The Islamic state

[phildwyer]

Go on, entertain us....what do you have at stake? A timeshare in Antalya?

See above.

I think you may just owe me an apology non?

 

[DrRingDing]

See above.

I think you may just owe me an apology non?

That does not make your analysis anymore valid.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The fucking UN you deluded fool.

All the 'information' is from the Iraqi government.

For example, many people fled from liberated areas due to aerial bombing or fear of killing etc. but then fled back. The Iraqi government even bombs Diyala.

 

[phildwyer]

Who's pulling the strings of the IS? IS are a pretty extreme form of imperialism.

Their strings are being pulled by rich Saudis and Gulf Arabs. People just like them, but with loadsamoney.

I´m no fan of IS, but I do acknowledge their anti-impèrialism. They´re tearing up the imperialist maps all over the place.

 

[free spirit]

What are you talking about? That is ridiculous. I bet Maliki, or his successor, said that.

how do you mean?

You said the Iraqi people support this insurgency, I was just querying how come 1.8 million or so* of them have felt the need to get the fuck out of the areas ISIS have taken over if they support the insurgency, and how come all kurdish factions are fighting ISIS tooth and nail.

That to me looks like a hell of a lot of Iraqi people who don't seem to be supporting the insurgency / ISIS.



*actually, this does also include refugees from the areas under ISIS control / attack in Syria.

 

[phildwyer]

That does not make your analysis anymore valid.

I must disagree. It gives me experience of Turkey, and a degree of on-the-ground knowledge of the situation. It means I have a large network of friends and family who give me the news as it is reported in Turkey, along with their wide range of opinión on it.

In short, it means I know more about the history and politics of the región than anyone else who has appeared on this thread so far.

 

[DrRingDing]

Their strings are being pulled by rich Saudis and Gulf Arabs. People just like them, but with loadsamoney.

I´m no fan of IS, but I do acknowledge their anti-impèrialism. They´re tearing up the imperialist maps all over the place.

Saudis/Saudi Arabia are most likely pulling the strings. This is imperialism.

 

[DrRingDing]

I suppose this is what i get for staying up too late on an obscure corner of the internet.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Well yes, they´re anti-imperialist alright. No argument there. But can you really endorse their massacring of the PKK?

No, I cannot. And the PKK is still on the US terrorist list.

The entire insurgency has gone from victory to victory since the 'coalition' took place but the [IS] have committed serious crimes, but matched at least by the Iraqi government. They (the IS) have to defeated politically.

 

[phildwyer]

how do you mean?

You said the Iraqi people support this insurgency, I was just querying how come 1.8 million of them have felt the need to get the fuck out of the areas ISIS have taken over if they support the insurgency, and how come all kurdish factions are fighting ISIS tooth and nail.

That to me looks like a hell of a lot of Iraqi people who don't seem to be supporting the insurgency / ISIS.

It´s impossible to give numbers or percentages at this distance. From the facts on the ground, however, it seems reasonable to assume that IS has a good deal of local support. Given the recent history of the región, it´s hardly surprising that some people rally to the most extreme anti-imperialists they can find.

 

[phildwyer]

No, I cannot. And the PKK is still on the US terrorist list.

The entire insurgency has gone from victory to victory since the 'coalition' took place but they have committed serious crimes, but matched at least by the Iraqi government. They (the IS) have to defeated politically.

Then it seems we agree.

I despise the PKK, but I don´t endorse a massacre. I despise IS, but I recognize that they cannot be defeated militarily.

What most Westerners have yet to understand is that killing IS as individuals will not harm them as a movement. On the contrary, the blood of their "martyrs" is the source of their strength.

 

[free spirit]

It´s impossible to give numbers or percentages at this distance. From the facts on the ground, however, it seems reasonable to assume that IS has a good deal of local support. Given the recent history of the región, it´s hardly surprising that some people rally to the most extreme anti-imperialists they can find.

didn't say they don;t have any support, just thought the poster should qualify their statement that 'the iraqi people' support it, as it's pretty clear that there's a lot that have felt the need to flee from it, and / or actively oppose it militarily.

 

[phildwyer]

They're not revolutionaries, they're dirty little fascists.

Only if by "fascist" you mean "horrible bastard."

Which would cheapen and distort the term.

 

[phildwyer]

didn't say they don;t have any support, just thought the poster should qualify their statement that 'the iraqi people' support it, as it's pretty clear that there's a lot that have felt the need to flee from it, and / or actively oppose it militarily.

Oh Lord yes. I can´t imagine IS are popular exactly, at least among people with anything to lose. My guess is that they attract a combinaton of desperados and fanatics. Unfortunately however, there are a lot of desperados and fanatics in that part of the world. The West made sure of that.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

how do you mean?

You said the Iraqi people support this insurgency, I was just querying how come 1.8 million or so* of them have felt the need to get the fuck out of the areas ISIS have taken over if they support the insurgency, and how come all kurdish factions are fighting ISIS tooth and nail.

I suspect this is used to mask crimes by the government, basically. And it is unreliable info.

That to me looks like a hell of a lot of Iraqi people who don't seem to be supporting the insurgency / ISIS.

