• Daesh/ISIS secures their foothold in Anbar: A number of Sunni tribes and sheikhs pledges their alleg
    16 replies, posted
[quote]A number of Sunni tribal sheikhs and tribes in Iraq's Anbar province have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group. The sheikhs and tribal leaders made the pledge on Wednesday in Fallujah in a statement read out by Ahmed Dara al-Jumaili, an influential sheikh, after a meeting. Al Jazeera's Imran Khan, reporting from Baghdad, said[B] it was not yet clear if the tribes had been forced to pledge allegiance by ISIL fighters[/B], who control Fallujah and most of Anbar. "If this is a willing move, then that is very worrying for the Iraqi government," he said. "The statement they issued was very strong - it condemned the government. [B]"It said the only way that peace would come to Anbar province is if the tribes joined ISIL."[/B] Our correspondent said the inclusion of the al-Jumaili tribe in the pledge was of particular concern for Iraqi authorities, given its influence in Anbar. "The [B]al-Jumailis command a number of fighters and they have a large amount of influence over other tribes[/B] [in Anbar]," he said. Matthew Henman, an expert on terrorism and insurgencies, told Al Jazeera that ISIL may have threatened the Sunni tribes into backing the group. "But it could also be symptomatic of a wider break in trust of the Iraqi government and a feeling of a lack of confidence in Baghdad's ability to recapture territory from ISIL, leaving them to the mercy of ISIL and little option but to side with them," he said. The Anbar sheikhs' [B]pledge comes after a number of Sunni leaders in the province publicly criticised the involvement of Shia units in the fight to retake areas from ISIL[/B], including the provincial capital Ramadi, which fell last month. While a number of Sunni tribes have joined with government forces and Shia units, Al Jazeera's Khan said a number of tribal leaders had asked for government support to fight ISIL. "They said 'If you arm us, if you allow us to fight as Sunnis, we will be able to get rid of ISIL quite quickly'," he said. "The fact that a number of these tribes have come together ... and pledged allegiance to ISIL [B]shows the level of anger the Sunni tribes feel towards the government in Baghdad[/B]." In another Anbar development, ISIL attacked a base north of Fallujah with two explosives-rigged vehicles driven by suicide bombers, and another south of the city with four more, including a bulldozer, an army colonel said on Thursday. The attacks were foiled using Russian Kornet anti-tank missiles, the officer said. [img]http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/6/1/af05ed20f6df4dd48fbd2240aac0f747_18.jpg[/img] [/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/sunni-sheiks-pledge-allegiance-isil-iraq-anbar-150604074642668.html[/url]
Christ Al-fucking-mighty. Situation's deterioration faster than we can even spell the word.
Hurray for the self destruction of the Middle East because they can't work together in order to save themselves from ISIS. Instead they decide to help the enemy destroy themselves and the Shia Muslims. The Sunni's basically have a "if I can't have the Middle East then no one can" mentality and are acting like toddlers.
[QUOTE=Potus;47880338]Hurray for the self destruction of the Middle East because they can't work together in order to save themselves from ISIS. Instead they decide to help the enemy destroy themselves and the Shia Muslims. The Sunni's basically have a "if I can't have the Middle East then no one can" mentality and are acting like toddlers.[/QUOTE] You don't know much about the Sunnis in Iraq, I can tell. Many of them do not really trust nor like the Islamic State, but the Baghdad government is majority Shi'ite right now, and for the past 4 years have enacted anti-Sunni acts that seriously have pissed off the residents of Anbar. A [I]lot[/I] of Sunni tribes fought [I]with[/I] the United States to kick out insurgents from Anbar Province, but they were kicked into the dirt after Prime Minister Maliki gained power.
