|
McDowell posted:So I'm guessing we'll see an attempt at forming Kurdistan soon? I'm pretty sure that's been inevitable ever since the US invaded.
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Through the Iraq War, I had heard Syria had taken in tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees, much more so than any other neighboring country supposedly. I even remember the Iraqi blogger from the "Riverbend" blog saying that the Baghdad accent could be heard around Damascus more than almost anything else, and she herself even became a Iraqi refugee in Syria around the end. Is there any piece of journalism out there that reflects an Iraqi refugee's perspective over what their newly adopted country is going through, just after so recently escaping what could possibly termed as a civil war themselves? (Iraq in the summer of 2006 was certainly described that way in Western media)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:What's funny is that the next six months probably really will be crucial to determining Syria's future in this case and yet he doesn't mention this anywhere No, what's funnier is that Friedman used the words "Iraq" and "consensual" in the context of anything to do with the US military... edit: I keep reading that Friedman quote over and over again, holy poo poo. 
Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jul 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:That's a pretty decent work-around for the proliferation issue - give the rebels weapons like Yugo guns and Chinese MANPADs that would be extra difficult to get reloads or spare parts for in the region, as opposed to universal Soviet equipment. Also means the rebels have to come back to you for more once they've used up their initial supply. That might stop "proliferation", but you're still giving MANPADS to people you may or may not truly know that much about. When even one of those things can cause a nasty international incident you really don't want to play fast and loose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:edit: Wait, Iran? Obviously the Kremlin would go insane if Serbia were supplying the rebels, but I can't see any real reason for Iran to do so in that case... Maybe Lebanon or Iraq allowing the weapons to move safely through to their Syrian borders? Although that probably be too huge a risk to take for the West/GCC, what with the good chance that unfriendly groups in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon could intercept them. Not sure Iran could be too surprised about either country doing it if the money was good enough, but I really can't think of anyone that Iran's all that buddy-buddy with outside Syria and Venezuela, and I don't see the latter playing a role in this at all. edit: Ok, yeah, my definition of "poo poo a brick" was too narrow, I see it clearer now Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Feb 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:Made this picture for reference and forgot to add it. Minor nitpick, but isn't this forgetting the Shiite in eastern Saudi? Or are they still a minority living among Sunni? I can't help but remember an article a while back discussing the poor Shiites in a larger eastern Saudi city. (if anyone has this article, I'd really appreciate it)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:He's been released on bail but I don't think this is the first or last time he will be arrested. I heard a story about this guy on NPR as "Egypt's Daily Show," and it sounded absolutely amazing. Are there any clips subtitled in English? Especially the ones where he talks to prominent Arab-Americans. This is something I'd love to see.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I believe all the weapons were transferred a couple of months ago, and have been waiting in Jordan all this time, so their part of the deal is done and dusted. fuf posted:Daaaamn, is there a part two? I wonder what happened. Seconding any answers for these questions. That's one of the most interesting videos of the war, to me, as someone who doesn't speak Arabic (thanks to the subtitles). There were a few written accounts of an escape here and a defection there from around last year, when there was a rash of defections by different units. But the conversations that must take place during a time like that, especially if it's just one or two guys, have got to be intense. You can almost smell the fear coming from the regime soldier. Knowing nothing about the people, or events that took place, I can only hope that came out for the best for all involved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
McDowell posted:'Honey Boo Boo Wedding - How fake is reality?' This really drives home how post-modern things have gotten. How fake is reality? How real is fiction? Nothing is real outside our perception of reality. BBC posted:Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was not violating any international sanctions and would honour already signed contracts, but avoided confirming reports that it was preparing to sell Damascus S-300 air defence batteries. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but I'm sure it was known that the Syrian regime had a number of MANPADS already, and now many have probably been captured by rebel forces. I'd assume that Russia is interested in beefing up the regime's anti-air defenses to prevent any Libya-style NATO intervention, if that's ever even likely (or preferable, as it may be). That's a pretty dick move, but totally understandable if I have to look at it from Russia's angle. But it's just going to ensure this goes on longer.  