militants who overran the city of Mosul last month have rounded up between 25 and 60 senior ex-military officers and members of former dictator Saddam Hussein's banned Baath party, residents and relatives say.

The crackdown potentially signals a rift in the Sunni alliance that helped secure Islamic State fighters swift victory when they rode in from the desert to capture Mosul last month.

The northern city of around 2 million people is by far the largest to fall to the group now known as the Islamic State and a central part of its plans for an Islamist caliphate.

When the group, then known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, seized large swathes of Iraq at lightning speed last month, it was supported by other Sunni Muslim armed groups.

Tribes and former loyalists of Saddam's Baath party were eager to hit back at Iraq’s Shi’ite leaders, even if they did not share ISIL's vision of a caliphate ruled on mediaeval Islamic precepts. But now, leaders of those groups are being ordered to swear allegiance to the new caliphate.

"I think (the Islamic State) wants to give the message that they are the only group in the land, that people must follow them or give up their weapons," said provincial governor Atheel Nujaifi, who is in touch with residents by phone after having fled to the Kurdish-controlled city of Arbil as Mosul fell.

Shi'ite parliamentarian Haidar Abadi said the Islamic State was taking pre-emptive action to head off potential challenges. "ISIL knows very well they can’t stay if these groups move against them. They are not giving them the opportunity."

"ISIL called on their friends who are ex-Baathists to cooperate and they did. And now ISIL is kicking them out. Some will pledge allegiance. Those they don’t believe will pledge allegiance, they will execute," he said.

An Iraqi national intelligence officer, confirming the arrest by militants of Saddam-era officers, said the motive was: "to panic people, or as revenge, or in the event that they would cooperate with the Iraqi government".

Nujaifi, the governor, estimated that around 2,000 Mosul residents had signed up to join the Islamic State as fighters since they took the city. But he said career army officers and diehard Baathists were unlikely to be won over to ISIL.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/08/uk-iraq-islamic-state-mosul-idUKKBN0FD1AA20140708

Several senior ISIL leaders, former Baath party members killed in Ninevah

Nineveh (IraqiNews.com) The Iraq Ministry of Defense announced the death of several senior leaders of ISIL, including former Baath Party officials, by an air strike and ground action in Nineveh province.

The ministry said in a statement that “The fight against terrorism in coordination with the Air Force destroyed a nest of former Baath party leaders working with ISIL terrorists in Nineveh. This ground and air operation led to the killing of several senior leaders.”

The spokesman added that “Among the dead were two leaders, Abu Wahab Al-Dameshqi Al Ribat and Hashim Aljmasa.”

'ISIL is the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, Iraq'

THAT was what I was talking about. Some in it are, however, they are a small number. Can I suggest you read:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#

'The roots of ISIS go back to Oct. 15, 2006, when what is known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) was established. That groups was formed by uniting several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [Soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions].'

Hussein was the reason there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion, and when they got a foothold because of the actions of the US and UK armies, it was the 'Sons of Iraq' who first chucked them out (acknowledged by the US Army). After that the chaos got worse and they got another foothold.

Frankly, without the invasion, Al Qaeda would not been allowed to rise up in Iraq and ISIS would not have existed.

The crisis in Iraq: Was the rise of ISIL a surprise?

Al Jazeera wrote:About the Author
Miroslav Zafirov

Miroslav Zafirov is an associate professor at the New Bulgarian University and member of its Centre for Middle Eastern and Gulf Studies. He recently joined the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq as a political adviser.

The fall of Mosul and the quick territorial expansion of ISIL in Iraq took some by surprise. What contributed to ISIL's quick success was cooperation from local Sunni tribes and members of the traditionally secular and nationalist Baath party. This seemingly counterintuitive alliance has its rationale and deep roots in history.

The successful cooperation between radical Islamist factions, Sunni tribes and representatives of the former ruling party - currently commanders of paramilitary groups - can be traced back to the policies of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, which aimed to foster closer ties between those espousing the ideas of political Islam and the Baath party.

The historical preconditions for the advent of Islamist ideas in Iraq and their eager adoption by Sunni resistance forces are clearly discernible in the strategy proposed at the time by the then Iraqi president.

A secular party with Islamist ties

In 1986, at a meeting with representatives of the pan-Arab national command - the supreme ideological body of the Baath Party - Saddam Hussein offered a ceasefire, or even an alliance, between the party and the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt and Sudan. In practice, for the first time in its history the militant and secular Baath party declared its readiness to cooperate with representatives of the so-called political Islam.

