West Asia News and Discussions (YEMEN, gulf)

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 26 May 2015 05:16

This makes no sense at all, and sounds like 400% pakinformation.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2015 07:35

^ it looks like all factions, regardless of which endgame they want to achieve, are taking on the IS as the single largest threat. That could be the only way to explain the Taliban - Iran talks, ISI sponsored China - Taliban talks, ISI - Af defence agreement [can that even happen w/o an American support] etc etc.

Once the IS threat is removed (which is a myth, it will only end up becoming more virulent - akin to bone marrow cancer), the factions will go back to doing what they do best - terrorise people and try and achieve the end game that they wanted.

Its a bit like all Indian politico idiots coming together, regardless of beliefs, ideologies etc, to attempt a united attack on Modi.

Most interested to see how Iran & Russia acts now in Syria. There is also talk of Turkey getting into an agreement with US on a safe zone - I think its code for a NFZ ala Libya Benghazi style. There has been a lot of talk in the bkgrnd - US / Russia, US /China etc etc. Lets see what happens. I think Iran might not mind trading Yemen if Damascus stays? However tenuous the link between Houthis & Iranians are.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 11:04

Ramana, look at the "New Deal" being worked put by the new players of the Great Game,in the US-Sino-Indian td.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 26 May 2015 17:45

Pratyush wrote:
udaym wrote:Why does IDF need 3000 bunker busters??
Restock IDF stores with bunker busters
To deal with the bunkers and tunnels built by Hizbulla.

That is just one part. The other is a message to Iran to not take the nuclear deal related terms lightly as Israel would be the enforcer of de-nuking Iran should it covertly attempt to build any bums. Overall it assuages Israel which should have been mighty upset with the P5-Iran agreement to remove sanctions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2015 17:48

UlanBatori wrote:This makes no sense at all, and sounds like 400% pakinformation.

Batori mahasaya...

Now everyone can become Secular & Progressive by claiming they killed ISIS. In earlier times this credit was owned by Taliban then AQ.

In the perception game, Taliban will become a secular front as it fights ISIS.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 26 May 2015 20:11

This "ISIS in pakistan" is just another concoction of the ISI/Pakarmy -- seems to be the new paki way of extracting baksheesh from the idiots in the US State Dept. Now, they can blame ISIS for anything done by any jihadi group that needs to be taken down a notch to maintain control of them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 May 2015 20:43

As RamaY said elsewhere, ISIS make Taliban look good.

How to make a line short without erasing it?
Draw a longer line next to it.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2015 21:32

I think there is a flaw in the assumption that IS and Taliban are fundamentally different. All it needs for a person / group is to pledge allegiance to IS and pronto they become potential IS. So, its not as if a lot is required. Accepted that they might not get funds / armed support from IS faction initially. But one never knows what it could potentially lead to if IS becomes more successful at its terror game.

Since these are just names [cloaks] for doing the same shit that they have been doing all the while, it will surely be helpful for the groups in the short run to rename / rebrand themselves to get some added notice and reputation.

In a nutshell, IMO, its wrong to think that there is no IS inside Af / Pak etc. All it needs is a change of name. However, it should also be true that only the most confident groups will pledge allegiance to the IS overtly... because they naturally become targets for any other group which is non-IS [both state / non-state actor]

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2015 21:45

Just have a look at the most recent US travel advisory to Afghanistan. Pretty grim, the overall picture. Cant remember such a dire report from their end for a long time now.

There is a line which says that there are Taliban insurgents / elements in _every_single_ province and warns against travelling to any place in Af. The way it looks, the threat perception of travelling to Kandahar / Kabul / Paktika / Herat / Kunduz / anywhere currently in Af is pretty much the same.

habal · Post by **habal** » 26 May 2015 21:50

schinnas wrote:
That is just one part. The other is a message to Iran to not take the nuclear deal related terms lightly as Israel would be the enforcer of de-nuking Iran should it covertly attempt to build any bums. Overall it assuages Israel which should have been mighty upset with the P5-Iran agreement to remove sanctions.

aur geedar bhappiyaan .. what will Israel do in Iran that it has not done in Syria. None of western powers can do anything to Iran without first dealing with Russia ... for the west the clock is always stuck at Russia or else all countries in asia would have been western colonies.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 26 May 2015 22:45

It is no coincidence that ISIS recruits from same pool of jihadis as any other. How is one jihadi gang different from another for victims, other than compulsion to look worse or not as bad. Pakis have made an economy out of this and fourfathers are supporting this under pretext of controlling one jihadi gang or another.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 May 2015 22:50

No one is saying Taliban, ISIS, Pakis, BD Muslims or other Muslims are any different. We all are human beings only.