I'm not sure what a meeting between Israel and Russia is likely to produce, though. Maybe Bibi can convince Russia that their guy's a dead man no matter what, and that the rebels won't give up until he's strung up from a lamp post, whether in Damascus or Latakia. I don't see Russia budging, either from their "previous commitments" or continuing to arm Assad in any way they can. I just don't see what Russia really has to gain from supporting Assad to the extent they do anymore. As far as I know, Tartus isn't really all that important outside of prestige, and even if Assad comes out on top of this, Russia comes out with a black eye in the international community. Whatever form Syria takes post-Assad would be no less a market for Russian arms. Iran's the only real winner in that scenario, and I don't see the goals of the two nations as being all that compatible anyway.edit: Can anyone give a brief rundown of the diplomatic relationship between Israel and Russia? I knew early in Israel's history they were quite close for a (brief) time, before they came under the wing of the West. But nowadays, would there be any consequences for a big chill in their relationship? I'd assume Israel's main goal is to give Hezbollah a big "gently caress you," it just doesn't seem like it would take much to have Russia back off a bit, I just have no idea what Israel could offer Russia. double edit: VVVVVV I'd say "starting to win" should be taken with a grain of salt, given the very deep pockets of all the players rooting for and/or with interests in the rebels. Good point about Putin, though. Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 08:05 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Keep in mind that Hezbollah is only one of several large, armed factions that have popular legitimacy in parts of Lebanon, of which miniature turf-wars tend to flare up between. Hezbollah fighters may be trained primarily to fight Israel, but they're no slouches when it comes to dealing with other militias. Guerilla warfare is guerilla warfare, but Hezbollah is going to be slightly less than effective in their beginnings in Syria. They probably did as well as they did in 2006 since they were fighting on their own turf, with the support of the locals. In Syria that's not going to be so clear-cut, especially with the millions of different angles each average Christian/Sunni/Shi'a/Alawite Joe is going to have on the conflict in the first place. This isn't an obvious invasion scenario where the rightly-pissed-off people of your religious/ethnic persuasion must be protected from The Other Guys. Plus I'm sure it's going to make a difference where their orders originate from. Speaking of which, anyone know how tight a leash Nasrallah can keep on the Hezbollah rank and file while they're in Syria? I don't have any military experience, and I'd assume al-Assad and Nasrallah are communicating, but I would have no idea if al-Assad say, for instance, wanted to take back a hornet's nest of a town using the largest contingent of Hezbollah available as the first guys through the door(s). Does Nasrallah get a veto? Do the Hezbollah fighters selected get lied to and say it's coming straight from their guy? Obviously al-Assad can't overstep with what Nasrallah's committed or it'll mean the end of support, and I'm not sure anyone posting here would have any answer to what I'm asking, it's just an interesting situation all around. edit: Actually, al-Assad can probably overstep a lot more than he realizes, or maybe he's just saving it as a trump card for later. End of the regime makes Iran and Hezbollah's life much worse, now that Hezbollah's in it, they may not be able to find a way out. Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 02:13 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It remains to be seen if Hezbollah will be able to live up to that reputation in Syria. One should remember that while they put up a surprising defensive fight against the IDF in 2006, they still suffered 5 to 1 casualties. And when a more-prepared Israel entered Gaza in 2008 during the Gaza War, they defeated the Hezbollah militias handily. Certainly the Lebanese Hezbollah are better trained and equipped than those in Gaza, but their competency at open combat remains in question. They don't have the defensive advantages that they had in the Lebanon War, and while their commanders will have combat experience to match the FSA, their soldiers likely will not. I think that Hezbollah is in for a difficult war. Thanks for clarifying/expounding on a small point of mine two posts up, although I disagree with you about the point about the body count. Ask LBJ, body counts don't win wars, but Syria isn't Lebanon 2006 or Vietnam in the 60's either. Arguably, you could say regardless of the body count, Hezbollah came out even stronger for the experience of holding its own against a world-class military. You're right that Hezbollah's in for a difficult war, now that they're committed. I could see a scenario where as long as this civil war stays semi-localized and if (big if) chemical weapons don't get into the wrong hands, Israel may come out as one of the region's winners, as long as whatever state or rump state that's on the Golan border is too weak to threaten. If the Syrian rebels are given more support, fighting in their own turf, they could do to Hezbollah what Israel itself couldn't in 2006. Even a Muslim Brotherhood-type government set up in a new Syria, if it stayed unified, might have a generation of rebuilding to do before it could ever threaten the Golan Heights again, anyway. Foreign fighters being the wild card here.