At least 25,000 people flee Ramadi as thousands of Shia militias collect outside to launch their mas - Polidicks

[quote]The UN says nearly 25,000 people have fled from Ramadi since fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the Iraqi city from government forces over the past few days. Residents continue to flee, mainly towards the capital, Baghdad, as [B]thousands of Shia militias were massing around Ramadi[/B] to retake the Anbar province's capital city. [B]ISIL fighters seem defiant as they spread out in anticipation of the fight with Shia militias[/B], who were asked to deploy by the government in the wake of the government forces' defeat. "They tried to advance from their stronghold in Ramadi city, east towards the Habbaniya military base where we understand thousands of Shia militiamen have been gathering to prepare for the counter-offensive," our correspondent said. "We understand ISIL was not able to reach the base - they did face resistance. But clearly it is a message that this is not going to be an easy fight. [B]"ISIL is deeply entrenched in Anbar province. It does have support from people in this province[/B] and it doesn't just control Ramadi, it controls vast areas of Anbar." The moves and counter-moves come two days after ISIL overran Ramadi on Sunday, forcing government troops out from one of the few towns and cities that it controlled in the mainly Sunni Anbar province. At least 3,000 Shia-led fighters arrived near Ramadi in Iraq's western Anbar province on Monday. [B]The decision to include the Shia militias in the fight to retake the key city has upset many, including tribal elders in Anbar - who believe that the government should be arming volunteer fighters there, not deploying militias.[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/thousands-flee-shia-militias-mass-ramadi-150519043255874.html[/url]

[quote] The decision to include the Shia militias in the fight to retake the key city has upset many, including tribal elders in Anbar - who believe that the government should be arming volunteer fighters there, not deploying militias.[/quote] They would literally rather send untrained people against seasoned combat veterans which will all but certainly result in a MASSIVE loss of life (seriously that wouldn't be a battle, it'd be slaughter) rather than other seasoned combat veterans purely because they disagree with their religion. Wow. Just wow.

For fuck's sake, can't you get past your cultural differences for the sake of expelling these fuckers from your homeland? Just swallow your animosity/distaste already and get over it, it's not as if you're expected to convert to Shia.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;47756502]For fuck's sake, can't you get past your cultural differences for the sake of expelling these fuckers from your homeland? Just swallow your animosity/distaste already and get over it, it's not as if you're expected to convert to Shia.[/QUOTE] they're probably justifiably afraid of the militia deciding to fuck with them as they go in.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47756357]They would literally rather send untrained people against seasoned combat veterans which will all but certainly result in a MASSIVE loss of life (seriously that wouldn't be a battle, it'd be slaughter) rather than other seasoned combat veterans purely because they disagree with their religion. Wow. Just wow.[/QUOTE] They have just as much to fear from the Shiite militias wreaking havoc on the local Sunni population as they have from ISIS doing similar. Or have you forgotten what the militias supposedly did in Diyala earlier this year? It may not be rational but their fears are certainly understandable.

[QUOTE=Darth Hater;47759001]They have just as much to fear from the Shiite militias wreaking havoc on the local Sunni population as they have from ISIS doing similar. Or have you forgotten what the militias supposedly did in Diyala earlier this year? It may not be rational but their fears are certainly understandable.[/QUOTE] Guaranteed to get fucked by ISIS, or the possibility of getting fucked by the militias. I know I'd pick the latter, at least there's a chance of nothing happening with that one.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;47756502]For fuck's sake, can't you get past your cultural differences for the sake of expelling these fuckers from your homeland? Just swallow your animosity/distaste already and get over it, it's not as if you're expected to convert to Shia.[/QUOTE] I don't think you get it, dude. If these militia succeed in driving ISIS out, they'll go after regular Sunni citizens next and pretty much slaughter them. Have you learned nothing from the last decade of war?

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47756357]They would literally rather send untrained people against seasoned combat veterans which will all but certainly result in a MASSIVE loss of life (seriously that wouldn't be a battle, it'd be slaughter) rather than other seasoned combat veterans purely because they disagree with their religion. Wow. Just wow.[/QUOTE] The militias are not regulated by the government. They could literally just do whatever they want if they chose, which includes looting and killing Sunni residents of Ramadi.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47759937]The militias are not regulated by the government. They could literally just do whatever they want if they chose, which includes looting and killing Sunni residents of Ramadi.[/QUOTE] Which I may add, is going to happen.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47760801]Which I may add, is going to happen.[/QUOTE] Again. When. US invaded there was cases of ethnic cleansing... Not committed by the US, just native versus native.