It is preposterous to propose that a group which, in the beginning, constituted half-or-less of the insurgents could have swept territory like they did without a mass uprising (provoked by war crimes committed by the imperialist-backed Iraqi state).

*actually, this does also include refugees from the areas under ISIS control / attack in Syria.

This as well.

 

[phildwyer]

Saudis/Saudi Arabia are most likely pulling the strings. This is imperialism.

No it isn´t, because the Saudis and IS consider themselves one people.

 

[purves grundy]

What most Westerners have yet to understand is that killing IS as individuals will not harm them as a movement. On the contrary, the blood of their "martyrs" is the source of their strength.

It's a significant factor, but it isn't the only one and you're unnecessarily mystifying them if you focus only on that. The sectarian conditions that have given them the space to flourish, the loadsamoney loons providing funding, the age and immaturity of many of the recruits... all this and more are part of understanding their rise. To me it seems very reductive to believe otherwise.

 

[phildwyer]

^^^ a bigger crackpot than dwyer. Who knew it was possible?

A bigger twat than Butchersapron. And without the redeeming features. (Jeff Robinson I mean, not Ibn K).

 

[DrRingDing]

No it isn´t, because the Saudis and IS consider themselves one people.

The Saudis are mugging off people to fight their expansionist war.

 

[DrRingDing]

I must disagree. It gives me experience of Turkey, and a degree of on-the-ground knowledge of the situation. It means I have a large network of friends and family who give me the news as it is reported in Turkey, along with their wide range of opinión on it.

In short, it means I know more about the history and politics of the región than anyone else who has appeared on this thread so far.

You can take a horse to water....

 

[phildwyer]

It's a significant factor, but it isn't the only one and you're unnecessarily mystifying them if you focus only on that. The sectarian conditions that have given them the space to flourish, the loadsamoney loons provising funding, the age and immaturity of many of the recruits... all this and more are part of understanding their rise. To me it seems very reductive to believe otherwise.

I wouldn´t deny the importance of any of the factors you mention.

But Western policy (or at least Western public opinión) seems to assume that all we have to do is kill the bastards and they will disappear. That is not true. IS is not that kind of enemy. They want us to kill them. They think it will bring them victory. That´s a hard thing for the Western mind to grasp, but unless we grasp it very soon, we are going to make everything much worse than it already is.

 

[phildwyer]

The Saudis are mugging off people to fight their expansionist war.

"Expansionist" isn´t the term.

What is a Saudi? What is an Iraqi? These are Western terms, invented by the West less than a century ago. The historical and cultural reality is that they are all Arabs. Not unreasonably, they resent the West´s división of their región in the service of Western interests. Not unreasonably, they seek to reverse it.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Then it seems we agree.

I despise the PKK, but I don´t endorse a massacre. I despise IS, but I recognize that they cannot be defeated militarily.

What most Westerners have yet to understand is that killing IS as individuals will not harm them as a movement. On the contrary, the blood of their "martyrs" is the source of their strength.

It just seems that, in line with Tehran/Baghdad, everything has been labelled 'terrorism' and 'IS'. Even when the people were protesting for rights. Labelling the resistance as the so-called 'IS' is propaganda. The actual group couldn't rule Iraq or Suria.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

A bigger twat than Butchersapron. And without the redeeming features.

Even though you claimed to 'agree' with what I said. I wonder why that should be the case. After all, your opinions tend to reflect those of the Turkish state.

 

[free spirit]

It is preposterous to propose that a group which, in the beginning, constituted half-or-less of the insurgents could have swept territory like they did without a mass uprising (provoked by war crimes committed by the imperialist-backed Iraqi state).

I didn't suggest that, but equally it's preposterous to use the term 'iraqi people' when referring to those who support this ISIS led insurgency, when it's clearly only certain sections of the Iraqi people who are / have been supporting it, others are absolutely terrified of it and for good reason, as ISIS according to even their own publicity are a brutal occupying force (though admittedly they do seem to have pretty good admin support etc).

The way I understand the situation is that they were able to take over such large swathes of the country so fast due to an alliance with ex bathists who used to run the areas and millitary, along with some of the Sunni tribal leaders, and yes this was motivated by Maliki's actions in government, the corruption and sectarianism of that government and his sectarian attacks on people who weren't supporting him.

This is probably why Assad spent so long not attacking ISIS while they went round mopping up the soft rear of the Syrian rebels, and also how they were able to bribe / persuade the Iraqi army chain of command to at least not order their soldiers to fight, or by some accounts to actually order them to retreat and abandon their weapons before a shot had even been fired at them.

In some ways this is the old Iraqi army and state reasserting its authority, and they know well how to do this stuff, the difficulty for them being whether they can actually now control the monster the have unleashed as it sucks in ever more fanatical foreign Jihadi fighters, such as the large Chechen contingent that's supposedly fighting with ISIS.

I suspect they've sent them after the kurds in part to weaken an old enemy, and in part to get rid of the worst of the Jihadis while they reassert control over the Iraqi territory, but fuck knows really who if anyone is actually pulling the strings within ISIS.

 

[phildwyer]

your opinions tend to reflect those of the Turkish state.