In the same year, the Iraqi president also defined the difference between the "democratic, national, pan-Arab state" and the "religious state" proclaimed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following in the footsteps of the founding father of Arab nationalism and of the pan-Arab Baath party Michel Aflaq, Saddam clearly declared that he was not an atheist, but warned against any attempt to establish a religious party with an either Sunni or Shia bias. Saddam's warning at the time was probably addressed at the Islamic Dawa party, which had a dominant role among the Shia community and was regarded as the main competitor of the Baath party. The president also rejected the traditional Islamic system of justice and denounced Islamic law as an obsolete legal tradition.

It was only after 1990s that Saddam decided to focus on relations with Islamic movements and publications dedicated to the topic began to appear in the media. The conditions could not have been more favourable because the war with Iran had ended and the propaganda machine was busy painting a picture of Saddam as the indisputable victor, despite the enormous war-related losses.

In 1991, Iraq launched a new campaign, which Saddam described as "the mother of all battles" against the United States and its allies. The president was yet again depicted as a hero in the confrontation between Muslims and western forces; the inscription "God is Great" was added to the Iraqi flag, and the president promised that he would free Jerusalem. An attempt was made to play down the failure of the campaign in Kuwait and the sanctions imposed by stepping up an openly pro-Islamic propaganda.

In 1993, under the weight of a crippling international embargo, the Iraqi president declared the beginning of the so-called religious campaign.

The goal was to gain control over religious sentiment among the Iraqi population, which was barely coping with the consequences of the two wars and the stringent sanctions. Last but not least, an attempt was made to reinvent and soften the image of the Baghdad regime as one that is pro-Islamic and, therefore, in conflict with the "forces of Islam's enemies".

The regime undertook demonstrative moves such as closing night clubs and some restaurants and enforcing restrictions on alcohol sales. A large scale Quran studying campaign was undertaken. Senior Sunni and Shia clerics took advantage of the situation and attempted to further the interests of their respective communities, declaring open support for the line taken by the Iraqi leader. In 1998, top-ranking party officials, including Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, were openly demonstrating religious piety and devotion.

The period after 1993 ushered in a renewed mosque building effort. In 1989, a new religious university was founded and named after Saddam. The influence of radical Sunni teachings increasingly gained prominence in certain intellectual circles within Baghdad University. While one group openly espoused extreme conservative views, which today can be described as Salafi beliefs, the other blended in with the Sunni theosophical tradition and was influenced by the teachings of the Naqshbandiyya Order. According to witness testimonies, both groups received financial and moral support from the same source - Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri. A member of the academic community has even alleged that the vice president's support came with the blessing of Saddam.

The spread of the new ideology that lay at the very heart of the religious campaign began to make inroads into the judicial system, with the incorporation of extreme and previously unknown punishments into the body of law. By way of example, according to Decree No 59/1994 theft became punishable by amputation.

The rise of ISIL

The events that are currently unfolding in Iraq warrant the conclusion that the advent of ISIL and its support from or collaboration with Iraqi Sunni structures would have been impossible without the historical preconditions outlined above having already been firmly set in place.

The former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of all ethnic and religious groups in the country by systematically marginalising the Sunni community.

Another important reason is widespread corruption and the lack of a concept and strategy for the development of the country on the basis of the established constitutional order that is shared by all groups in society. From 2003 to date, no Iraqi government has initiated and proposed an adequate policy for Sunni inclusion.

The programme for the de-Baathificaton of senior-ranking party officials (whose number some commentators put at more than 40,000) has resulted in many losing their livelihood. Due to its affiliation with the party, approximately one-third of the Iraqi population was effectively marginalised.

Scores of people - many of them young people, including officers in Saddam's army and former civil servants - have been stripped of the Baathist ideology that they previously espoused and that had dominated their social life.

This void has been filled by Islam. Since 2004, many Iraqi Sunnis have joined the ranks of the Iraqi resistance movement, which brings together a number of prominent groups under its banner, such as the Naqshbandiyya Army, Al-Awda, Al-Qiyada al-Amma li Jaysh Al-Iraq (General Command of the Iraqi Army), Munazzamat al-Tahrir al-Iraqiya (Iraqi Liberation Organisation), Kataib Salah ad-Din (Salah al-Din Brigades), etc. Despite the radical narrative so typical for purely Islamic organisations, those mentioned continue to rely on the propaganda postulates formerly employed by Saddam as cornerstones of their public rhetoric.

The crisis in Iraq has much clearer outlines today than it did a year ago, largely due to the refusal of the government to consider Sunni demands. It has logically escalated with the advent of ISIL from Syria and the forging of a strategic alliance with the main Sunni military groups.

