Captain... Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 So Muslim terrorists are starting to take control of Iraqi cities and seem intent on reinstating a vicious brutal regime... ...or are freedom fighters staging a coup, to overthrow an undemocratic puppet government controlled by the west. Of course they aren't freedom fighters, but they could be perceived as that, I'm not sure what the support is for the Iraqi insurgents on the ground. So should we get involved? Should the British army go back in to restore order? Is that what the Iraqi people want? After the last Iraq war debacle and the lies that led us there and the cost, in terms of lives of Iraqi citizens and British soldiers, as well as the financial cost, should we just leave them to sort themselves out it's not our problem? Even though that by allowing Iraq to fall back under Muslim extremist control will basically piss on the memories of those that died trying to 'liberate' Iraq in the first place. Or should we along with the US and other developed countries go in and act as World Police again?
johnny the fox Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 I don't know why we don't just drop the big one on the lot of em..
Jon the Hat Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 A Muslim caliphate across Iran and Iraq is imminent.
Steven Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 Only if they invade the right countries, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar.
Mike Oxlong Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 A Muslim caliphate across Iran and Iraq is imminent. Only if one destroys the other given their different strands of belief
Mike Oxlong Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 More likely though across Irsq and Syria and possibly the Lebanon too
Buce Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 A Muslim caliphate across Iran and Iraq is imminent. I'm afraid you are confusing your 'Sunnis' with your 'Shiia'; the insurgents (ISIS) are indeed attempting to create a caliphate, but they are Sunnis, and as such, bitter enemies of Iran, which is Shiia.
Steven Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 Only if one destroys the other given their different strands of belief Er, no. They both have Shia majorities in their respective countries.
Mike Oxlong Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 Er, no. They both have Shia majorities in their respective countries. Errm, yeah but it's not the Shias who are trying to create the Caliphate. The Iraqi Shia government want to eradicate ISIS.
BoneDog Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 Let's not forget that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003. This planned catastrophe is a disgusting stain on the human race, and many will be cheerleading for more. Sick bastards. Here's a chart numbering terrorist attacks in Iraq before and since the US regime decided to liberate the country in 2003. Disgraceful. The US regime and it's backers are now reaping the benefits. Anyone who thinks this Al Qaeda build up in Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. is accidental has not been taking much notice for the past decade. Supplied and funded by the US and allies - http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood-syria-with-foreign-terrorists/5309573
BoneDog Posted 11 June 2014 Posted 11 June 2014 The destruction of Iraq's Electricity Infrastructure http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-destruction-of-iraqs-electricity-infrastructure-the-social-economic-and-environmental-impacts/5355665 "To date, Iraq cannot achieve it’s 9,925 MW production of the late 1980s. In other words, the Iraqi population is getting only 30% of the electricity production the pre-occupation government had previously provided for them." 10 Years on, US Legacy in Iraq: Death, Disease, Devastation, Displacement http://www.globalresearch.ca/10-years-later-u-s-legacy-in-iraq-death-disease-devastation-displacement/5328530 And to think that in the 1980's Iraq had some better public services than the UK along with a thriving middle-class. We funded Saddam, armed him with chemical weapons, trained his goons and then threw him aside, destroyed the place and turned it into a terrorist hellhole where cancers, prostitution and other ills of society, that were virtually non-existent before the 'liberation', are now rife.
Manwell Pablo Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 So Muslim terrorists are starting to take control of Iraqi cities and seem intent on reinstating a vicious brutal regime... ...or are freedom fighters staging a coup, to overthrow an undemocratic puppet government controlled by the west. Of course they aren't freedom fighters, but they could be perceived as that, I'm not sure what the support is for the Iraqi insurgents on the ground. So should we get involved? Should the British army go back in to restore order? Is that what the Iraqi people want? After the last Iraq war debacle and the lies that led us there and the cost, in terms of lives of Iraqi citizens and British soldiers, as well as the financial cost, should we just leave them to sort themselves out it's not our problem? Even though that by allowing Iraq to fall back under Muslim extremist control will basically piss on the memories of those that died trying to 'liberate' Iraq in the first place. Or should we along with the US and other developed countries go in and act as World Police again? This time will it be legitimate, what a wank tag line. This time it's personal is a classic for a reason Mr Gibson.
bovril Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 And to think that in the 1980's Iraq had some better public services than the UK along with a thriving middle-class. We funded Saddam, armed him with chemical weapons, trained his goons and then threw him aside, destroyed the place and turned it into a terrorist hellhole where cancers, prostitution and other ills of society, that were virtually non-existent before the 'liberation', are now rife. Yeah but they really hate us cos of our freedom.
Guest MattP Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 More likely though across Irsq and Syria and possibly the Lebanon too Had a lot of Western politicians had their way we could already be having the Al-Nusra running things in Syria. The only two World leaders who seem to want to fight Islamists in the proper way appear to be Vladimir Putin and Bashir Al-Assad. What a fine mess, that regime change worked out well didn't it? When the hell are we just going to learn to stay out of the Arab World and let them get on with it, everytime we go there it's an absolute disaster and results in moreextremism and chaos than it was in the first place, America seems to define what terrorism or democracy is on the basis or whether they are attacking or defending. More to the point, when are we going to see Tony Blair, George Bush and the rest of those involved in the lies that created this havoc be actually be brought to justice for it?
