Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Recent attacks in Iraq

Victory is inevitable.

Btw, the Iraqi Baath party supported the nationalist opposition in Libya in the 80's.

Also, have never attacked the Baath party (unless someone can prove otherwise, of course). Would gladly attack the Surian Baath party tho.
 
any Turkey watchers about?

i know they're having a Presidential election, so they are a bit tied up and might not welcome the political ramifications, but i'm interested in the apparent non-involvement of Turkey in the recent hoo-hah - it seems odd, given what we are told about the rapproachment between Turkey and the Kurdish state, that the US is still flying its airstrikes from the Persian Gulf, over 900 miles to the south, rather than from southern Turkey just 15 minutes flying time away?
I was puzzled by that also. It's hostages......
Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz has ruled out any support from Turkey for the US military airstrike that began on Friday targeting artillery belonging to the al-Qaeda splinter group, the terrorist “Islamic State” (IS), near Arbil, in Iraq.

Turkey is sensitive about becoming involved in the US military hitting IS targets in Iraq due to a hostage crisis.
The IS kidnapped 49 people from the Turkish consulate general in Mosul on June 11, including Consul-General Öztürk Yılmaz, diplomatic staff, special forces members and children.
http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomac...strike-on-is-cites-hostage-crisis_355196.html
 
That's a no, then.

It's no good that anc entire discussion about Iraq (since 2013 no less), should be (besides my own contributions) entirely focussed on the crimes (there are real crimes and lie-about ones) of the small number of extremists who were temorarily in an alliance with other forces, whereas the much greater crimes of the Maliki criminal regime are unentioned as well as uncondemned.

I thought Muslims shunned alcohol and drugs?
 
[It's funny but muslim Arabs were drinking in public houses as early as the 18th century.

It's funny but muslim Arabs were drinking in public houses as early as the 18th century.

That's why they had signs saying 'no Fakirs'. Had that insult from Btchesapron, once (always personal, never factual). Didn't even understand the old-school English racism it stemmed from, until later.

Then I remembered the English and other Europeans invented rascism first by stereotyping Arab people then Jews and then black people.
 
Last edited:
I hear that whatsisface here is currently in the middle of recording a cover version of the late Rowland S Howard's "Exeter Everything".
 
That's a no, then.

It's no good that anc entire discussion about Iraq (since 2013 no less), should be (besides my own contributions) entirely focussed on the crimes (there are real crimes and lie-about ones) of the small number of extremists who were temorarily in an alliance with other forces, whereas the much greater crimes of the Maliki criminal regime are unentioned as well as uncondemned.

Although the thread began in 2013, it didn't really get going until this June.

I don't think you spoke of Malikis crimes, in personal terms, until we were well into the current period. A period where the USA made it clear that they wanted a fresh face, and that everyone from people here to the media were acknowledging that Maliki was far too sectarian. Before then, Maliki only tended to get vaguely frequent mention on this forum by anybody at moments that were in tune with Iraqs electoral cycles.

Before this period, you will certainly find criticism of Iraqs government. Perhaps not deep and sophisticated analysis too often, with nuances unsurprisingly crowded out by lots of focus on the role and influence of Iran over the Iraqi government. And the continuation of the sectarian policies the US started after the invasion by failing to even pretend to want to integrate Sunni's into the new political order, the crude purges of the post-invasion situation.

As in many other countries undergoing turmoil in the region, we are not helped by a lack of english-language investigative journalism that can bring us the full picture of exactly what games are played by all the players, who is behind specific 'terrorist' attacks such as car bombs and assassinations. You posting a quote from an Iraqi politician who has been tried in absentia for terrorism himself does not exactly illuminate us with knowledge of the specifics of any of Malikis covert murderous crimes.
 
It's only from this thread and others on here that I've really come to understand just what a shit Maliki has been. elbows is right in that there's not a good level of english-language journalism in the region, so kudos to all those on here who've done their homework and shared it with us.
 
It's only from this thread and others on here that I've really come to understand just what a shit Maliki has been. elbows is right in that there's not a good level of english-language journalism in the region, so kudos to all those on here who've done their homework and shared it with us.

Seconded from me too - once again urban has been a valuable and vital resource here.
 
from that article theres a bit that says
"The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics."
...which reminds me of the (left) criticisms of multiculturalism in Britain, that similarly attempts to lump people into cultural categories and have 'community leaders' then speak for them - an extreme example of New Labouresque multiculturalism exported as military foreign policy, you could say


its precisely how Britains colonial stormont regime is designed and run. That rotten sectarian abortion is then itself held up as a conflict resolution template to the world by the US and Britian who both created it . With lapdogs like McGuinness and Adams being flown all over the world , including Iraq, to extoll the virtues of such a process. When that eventually crumbles, which it will, itll go absolutely fucking mental here too.
 
If we helped Assad I wouldn't bet on him just doing as he's told and attacking ISIS. Also the man's a fucking monster.

you lot ...anglo saxon interventionists whether of the neo conservative or liberal interventionist stripe..created fucking ISIS. Armed, funded, trained, empowered and diplomatically covered for it. Claimed repeatedly they were only a tiny minority. Theyve overrun almost half a country for fucks sake. Their invasion of Iraq has been quicker than Bush and Blairs so far.

At least youre right on the point Bashar Al Assad wont do what the anglo saxons tell him. Uppitty natives can be like that sometimes. Its why youve all been itching to bomb him all this time. BTW he sent his bombers in after them long before the brits or yanks got round to addressing the dilemma of their frankenstein monster running amok in the wrong direction. As it was always bound too . First they create Al Qaeda and now they do it again with this shower of medeivalist shit.
 