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:I would not want to be a Shia Arab in Iran. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Arabs This says 40% of Arabs in Iran are unskilled urban workers, otherwise rural farmers or nomads, so I'm guessing your reason is that because they're generally poor. Is there any other reason, or is it because of this Arabs are generally seen as "low-class"/"uncivilized"/"untrustworthy minority" (remnant from the 80's?) in Iran? Wiki says overwhelming majority are Twelver Shi'a, so I'm assuming it's not a religious basis for discrimination. I'm vaguely aware of an area that has a (Sunni, I think) separatist/autonomy movement going that flares up now and then, but is there any other reason Shi'a Arabs would want to stay away from Iran that falls under my Western radar?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Manned US flights in Yemen are super rare and most drone flights aren't over big cities. If it was SIGINT surveillance, they were expecting to find something today. Possibly related to the embassy closures?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
I know The War Nerd is taken as gospel by way too many, but I do enjoy his articles. He wrote a long scribble on NSFWCorp and I found one point inside it really interesting:The War Nerd posted:The Kurds, who know too much already about the cost of being dragged into other people’s wars, tried to play it safe at first. They’ve been dealt a very bad hand in Syria. Their territory is along the northern and north-eastern borders, and that northern border is controlled by the Turkish Army, which has been doing a pitilessly effective job of crushing Kurdish insurgencies for almost a hundred years. To the northeast, the Kurdish zone in Syria overlaps with the majority-Kurdish part of Northern Iraq. That ought to be good news for the Kurds, but there’s a problem there too: Mosul. Mosul, at the southern edge of Iraqi Kurdistan, was where Saddam settled his officer corps, the fiercest Sunni Arab Iraqis of all. Right now, Kurds and Sunni Arabs are fighting for previously nameless villages in northwestern Iraq to see who’ll have the upper hand in supplying their allies to the west, in Syria. I mainly use this thread for my news about the Syrian civil war and other Middle East conflicts, since I don't have much time in the day to follow everything. But has this been going on? Haven't heard much mentioned about Iraq in this thread, but does anyone have more information on what's going on in Iraqi Kurdistan? Mainstream media always paints it as the "quiet" part of Iraq, mainly due to Peshmerga being fairly good at what they do, but I'm not aware of any conflicts between Sunni and Kurd for control of supplies to Syria in that area.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
fspades posted:It sounds like bullshit to me, or at least he should specify which "Kurds" and which "Sunnis" he is talking about. The Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region at this point but Barzani and the Peshmerga has little to do with PKK and their Syrian franchise PYD. If Barzani wanted to supply weapons to PYD, I doubt he would have any trouble but why would he? This was kind of in my head, although I didn't realize it. I had wondered why he failed to mention that ceasefire. Thanks for the clarification, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Was this posted yet?: There was a link a few days ago that only got one reply. Can't find it right now, but it compared to what may be coming to one of Clinton's Iraq strikes. It was largely telegraphed as a way of possibly reducing civilian casualties, and meant to send a message. I haven't heard your perspective, it may be true. But Obama telegraphing or hinting at targets may be a way to cause some havoc on the Syrian Army and leadership, establish a no-CW "redline" (I'm really starting to hate that word, like "fiscal cliff"), and save face without too many innocents dying.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
In lighter news, if the rumors were true in January, Asma al-Assad should be delivering soon. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Here's a Dutch report, with English subtitles, showing more footage of the Iranians inside Syria 4:24--"There are no humans here, only arabs."  And he talks about winning the respect of the population?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah Reuters would have included "Editing by" and "Writing by" at the bottom, since that's how most of their stories are done. Honestly, if she pitched that story, even if she didn't do the actual reporting, her reputation ought to be harmed. This in no way exculpates mint press though, which clearly reported a bogus story and hasn't offered any follow-up coverage. Can you add anything else to that allegation? I'm not doubting you since all their stories on this have been dogshit, but I've got a conspiracy-minded friend who takes them as gospel... Not that it'll cause him to do a 180, as much as I'd wish. But it might make a dent. Plus enough people (BM knows obviously) who are visible at all on MidEast politics get called agents of CIA/MI6/Mossad/Iran/lizardmen enough that anything that makes it clearer helps.Editing for a tiny bit of extra content: I had heard (pure hearsay from others I admit, although these are much less-conspiracy minded than the friend I mentioned) that Mint Press had some loose ties to the Voltaire Network, but the financial ties to a wealthy Shia Jordanian who may have ties to Iran in whatever capacity is a new one for my ears. Again, I'm sure you're telling it like it is, Xandu, but I'm just curious. Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's a lot more to a democracy than "people voting". In the election: Half the candidates were disqualified, the vote was conducted prior to the new constitution being drawn and ratified, voter turnout struggled to reach 50 percent, the campaigns were marked with widespread fraud and corruption, and the vote-count was conducted in secret. As a result, a figure who had polled in the single digits in the months ahead of the election was declared the president. After the election: Morsi quickly moved against all of his political rivals, including calling for the arrest of his main electoral opponent. He blatantly ignored the popular calls for moderate government, and instead entrenched his power and pushed for radicalization of the Egyptian constitution. He declared himself beyond the reach of judicial law, and oversaw widespread purging of opposition political groups. When the public protested, he initiated a crackdown with the help of Muslim Brotherhood militias. Then, in the midst of these massive protests, he passed the new Islamic constitution with a supposed 60 percent of the vote. In the meantime, Morsi neglects any of the domestic and economic issues that he had campaigned on. The previously-stable country spirals into months of massive protests, police crackdowns and mob violence, eventually culminating in millions of Egyptians protesting on June 30 and the Army delivering an ultimatum that Morsi either solve his political problems through moderation or step down - Morsi balked and was impeached in a coup. I think what most people are saying, is that if Morsi was really that bad, a year or two more should have seen his faction decimated in parliamentary elections, A few years after that he would have been soundly voted out of office, with himself and his political allies a laughing stock, and an example in the history books not to be repeated. This is all in an ideal world though, and it wasn't so simple as that. But had people just waited for elections, if Morsi was that unpopular and corrupt, a change in government could have taken place without the military playing a role and shooting a bunch of people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Ham posted:The Egyptian presidential elections are going forward next month with only two candidates: Abdelfattah al-Sisi and Hamdeen Sabbahi. Yay democracy. What's the expected outcome for Sabbahi? Any quasi-credible polling data? I remember him from the first elections as a pretty decent guy, but I'm under no illusions. Is it possible the authorities would allow him to pull off a respectable (or even close) defeat? Or is he just a punching bag?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The weird upshot on this is that once again the United States and Iran have been forced by circumstances into being on the same side in a middle-east crisis. Strange bedfellows, huh. And strangely enough, in a roundabout way due to Saudi actions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
The Iraqi PM shall inChalabi someone new.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Al-Saqr" posted:somebody should hand those guys a history book and show them that their precious Caliphate was actually a multi-ethnic multi-religious society that did things and allowed things they think is forbidden. McDowell posted:'Duh why do you think they failed?' "That depends on what the definition of I.S. is." --Bill Clinton
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
meristem posted:The one thing that rather irrationally angers me is how there's no reporting of the female side of the invasion/war whatsoever. It's as if the attitude is, after the dust settles, it'll be the time to count the rapes and female victims then. Juan Cole has you covered Juan Cole posted:Sad story: Tikrit woman Umiyia Jibara was killed by an ISIS sniper. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:How much of their rhetoric is directed at the West/US/Israel? Most of what I've seen (and I don't follow their propaganda closely at all) focuses on Shia and other non-sunnis in their operating area. At this point I don't think they even have to come out with anti-Western/anti-Israel rhetoric anymore; it's more than implied. They're just more concerned with the operating area at the moment. I'm sure striking the West/Israel would be on the agenda if they last long enough into the near-future (they won't).