At heart, these alliances represent the interests of the former members of the Baath party and of the principal Sunni tribal unions. Their attitude towards the Shia is strongly negative and clearly discernible in a number of claims with a conspiratorial bias. Propaganda describes the Shia in a discriminatory manner, dating back to the medieval period of confrontation between the two communities. These include terms such as shu'ubiyya and safawiya*. The same derogatory terms are also typical for ISIL propaganda.

Without equating ISIL and Iraqi opposition, they are apparently, albeit temporarily, aligned in the pursuit of a common goal - bringing about the demise of the government in Baghdad, which is regarded as a direct proponent of the interests of Iran and its ambition to dominate the Sunnis in the Middle East. This alliance, coupled with the markedly fragmented Iraqi political elite, has placed the country at a crossroads. The extremist Islamism, compounded by the opportunism of the former political and military elite, has failed to be countered by an ideology based on a new national compromise. Or, as a senior-ranking international representative has declared, it is imperative that Iraqi citizens consider whether they can still live within the borders of a single state.

*Shu'ubiyya is a term Saddam Hussein used to define the regime of Imam Khomeini and refers to the early period of Islamic history when primarily non-Arabs living in the Islamic State, and Persians in particular, questioned the right of the Arabic conquerors to call themselves descendants of the Prophet. Safawiya comes from the name of the Safavid dynasty that ruled Persia between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Miroslav Zafirov is an associate professor at the New Bulgarian University and member of its Centre for Middle Eastern and Gulf Studies. He recently joined the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq as a political adviser.

Source: Al Jazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html

That rather made my point didn't it, if you read it again. Saddam was the person who was stopping the fracturing that resulted in the above, and I know he was no saint. But ALL of the above happened because of the invasion and the country splitting into different factions.

Original Quill wrote:Scare tactic.  We see a lot of this from the Arab world.  

ISIL is the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, Iraq.  It is composed of the former secret police and security, military and politicians of that era. Naturally, it has enemies, including those running Iraq today.  It is really a sub-set of the Islamic civil war, between Sunnis and the Shi'ite.

Those enemies are keen to enlist the aid of powerful western allies, including the US, Britain, France, and if possible, Germany.  In one form or another, they have been doing this (enlisting) since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.  It's nice to have outsiders fight your civil war for you.  If you're quiet and stay out of the way, you can sit on the lawn and watch...

[

Partly former Bathist party members, but mainly Wahhabism exported from Saudi Quill. This is nothing to do with the west but an ongoing behind the scenes war between Shia's and Sunni's The mistake of the Iraq war was removing the one person keeping them in check, SH. He was a butcher which kept them in check.
This is all about Saudi and Iran trying to control the Muslim world

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Scare tactic.  We see a lot of this from the Arab world.  

ISIL is the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, Iraq.  It is composed of the former secret police and security, military and politicians of that era. Naturally, it has enemies, including those running Iraq today.  It is really a sub-set of the Islamic civil war, between Sunnis and the Shi'ite.

Those enemies are keen to enlist the aid of powerful western allies, including the US, Britain, France, and if possible, Germany.  In one form or another, they have been doing this (enlisting) since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.  It's nice to have outsiders fight your civil war for you.  If you're quiet and stay out of the way, you can sit on the lawn and watch...

[

Partly former Bathist party members, but mainly Wahhabism exported from Saudi Quill. This is nothing to do with the west but an ongoing behind the scenes war between Shia's and Sunni's The mistake of the Iraq war was removing the one person keeping them in check, SH. He was a butcher which kept them in check.
This is all about Saudi and Iran trying to control the Muslim world

Yes, as the article says: "The void has been filled by Islam."  But there are sympathies even beyond that, and those sympathies go back to the Baathist principles.

@rising sun: Yes, I see a lot of common ground between us.  But I am not trying to glorify the former Baath Party.  Saddam holding the whole thing together was the situation, but it was not necessarily a moral situation.  What we see in the shattered crystals of the Baath Party (ISIL) is the same evil that was Saddam's.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Partly former Bathist party members, but mainly Wahhabism exported from Saudi Quill. This is nothing to do with the west but an ongoing behind the scenes war between Shia's and Sunni's The mistake of the Iraq war was removing the one person keeping them in check, SH. He was a butcher which kept them in check.
This is all about Saudi and Iran trying to control the Muslim world

Yes, as the article says: "The void has been filled by Islam."  But there are sympathies even beyond that, and those sympathies go back to the Baathist principles.

@rising sun: Yes, I see a lot of common ground between us.  But I am not trying to glorify the former Baath Party.  Saddam holding the whole thing together was the situation, but it was not necessarily a moral situation.  What we see in the shattered crystals of the Baath Party (ISIL) is the same evil that was Saddam's.