if we had to intervene in iraq, then perhaps the first place we should intervene is in baghdad a government that thinks it can win a sectarian fight by promoting sectarianism is a government that is too incompetent to exist the worst irony is that it's the government we created
[QUOTE=joes33431;47889088]if we had to intervene in iraq, then perhaps the first place we should intervene is in baghdad a government that thinks it can win a sectarian fight by promoting sectarianism is a government that is too incompetent to exist the worst irony is that it's the government we created[/QUOTE] That would be a PR nightmare, not just in Iraq but abroad because that government, as shit as it is, was [mostly] democratically elected. Removing dictators is one thing, but removing a government elected by the people is why Iran is a theocracy today.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47889362]That would be a PR nightmare, not just in Iraq but abroad because that government, as shit as it is, was [mostly] democratically elected. Removing dictators is one thing, but removing a government elected by the people is why Iran is a theocracy today.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Presuming a coup attempt that we sponsor fails, it'll be even worse.
Seriously, the middle east is not our problem.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47889362]That would be a PR nightmare, not just in Iraq but abroad because that government, as shit as it is, was [mostly] democratically elected. Removing dictators is one thing, but removing a government elected by the people is why Iran is a theocracy today.[/QUOTE] Had no trouble with it in Chilie!
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47890627]Had no trouble with it in Chilie![/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956[/url]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;47889936]yeah i mean its not like if isis or a similar group takes over the entirety of it would be a bad thing they totally wouldn't try to expand at all[/QUOTE] If it wasn't for us invading Iraq originally DAESH wouldn't have gained the power base it currently possesses.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47889362]That would be a PR nightmare, not just in Iraq but abroad because that government, as shit as it is, was [mostly] democratically elected. Removing dictators is one thing, but removing a government elected by the people is why Iran is a theocracy today.[/QUOTE] we don't need a coup there, we need a functioning constitution. rule of the majority means nothing without rights of the minority, and we need to ensure that the latter is enforced just as equally as the former in iraq
[QUOTE=joes33431;47896710]we don't need a coup there, we need a functioning constitution. rule of the majority means nothing without rights of the minority, and we need to ensure that the latter is enforced just as equally as the former in iraq[/QUOTE] I fear it's too late for that, really. The Shi'ites have trashed the Sunni's trust completely, the Kurds are just about independent already and won't be giving that up and everyone's militia groups are stronger and more confident than the formal Iraqi military. The concept of "Iraq" as a whole nation, is dead. All that is left is the various groups within trying to keep the old borders together so they can rule over the others. There's no more Iraqi nationalism in that country.
I know, lets send the CIA over there to kick up shit again, that's fucking brilliant right?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47898412]I fear it's too late for that, really. The Shi'ites have trashed the Sunni's trust completely, the Kurds are just about independent already and won't be giving that up and everyone's militia groups are stronger and more confident than the formal Iraqi military. The concept of "Iraq" as a whole nation, is dead. All that is left is the various groups within trying to keep the old borders together so they can rule over the others. There's no more Iraqi nationalism in that country.[/QUOTE] Same as Syria and, to a much lesser extent, Libya. The middle east is fucked up real bad. I'm really interested to see a political map of the region in 5 years from now. My bet is it'll be quite different, and there would probably still be wars, civil and otherwise.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47898412]I fear it's too late for that, really. The Shi'ites have trashed the Sunni's trust completely, the Kurds are just about independent already and won't be giving that up and everyone's militia groups are stronger and more confident than the formal Iraqi military. The concept of "Iraq" as a whole nation, is dead. All that is left is the various groups within trying to keep the old borders together so they can rule over the others. There's no more Iraqi nationalism in that country.[/QUOTE] a three state solution is one proposed alternative, but my fear is that institutionalizing and legitimizing sectarian and ethnic division will only worsen the tension and prompt more proxy fighting between saudi arabia and iran. not to mention poverty in the iraqi region will only intensify for sunni and shia arab regions. the kurds were able to develop their infrastructure and attract foreign investment, but that can't be said for the arab portions of iraq, esp. considering much of their economy is still state-owned and thus subject to horrid corruption.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.