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 In the build up to the second Gulf War weren't there nonsense attempts to make out that the Saddam regime had links to Al Qaeda, which were dropped in favour of the completely watertight and evidence based WMD claims? I cannot remember the exact time line, but I'm pretty sure it was accepted that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq whatsoever pre Gulf War. I think there may be one or two of them in there now. It's worked out really well, hasn't it?
Rincewind Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 All the others were deemed legitimate. A;; parties agreeing. It depends what evidence they do or do not find and what they want to reveal. It is called politics.
Parafox Posted 12 June 2014 Posted 12 June 2014 America will do whatever it needs to in the best interests of itself and its Israeli (Jewish) money men that finance the American political system. They only ever pay lip service to Lebanon or Syria as they are direct enemies of the Jews and to get back into Iraq after the much vaunted "victory" of installing a so-called democratic government would be a complete admission of failure. Maybe if Al-Qeada or ISIS want to fight Sunni vs Shi'ite they should be left to get on with it. Iraq couldn't be in a much worse state than it is now.
Steven Posted 13 June 2014 Posted 13 June 2014 You know who to bomb. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iraq-crisis-sunni-caliphate-has-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-9533396.html Iraq crisis: Sunni caliphate has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia Bush and Blair said Iraq was a war on Islamic fascism. They lost So after the grotesquerie of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide killers of 9/11, meet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama. From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. Apart from Saudi Arabia’s role in this catastrophe, what other stories are to be hidden from us in the coming days and weeks? The story of Iraq and the story of Syria are the same – politically, militarily and journalistically: two leaders, one Shia, the other Alawite, fighting for the existence of their regimes against the power of a growing Sunni Muslim international army. While the Americans support the wretched Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his elected Shia government in Iraq, the same Americans still demand the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his regime, even though both leaders are now brothers-in-arms against the victors of Mosul and Tikrit. The Croesus-like wealth of Qatar may soon be redirected away from the Muslim rebels of Syria and Iraq to the Assad regime, out of fear and deep hatred for its Sunni brothers in Saudi Arabia (which may invade Qatar if it becomes very angry). We all know of the “deep concern†of Washington and London at the territorial victories of the Islamists – and the utter destruction of all that America and Britain bled and died for in Iraq. No one, however, will feel as much of this “deep concern†as Shia Iran and Assad of Syria and Maliki of Iraq, who must regard the news from Mosul and Tikrit as a political and military disaster. Just when Syrian military forces were winning the war for Assad, tens of thousands of Iraqi-based militants may now turn on the Damascus government, before or after they choose to advance on Baghdad. No one will care now how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered since 2003 because of the fantasies of Bush and Blair. These two men destroyed Saddam’s regime to make the world safe and declared that Iraq was part of a titanic battle against “Islamofascismâ€. Well, they lost. Remember that the Americans captured and recaptured Mosul to crush the power of Islamist fighters. They fought for Fallujah twice. And both cities have now been lost again to the Islamists. The armies of Bush and Blair have long gone home, declaring victory. Under Obama, Saudi Arabia will continue to be treated as a friendly “moderate†in the Arab world, even though its royal family is founded upon the Wahhabist convictions of the Sunni Islamists in Syria and Iraq – and even though millions of its dollars are arming those same fighters. Thus does Saudi power both feed the monster in the deserts of Syria and Iraq and cosy up to the Western powers that protect it. We should also remember that Maliki’s military attempts to retake Mosul are likely to be ferocious and bloody, just as Assad’s battles to retake cities have proved to be. The refugees fleeing Mosul are more frightened of Shia government revenge than they are of the Sunni jihadists who have captured their city. We will all be told to regard the new armed “caliphate†as a “terror nationâ€. Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, the Isis spokesman, is intelligent, warning against arrogance, talking of an advance on Baghdad when he may be thinking of Damascus. Isis is largely leaving the civilians of Mosul unharmed. Finally, we will be invited to regard the future as a sectarian war when it will be a war between Muslim sectarians and Muslim non-sectarians. The “terror†bit will be provided by the arms we send to all sides.
Guest ttfn Posted 13 June 2014 Posted 13 June 2014 America will do whatever it needs to in the best interests of itself and its Israeli (Jewish) money men that finance the American political system. They only ever pay lip service to Lebanon or Syria as they are direct enemies of the Jews and to get back into Iraq after the much vaunted "victory" of installing a so-called democratic government would be a complete admission of failure. Maybe if Al-Qeada or ISIS want to fight Sunni vs Shi'ite they should be left to get on with it. Iraq couldn't be in a much worse state than it is now.
Lionator Posted 13 June 2014 Posted 13 June 2014 In the build up to the second Gulf War weren't there nonsense attempts to make out that the Saddam regime had links to Al Qaeda, which were dropped in favour of the completely watertight and evidence based WMD claims? I cannot remember the exact time line, but I'm pretty sure it was accepted that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq whatsoever pre Gulf War. I think there may be one or two of them in there now. It's worked out really well, hasn't it? The whole issue with Saddam was that he would wipeout immediately anybody associated with Islamic extremism or any threat to his leadership.
BoneDog Posted 13 June 2014 Posted 13 June 2014 Did anyone just see Bin Laden on BBC News?! Knew he was alive!
The God Emperor Posted 13 June 2014 Posted 13 June 2014 Couldn't give a Shi'ite you're not impressing anyone with language like that sunni.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 19 June 2014 Posted 19 June 2014 "Legal", "Illegal"; these words only apply to a particular point of view, who you are, what you are, and where you live. Plus of course what a particular side can gain for itself. Basically, it boils down to human nature, which embraces greed and selfishness.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.