Whelp, one orgy of rapine and murder is gonna be replaced with another.

And this is why the Middle East will never be a progressive and modern society. When they put medieval religious bullshit above the lives of their fellow countrymen.

[QUOTE=dunkace;47767131]And this is why the Middle East will never be a progressive and modern society. When they put medieval religious bullshit above the lives of their fellow countrymen.[/QUOTE] this problem is in no way medieval. sunni and shia lived quietly side by side for centuries. shia-sunni sectarian conflict is a very recent phenomenon. saddam's rise to power followed and relfected a trend of dominance of sunni leaders within iraq's ba'athist government. when the iranian revolution occurred in 1979, it inspired shia in iraq to attempt the same against saddam's administration. in an attempt to prevent threats to his power, saddam suppressed the shia majority of iraq. sunni fundamentalism also trickled into iraq as well in the late 80s and early 90s as mujahiddeen fighters from the soviet war in afghanistan began to return home, though saddam renounced his previously secular policies in the 1990s to consolidate support with these sunni groups. when the united states toppled saddam's government, they uncapped the tension and allowed it to precipitate into a conflict tantamount to civil war. the violence was only perpetuated by groups like AQI (now ISIS), which tried to incite sectarian tension with suicide bombings, and shia militias which did about the same. revenge killings then led to revenge-revenge killings, and so on and so forth. shia attacks on sunnis as acts of both revenge for saddam's favoritism of the sunni and as revenge for killings by groups like AQI only poised sunnis to support radical islamist ideologies, particularly wahhabism, which is basically the guiding interpretation of islam for al-qaeda and the islamic state. this trend only continued under the shia-dominated "democracy" set up by the united states - iraq's hawkish prime minister nouri al-maliki and his administration greatly excluded sunnis from the political process, leaving them with few alternatives to redress their grievances against the government.

I'd much prefer they arm the Shia militias over any Sunnis. Sunnis are fundamentalists and are a giant breeding ground for extremism. Arming any fundamentalist sect of a religion is a terrible fucking idea.

[QUOTE=GunFox;47767590]I'd much prefer they arm the Shia militias over any Sunnis. Sunnis are fundamentalists and are a giant breeding ground for extremism. Arming any fundamentalist sect of a religion is a terrible fucking idea.[/QUOTE] uhhhh that's a broad and highly uninformed generalization especially considering that shi'a militias had for years under saddam been trying to establish an islamic theocracy like iran's. sunni tribal leaders have for over a year been asserting and reasserting that they do not want to live under the flag of the islamic state - and why would they? isis threatens their own power, self-determination, and tribal hierarchy. even if you don't trust sunnis to fight the islamic state, arming shia militias is still a horrible idea, because sunni-shia violence is the very thing that feeds the islamic state's local propaganda and recruitment machine. it actively polarizes iraqi society and squeezes moderates out of existence. don't be misled into thinking that baghdad distrusts sunni tribal leaders purely because of the actions of AQI/ISIS - it is very much informed by the same hatred and fear that fuels anti-shia sentiment under the islamic state's flag.

[QUOTE=GunFox;47767590]Sunnis are fundamentalists and are a giant breeding ground for extremism[/QUOTE] What

[QUOTE=GunFox;47767590]I'd much prefer they arm the Shia militias over any Sunnis. Sunnis are fundamentalists and are a giant breeding ground for extremism. Arming any fundamentalist sect of a religion is a terrible fucking idea.[/QUOTE] Funny man. What is Iran to you? It's not about whether they're sunni or shia. The last time I checked, Bosnians or Macedonians (both Sunni) weren't as backwards and fundementalist as let's say Iranians.

[QUOTE=GunFox;47767590]I'd much prefer they arm the Shia militias over any Sunnis. Sunnis are fundamentalists and are a giant breeding ground for extremism. Arming any fundamentalist sect of a religion is a terrible fucking idea.[/QUOTE] Funny story, Sunni militias in this area were [I]crucial[/I] in helping the US kick out the jihadi forces during the American occupation. This little thing called the "Sunni Awakening".