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's all about the near enemy with this generation of al-Qaeda, but that doesn't mean they don't still feel the same way about the far enemy that they used to. The US and Israel are just not logistically worth their time so much as fighting for the "caliphate" in Iraq and Syria. But ISIS are among the most treacherous, opportunistic, back-stabbing fucks in the middle east right now, so all it would take is them feeling the juice was worth the squeeze to start attacking places outside of the immediate range of Iraq and Syria, and the eyes would drift pretty quickly to the US and Israel. Yeah, this is basically what I meant in my comment that Zedsdeadbaby quoted. Right now, it doesn't look like the West/Israel are much on the agenda in ISIS's mind, given that there's poor Shia/wandering Sunni's/<insert minority here> in the vicinity for them to slaughter. A strike inside Israel, let alone inside the West, that would be "spectacular" enough--that is, with casualties and/or a property damage amount that would even warrant the time and effort invested and inherent risk in such an operation--would be a waste, or so it would seem to my outsider's perspective. They're getting plenty enough coverage right now and my assumption was that they'd be focusing on consolidating what they have in their possession.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:Newish Isis propaganda vid. Yeah, probably shouldn't have watched that just before bed...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It reminds me of a story back from early on Afghanistan in the 2000s where this falafel vendor was recounting how a group of Taliban pulled up in a Toyota SUV armed with Kalashnikovs and started screaming at him for selling falafel because it wasn't around in the time of the Prophet. He said that you can't really call out that kind of hypocrisy when the other guy's next response is a bullet in the back of the head. There was a story that got some press earlier in the Syrian war when a 14-year-old kid made a joke in the market, and later on he was abducted into a truck or car. A few minutes later, they dropped his dead body off in front of everyone. I can't remember the joke, but it was something like, "14 bucks? What do I look like, someone as rich as the prophet to you?" or vaguely something like that. Not only was the act of killing a child for "blasphemy" pretty terrible, but also terrible was that the joke, as originally told, was actually kinda funny.  Does anyone remember it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, at least on the legislative level and partly at the executive, Iran is multi-party even if a un-elected authority has effectively a veto. If anything Ahmadinejad was a boon to the neo-conservatives simply because he made Iran seem far more extreme than it really was and is. From what I remember of my comparative government class in college, I was really surprised (especially learning this in the height of the bomb-bomb-Iran era in 2006) to learn the Iranian system of government/Majlis, when taken together, practically mirrored the American system of government. All you need to do is make the Supreme Court clerics instead of lawyers, and also give them the final say on legislation instead of the president. Boom, Iran. Funniest thing is the people in the US that are itching for war with Iran desperately want their system of government the most.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Edit: Whoa someone got me a new avatar, anyone get the reference?  By best guess:  produced by GIS off of Embrace Orthodontics. I do see the resemblance, not that that helps...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Seems she's been lawyering up a lot recently, Think Again Turn Away might be getting a letter from Goldsmiths (yes really) lawyers soon. I never followed Partisangirl's stuff outside her claims that were posted here during the Ghouta attacks (along with the Hersh followup) and the Twitter battles that get mentioned here and there in the thread, but this takes the cake. She has got to be some kind of performance artist, this has me convinced now. She's overplayed; eagerly awaiting the TT-style reveal  any day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Kurdistan might strategically become Israel 2.0, upgraded, now without the theocratic bullshit.  Yes, let's install yet another democracy in the Middle East, yet another one with a historically quasi-socialist leaning ethnic group wanting to be a democratic bulwark and Western ally in the region. No way in a few decades it could turn out like Isra o poo pooninja edit: FWIW I do support an independent Kurdistan even though my knowledge of the region is sort of lacking, just thought your comment was kinda funny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The Kurds are not some paragon of virtue. They've fought... constantly. They had a bad civil war in the 90s that killed some tens of thousands. They've been fighting in Iraq for a long-rear end time(The Shah of Iran, the US, and Israel were backing Kurdish rebels back in the 60s). Remember the Armenian Genocide? Kurds helped carry it out. I'm not accusing you as implying such or anything, but I do want to go on the record as saying that I don't think anyone's suggested this. At the same time, it's kinda proven that others don't play very nice with the Kurds, and it would be nice if they could get their own state, even 100 years after they were promised one. If Iraqi Kurdistan--on the condition it's only Iraqi Kurdistan--does declare independence in the future, I wonder if neighboring countries' concerns could be alleviated by some kind of "right of return" for Kurdish immigrants abroad, as well as neighboring countries. Yes, traditionally "Kurdistan" has included pieces of all its neighboring countries, but does anyone more knowledgeable on the matter think it would fly as some sort of compromise? Would/could the other Kurdish parties outside Iraqi Kurdistan accept this? Or would fighting continue in SE Turkey, and agitation continue or reappear in Iran and Syria?