Bullshit. Saddam got greedy and planned to invade Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia, thus threatening US interests there. Saddam - himself a life-long psychopathic racist - used Israel as a pretext to get support in the Arab diaspora.

Thank you for confirming my hunch that you're an advocate of Saddam Hussein, though.

It wasnt greed, he had good reason to invade them. They owed him billions for the Iran debacle he fought on their urging, which they had promised to bankroll and then wouldnt pay up later when Iraq faced bankruptcy. Plus they were nicking Iraqs oil as well. The yanks gave him the go ahead to invade if he liked. Sucker punched him. They got the pretext they wanted to then go to town on him when the Soviet union was crumbling and run by a drunken bum who was just a yank stooge.
 
It wasnt greed, he had good reason to invade them. They owed him billions for the Iran debacle he fought on their urging, which they had promised to bankroll and then wouldnt pay up later when Iraq faced bankruptcy. Plus they were nicking Iraqs oil as well. The yanks gave him the go ahead to invade if he liked. Sucker punched him. They got the pretext they wanted to then go to town on him when the Soviet union was crumbling and run by a drunken bum who was just a yank stooge.

What.
 
It wasnt greed, he had good reason to invade them. They owed him billions for the Iran debacle he fought on their urging, which they had promised to bankroll and then wouldnt pay up later when Iraq faced bankruptcy. Plus they were nicking Iraqs oil as well. The yanks gave him the go ahead to invade if he liked. Sucker punched him. They got the pretext they wanted to then go to town on him when the Soviet union was crumbling and run by a drunken bum who was just a yank stooge.
by drunken bum you mean gorbachev?
 
The USA didn't green light the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Such a view mostly comes from an April Glaspie-Saddam Hussein transcript, a failure to understand the nature of diplomatic language, and the excessive focus on one or two sentences in the transcript as opposed to the broader meeting.
 
An interesting look at ISIS military tactics - despite the cretinous political points (the ones about lenin - and the US population only thinking they're sick of war when they're only sick of hearing about it esp):

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Theory and Practice of Jihad

There is both military art and science behind al-Baghdadi’s recent successes. His approach is different from western military leadership practices, but it is not unique in history. He seems to have borrowed some elements of the warfighting styles of the Prophet Mohammed and Genghis Khan as well as the some political-strategic approaches of Lenin and Hitler. Whether these were adopted from a study of history or the serendipitous outcome of pure talent is somewhat irrelevant. To date, al-Baghdadi has achieved significant results. We can’t fully understand his thought process but we can study his methods and the principles he employs. These are discussed below.

In the weakness section he lists Governing is More Difficult than Conquering. On this see:

The jihadist governance dilemma

Academics have grown increasingly interested in non-state actors’ attempts at governance. In Inside Rebellion, Jeremy Weinstein finds that a violent non-state actor’s discipline is central to determining whether it will build governance structures and protect populations from violence or kill indiscriminately. Weinstein concludes that richer organizations have a harder time maintaining discipline because they attract opportunists obsessed with immediate gain, and thus predisposed to violence, while resource-poor organizations instead attract committed individuals with a shared sense of purpose. Thus, Weinstein believes resource-poor organizations are more likely to establish governance and provide services. In Rebel Rulers, Zachariah Cherian Mampilly examines the variance in governing strategies among insurgent groups, focusing on the groups’ initial leadership decisions and subsequent interactions with various actors. Among other things, he argues insurgent groups are more likely to establish governance if the state had significant penetration prior to insurgent takeover of a region.

Jihadists are afflicted by a fundamental dilemma: They cannot attain their goals if they don’t govern, yet the record shows them repeatedly failing at governance efforts. Paradoxically, when these groups appear strongest – when they gain control of state-like assets – their greatest weaknesses are exposed.
 
Cheers butchersapron - will have a proper read of your links later on today.
Got loads more don't want to swamp the thread with them though. That said, i think that would be far more useful than certain posters ritual rhetorical denunciation of maliki as fascist and fact free claims about the area that are then used in order to induce auto-apotheosis and thus be able to cast all others out.
 
Butchers, please feel free to flood the thread with links!

France have just announced they will be arming the Peshmerga in the next 24hours
 
you lot ...anglo saxon interventionists whether of the neo conservative or liberal interventionist stripe..created fucking ISIS. Armed, funded, trained, empowered and diplomatically covered for it. Claimed repeatedly they were only a tiny minority. Theyve overrun almost half a country for fucks sake. Their invasion of Iraq has been quicker than Bush and Blairs so far.

At least youre right on the point Bashar Al Assad wont do what the anglo saxons tell him. Uppitty natives can be like that sometimes. Its why youve all been itching to bomb him all this time. BTW he sent his bombers in after them long before the brits or yanks got round to addressing the dilemma of their frankenstein monster running amok in the wrong direction. As it was always bound too . First they create Al Qaeda and now they do it again with this shower of medeivalist shit.

There are, of course, no other factors at work besides the meddling of western powers.
 
what will be interesing is what they'll be arming them with - theres no shortage of AK's and 7.62 short, or Toyota Hilux or RPG's - what the Kurds need to block, and then roll back ISIS is Artillery, mortars, overhead surveilance, anti-tank guided weapons ($70,000 per missile...) and mobility for their shiny new heavy weapons. the Turks, not to mention what passes for the Iraqi government, are likely to be less than thrilled at such a ramping up of Kurdish military capability...
 
Back
Top Bottom