Galaxian wrote:So, magikrooster gives you a perfectly salient reply

Salient...yeah. It has the disadvantage of being unmitigated bollocks. You see the attacks on Western interests in the ME started before the West started attacking Muslim countries. Granted Bin Laden cited US attacks on Somalia as a reason for his fatwa against the US, but it's couched as an after-thought. His real motivation is the encroachment - by agreement with governments in ME countries - of US bases "too close to Mecca.

And he and his ilk can fuck off if they think they can influence state agreements with terrorism.

Galaxian wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

magikrooster wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
We need to accept that there are no shortage of lunatics ready to stick to their word and kill western civilians if countries like the USA step up their presence in the battle.

Don't be a dill. They want to kill you because you via your army have been killing them for years. Why did the australian army go to Iraq of Afghanistan and start killing them. Why do your politicians (and therefore you) support Israel?

cool story bro not enough goats and dragons

So, magikrooster gives you a perfectly salient reply, but you can't/don't want to understand what he's said. So you resort to, "not enough goats & dragons." Now, I know why there's a nuclear war about to commence...
Several hundred Amerikkkan military bases around the world & their perpetual wars just a coincidence, eh?

Yes, you are right. I should be honored to have views attributed to myself by such enlightened people like yourself on an Internet forum. My request for more goats was misplaced.

If I ever need more questions I never asked answered I'll be sure to let you know.

Anyone have information on any airstrikes that have occurred and the impact they've had? I've only heard of a single attack on a piece of artillery, I doubt it affected ISIS much.

This situation is turning into one of those situations where 20 years from now people will look back and ask "Why didn't they do more?"

I think they stopped IS's momentum and want to let the Peshmerga do the rest.

Acetone wrote:Anyone have information on any airstrikes that have occurred and the impact they've had? I've only heard of a single attack on a piece of artillery, I doubt it affected ISIS much.

This situation is turning into one of those situations where 20 years from now people will look back and ask "Why didn't they do more?"

I heard there were three strikes in IS hardware. One mobile artillery and a couple of trucks destroyed.

To ask why we didn't do more is to assume more can be done right now I guess. Most of IS' hardware is wheeling about on the back of pick-up trucks. At the first sign of air power I imagine most of it parked itself inconspicuously around town and disappeared. This now means that IS can't move around en masse which nullifies their speed and element of surprise.

It really would be best if the Peshmerga won this in tandem with other Iraqi militias. For one it forges bonds between the various communities, for two it gives them confidence that they can do this again if another fundie hydra rises, for three it's a matter of national pride.

Iraq crisis: EU backs plans by member states to arm Kurd fighters - http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle ... ve-updates

Whether intentionally or not, we will end up acting as handmaiden to Kurdish ambitions for full independence – and in so doing, effectively assist in the dismemberment of Iraq. Part of the deal with the Kurds would have to be an end to interference in Turkey, which has its own problems with Kurdish secessionism. We would also be tacitly accepting the end of the Sykes–Picot borders in the Middle East.

Hmm

Well, those borders have caused enough grief, I guess.

Their end might be positive, how to establish it does not have to. It is not straightforward as different approach to arming Kurds among different EU members indicate.

BBC

Militants in northern Iraq have massacred at least 80 men from the Yazidi faith in a village and abducted women and children, reports say.

Islamic State (IS) fighters entered Kocho, 45km (30 miles) from Sinjar, on Friday afternoon, reportedly telling men to convert to Islam or die.

The killings took place over the space of an hour, said a Yazidi MP, Mahama Khalil, who reportedly spoke to survivors.
"He [a survivor] then said the men were gathered and shot dead. The women and girls were probably taken to [the city of] Tal Afar because that is where the foreign fighters are."

These murderers have killed all the men and taken away all the females, I guess there is a passage in the Koran allowing this.


Does anyone know if Turkey fear ISIS, or have a plan or action perhaps? Because the Turks are already housing Syrians, and I assume ISIS's plan to sweep across Syria must have further implications for them.

So, is this about Islam or Turkey?

I think we should allow an Islamic State to be established. Set some clear borders, and tell the IS that if they raid beyond them, if they try to expand their 'caliphate', we'll bomb them into the Stone Age. Then tell every fuckwit who wants to live under Sharia Law to move there. Keep all the Islamist nut jobs in one place.

Yeah, just like "we allowed" the Jewish state.

tuco wrote:So, is this about Islam or Turkey?

FFS. There is a clue in the title.

I do not get it. This is 3rd thread about IS/ISIS. Since its under "Islam" section of the forum I expected something about IS in the context of Islam, otherwise I would expect it to be elsewhere, the two previous threads namely. So I click it to find out: it contains assertion about Koran and question about Turkey. Clue for Sherlock perhaps.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:It really would be best if the Peshmerga won this in tandem with other Iraqi militias. For one it forges bonds between the various communities, for two it gives them confidence that they can do this again if another fundie hydra rises, for three it's a matter of national pride.

The "other Iraqi militias" are primarily Sunni militias fighting on the side of the Islamic State.

Then there's the Iraqi army, which doesn't seem to do any fighting at all, and works for a government that's a puppet of Iran.

Of the three, the Kurds are the ones capable of forming something that resembles a modern state. Independence from the rest of Iraq would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Report: U.S. airstrikes carried out as part of Iraqi effort to retake Mosul Dam - http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/15/world ... index.html

Of the three, the Kurds are the ones capable of forming something that resembles a modern state. Independence from the rest of Iraq would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

I think Turkey a fellow NATO country might have something to say about that

mrjonno wrote:

Of the three, the Kurds are the ones capable of forming something that resembles a modern state. Independence from the rest of Iraq would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

I think Turkey a fellow NATO country might have something to say about that

Until recently, Turkey was moving towards supporting independence for the Iraqi Kurds, having worked out an oil deal with them.

Now, of course, Turkey is supporting the Islamic State, presumably hoping that the oil pipelines and oil fields fall into their hands instead.

Neither position suggests that Turkey will strongly favor preservation of the former borders of "Iraq".

More the point if any part of Kurdistan gets independence then parts of Turkey will want to join them. Most countries tend to want to avoid splitting up . Turkey has all the oil pipelines running through it anyway whoever runs Iraq.

The fewer governments/ nations in any region the more stable they tend to be as long as those individual governments are strong enougn