Hardly. I lost both my home and my job because of my opposition to Erdogan. I left the country because of him. I yield to absolutely nobody in my loathing of the AK Party.

Anyway, what does this have to do with Jeff Robinson being a twat?

ETA: Oh I see, you thought I was referring to you. I wasn´t. I was referring to Jeff Robinson. Sorry, I will make that clear in an edit.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I didn't suggest that, but equally it's preposterous to use the term 'iraqi people' when referring to those who support this ISIS led insurgency

Who said it was 'IS-led' in the first place? Certainly the so-called Islamic State in the first place, but also the the imperialist-backed, criminal, puppet-regime.

True, they attempt to act as a vanguard. In doing so (relying, again, on propaganda) they (IS) have forced other insurgents to fight beneath their flag. The other revolutionaries use this to their advantage - they enjoy more grass-roots support and power has shifted in the free-areas in their favour. They no longer publicize their operations - since the imperialists' intervention began.

when it's clearly only certain sections of the Iraqi people who are / have been supporting it, others are absolutely terrified of it and for good reason, as ISIS according to even their own publicity are a brutal occupying force (though admittedly they do seem to have pretty good admin support etc).

IS are not in control of liberated areas. It is an alliance(?) that is controlled by political councils based in the tribes. The Arab Socialist Baath party enjoys vast grassroots support in Sunni communities. They would form the government. Also, would support the more leftist faction of the Surian revolution.

When Baghdad goes so does Damascus.

The way I understand the situation is that they were able to take over such large swathes of the country so fast due to an alliance with ex bathists who used to run the areas and millitary, along with some of the Sunni tribal leaders, and yes this was motivated by Maliki's actions in government, the corruption and sectarianism of that government and his sectarian attacks on people who weren't supporting him.

This is probably why Assad spent so long not attacking ISIS while they went round mopping up the soft rear of the Syrian rebels, and also how they were able to bribe / persuade the Iraqi army chain of command to at least not order their soldiers to fight, or by some accounts to actually order them to retreat and abandon their weapons before a shot had even been fired at them.

In some ways this is the old Iraqi army and state reasserting its authority, and they know well how to do this stuff, the difficulty for them being whether they can actually now control the monster the have unleashed as it sucks in ever more fanatical foreign Jihadi fighters, such as the large Chechen contingent that's supposedly fighting with ISIS.

I suspect they've sent them after the kurds in part to weaken an old enemy, and in part to get rid of the worst of the Jihadis while they reassert control over the Iraqi territory, but fuck knows really who if anyone is actually pulling the strings within ISIS.

Chechen Sufist warriors go back a long way. The anti-colonial resistance movement of the past were, furthermore, cosmopolitan. So too in the future.

Basically, the revolutionaries in Iraq today are a re-assemblance of nationalist forces who objectively defeated Washington's 'project' in Iraq (forces who also had backing of many more leftists at the time). They have learned from the past. The sunni masses, and many, many of the Shia who also condemn the sectarian regime but were frightened into supporting it are ready for a democratic socialist future.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Hardly. I lost both my home and my job because of my opposition to Erdogan. I left the country because of him. I yield to absolutely nobody in my loathing of the AK Party.

Anyway, what does this have to do with Jeff Robinson being a twat?

ETA: Oh I see, you thought I was referring to you. I wasn´t. I was referring to Jeff Robinson. Sorry, I will make that clear in an edit.

Sorry. Then I totally take back my reply.

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry. Then I totally take back my reply.

No worries. There are so many fools and ignoramuses on this thread--it´s easy to get caught in the crossfire!

 

[Mr Moose]

Who said it was 'IS-led' in the first place? Certainly the so-called Islamic State in the first place, but also the the imperialist-backed, criminal, puppet-regime.

True, they attempt to act as a vanguard. In doing so (relying, again, on propaganda) they (IS) have forced other insurgents to fight beneath their flag. The other revolutionaries use this to their advantage - they enjoy more grass-roots support and power has shifted in the free-areas in their favour. They no longer publicize their operations - since the imperialists' intervention began.



IS are not in control of liberated areas. It is an alliance(?) that is controlled by political councils based in the tribes. The Arab Socialist Baath party enjoys vast grassroots support in Sunni communities. They would form the government. Also, would support the more leftist faction of the Surian revolution.

When Baghdad goes so does Damascus.




Chechen Sufist warriors go back a long way. The anti-colonial resistance movement of the past were, furthermore, cosmopolitan. So too in the future.

Basically, the revolutionaries in Iraq today are a re-assemblance of nationalist forces who objectively defeated Washington's 'project' in Iraq (forces who also had backing of many more leftists at the time). They have learned from the past. The sunni masses, and many, many of the Shia who also condemn the sectarian regime but were frightened into supporting it are ready for a democratic socialist future.

It's hard to see democratic socialism emerging from Islamic Facism and ethnic cleansing. The major objective of IS is to utterly dominate all other Muslims and impose theocracy.

Without question there is legitimate resistance to Western backed regimes, but it's fanciful to think they will somehow gain the upper hand in the bloodbath that would be war in Baghdad and then unify Sunni and Shia.