It is worse in my view, which is a hard stretch after the barbarity of Saddam. The fact is the void has been filled by both the Saudi's and Iran trying to wrestle dominance over the other and the Saudi's have been clever in pumping billions exporting their Wahhabist doctrine. It is a nightmare doctrine which allows not only non-Muslims, But Muslims to be viewed as the enemy and to be eradicated from the areas. The West has wrongly in my view look more to Iran as being the main threat, when it has been Saudi playing them like fools. Pretending to be against extremism, whilst clearly funding and organizing the campaign of terror. Do not get me wrong as Iran is bad enough, but the root of the problem and the greater danger is Saudi itself.
I think these two nations at some point are going to come to blows and sadly many innocents will die caught up in this Quill.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, as the article says: "The void has been filled by Islam."  But there are sympathies even beyond that, and those sympathies go back to the Baathist principles.

@rising sun: Yes, I see a lot of common ground between us.  But I am not trying to glorify the former Baath Party.  Saddam holding the whole thing together was the situation, but it was not necessarily a moral situation.  What we see in the shattered crystals of the Baath Party (ISIL) is the same evil that was Saddam's.

It is worse in my view, which is a hard stretch after the barbarity of Saddam. The fact is the void has been filled by both the Saudi's and Iran trying to wrestle dominance over the other and the Saudi's have been clever in pumping billions exporting their Wahhabist doctrine. It is a nightmare doctrine which allows not only non-Muslims, But Muslims to be viewed as the enemy and to be eradicated from the areas. The West has wrongly in my view look more to Iran as being the main threat, when it has been Saudi playing them like fools. Pretending to be against extremism, whilst clearly funding and organizing the campaign of terror. Do not get me wrong as Iran is bad enough, but the root of the problem and the greater danger is Saudi itself.
I think these two nations at some point are going to come to blows and sadly many innocents will die caught up in this Quill.

Well, agree and not agree.  The basic schism here is that of Islam: Sunni v. Shi'ite.  From these two sects came the political divisions.  Iran and half of Iraq are Shi'ite.  ISIL is predominately Sunni.  When you suppress (obliterate?) the political structure, as we did with the Saddam regime, you are left with the religious...and perhaps parts of the political ideology.  The political identity of the Baath Party has picked up the pieces.

The problem with the Republicans (GWB and Cheney) is they didn't pause to realize what they were dealing with.  One day we will talk about conservatives and their anti-intellectualism, but misunderstanding the divisions of the Iraq is what it cost them.  They went in, confronted the Baath Party, went immediately to the other side, and instated a Shi'ite government.  What did they accomplish?!  They inadvertently took sides in a major civil war...one they really have no interest in.

So they oust the Baath and Sunni interests, and what happens?  They come back in the form of ISIL.  The confusion about Iran is that we backed our ass into a room of which we didn't even know the color.  By creating a Shi'ite government in Iraq--one, incidentally, that was just as corrupt as the Baath government--we made an enemy without gaining any friends.

That's why we sleep with Iran, when our sympathies lie elsewhere.  

Now, come down to the other end...what to the pundits say(?):  'In the fight with ISIL, we have no partner!!!'  Correct!  WTF!  Who do we share the victory parade with?  Who do we train?  Who do we arm?  Who is on our side?  Nobody, that's who.  We have no purpose...and that's why Clausewitz is so relevant.

And in this vacuum, both Sunnis and Shi'ites try to influence us and enlist us to get involved.  That's where this thread started...Islamic principals raising the fears of the west that this conflict will spread.  But we're just a resource; we're not a player.  The stupid, impotent West...all we can do is fly airplanes overhead...cause we don't have any friends down below.  

Do not want to share any victory parade with any of them. We have to allow the Muslims to rise up against both regimes and bring about some normality again. They have to see for themselves what is really going on here with all this rise in extremism, which is being masked with excuses of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Of course they have helped both sides recruit extremists through the dogma they are using, but the real cause behind this rise is mainly Saudi. The crux of the matter is most nations that have been liberated from a tyrant should then go on to form some normality and yet both Saudi and Iran made sure this did not happen. They used the rhetoric of inciting hate against both the west and sectarian religious hate between both sects. They made the West the enemy, even though it tried to do the right thing and have capitalized on this to wage war on each other with the extremists they have built up through the hate message of the west.

We are not the main enemy to them for both Saudi and Iran, it is each other, but they have to use the west to bring about blaming one off the other in this fight that has been really going on since the Iraq and Iran war. We have been wrongly looking at Iran this whole time when the real enemy was Saudi.