* *whatever "Syria" is or will be edit: I know full well that a right of return may be used by the neighboring countries to deport their native Kurdish population, but I'm focusing on Kurdish opinion here. Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I don't understand why the gently caress people are still surrendering to ISIS. It's been very clear for a while now that you're going to die in HD in a very ugly way, yet they still seen to be getting their hands on all kinds of people to kill. What makes people surrender when you know that's coming? Probably something like, "Well there's no where left to run except the desert, where I'll die of thirst. Might as well take my chances, and up to the very last moment while I'm handcuffed with the blindfold going around my eyes, I'll keep telling myself it's all a planned mock-execution and they'll just put me in prison until I convert."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I've heard some in the thread mentioning the airstrikes on ISIS's heavier captured equipment is part of a strategy to halt its blindingly quick recent advances. Once/if their capability to expand is diminished, is the medium-term plan (if there even is one) to strangle them economically? Seems like hunger, thirst, and lack of supplies would be one way to get elements inside the area to start turning on ISIS leadership. If there's anything we've learned about blockades/embargos/sanctions in the past, oh, forever, it's that it always hurts the most vulnerable, and rarely the leadership. I certainly feel for the citizens trapped inside the IS if that's the route they choose to go, but without the ability to strike assets of what's essentially an irregular force that only occasionally tries to act like a conventional one, I'm not sure what else could be done.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Several Kurds have joined up with ISIS though, ISIS are big on the whole "there are no nations, only the ummah" and despise the Kurds for putting ethnicity and nationalism above religion - they actually got all pissy at the Kurdish Islamist groups for not helping them out and said they're going to go after them for betraying the Islamic State. It's not just that they aren't Arab, I think the number of foreign fighters in ISIS's ranks show they don't necessarily care about that too much. It also helps that although Iraqi Kurds are overwhelming Sunni there is almost always a dollop of folk Islam and Sufism thrown in, things that ISIS find heretical. One thing I've been wondering is how much of Iraqi Kurdish leadership follows the secular/socialist model. My impression of Kurds in general was they had a tradition of it in years past, but usually people cited the PKK when this was mentioned. I'm more inclined to believe this of Kurdish groups, since they usually have women's brigades among their fighters, but is the KRG specifically more openly secular? (forget the socialism for a moment, since it's not particularly relevant to the conflict right now, but if anyone can give more info on left-leaning policies that'd be great, too)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There is a pretty big difference between withholding assistance/limiting economic access - indirectly resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths through a lack of outside help - and flat out intentionally murdering the gently caress out of droves of people. If I remember right (and I quite possibly don't) I heard a lot about specifically restricting desperately needed medicine, essential food products, etc. I was a kid back in the late 90's when the whole "End the Iraqi sanctions" line was publicly audible, but still not exactly popular, and I distinctly remember seeing a lot of pictures that highlighted the extreme poverty and sickness that supposedly the sanctions put millions of kids in. In hindsight, I really don't know though, as certain events that Iraq would go through in the next few years overshadowed that period. edit: Brown Moses posted:Elsewhere, votes have been counted in the Turkish presidential elections, and Erdogan is the winner, with 53% of the vote after 95% of the ballots have been counted. Is there any chance at all that Erdogan, in his push for increasing presidential power, might overreach? Or possibly the details get bogged down in parliament and MP's aren't able to agree? I'm not intimately familiar with Turkish politics, so I'm wondering how being so open about running for an executive office with the express desire to gain more power for the position really works. In America he'd be laughed out of the race, of course, but does the AKP have enough power in parliament to do this? Does this require a herculean effort in Turkey, similar to a Constitutional amendment in the US would be? What are his chances? Bastaman Vibration fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say Iran is a theocracy of assholes while maintaining a certain level of commendable democratic features. I believe a bunch of people are talking past each other, and I don't see why this is at-all controversial in a forum that supposedly prides itself on understanding nuance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
drat, that is one catchy nasheed. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 17:19
|
|