Some of us, by behaving in a certain way can make others (optically) acceptable. Secular people will do the real backstabbing.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 26 May 2015 23:16

vijaykarthik wrote:I think there is a flaw in the assumption that IS and Taliban are fundamentally different.

Taliban is ISI offspring. ISIS is 100% Quranic, they will not tolerate un-bearded, whiskey sipping Paki generals and will latch Paki crown jewels, saying that it belongs to all Ummah. If ISIS ever steps in Pakistan, their number one target will be Pakjab (a harami place where music is allowed, has women TV anchors, traffic is still on the road even during namaz times, where Gillette has considerable market share).

A power line with switch (PA-ISI) is called Taliban.
A power line without any switches is called ISIS.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 26 May 2015 23:32

vijaykarthik wrote: its wrong to think that there is no IS inside Af / Pak etc. All it needs is a change of name.

There is a fundamental difference in interests -- the ISIS in Syria etc. are a threat to the monopoly of the ISI over its terrorist groups and they will not be allowed into Af-Pak (there was a recent incident that made this very clear). But Pakis being the smart terrorist scum they are, just conveniently renamed some subset of terrorist groups run by the Paki Army as terrorists, and then pretend that is ISIS operating in sooth asia. The ISIS in syria has no interest in spreading their ops to other theatres given that they are in need of footsoldiers in their own homeground in Iraq and Syria, and the Pakis have staunchly refused to part with their soldiers and jihadis to operate in those theaters.

These are all the very same "al qaeda" paki groups as you say, just renamed in keeping with where the money is today. So this deliberate ploy by the paki army/ISI to call these groups ISIS is so that it can continue to claim "pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism" (b) redirect terrorism towards India and then pretend that ISIS is the new Al Qaeda in sooth asia (c) get more baksheesh from the scum in the US state dept. to fight their GOAT.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 May 2015 04:33

"ISIS biggest threat" is good taqyia for assorted Jihadis all around the world. What ISIS has done is simply pave the way for "slightly less green" versions to claim legitimacy and come to power all around the world.

but these "slightly less green" will eventually all morph into ISIS. ISIS is a sign of things to come. the consolidation and expansion of Jihad is what we are seeing all around the Indian Subcontinent. we should expect to see a steady ramping up of Islamist rhetoric and solid moves on the ground to either expel non-muslims, or in classic jihadi style, kill the non-muslim males and take over the non-muslim females as war booty.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 May 2015 20:16

We should learn from experience of locals in the West Asia. Those who were unarmed were lined up and butchered, their women pushed into slavery. And those who were armed, were first forced to give up arms to friendly forces who ran at first sign of trouble, followed with butchery and slavery.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 28 May 2015 00:03

By now there is almost no explanation left for the rise of the ISIS, other than the obvious: it is a construct of the NeoCons/Republicans and the Conversionists in the SD, with the tacit hands-off from the WHOTUS. The clinchers were
a) the totally needless declaration that FLOTUS was worth $40 on the slave market
b) mysterious failure of air support in Ramadi despite the battlefield being a Predator's dream: target-rich, out in the open, no rush at all, no fear of AA or opposition aircraft.
c) Despite claimed pest-sha'eed of ISIS #1, no sign of any disorganization.
d) Despite enough intel to hit ISIS #1 at his home, no sign of ISIS logistics train/ funding / arms flow being in the least affected.

So what is the point? Converging agendas:
a) NeoConversionist: Destroy all the Moderates in the oil-rich Islamic belt, so that the whole world will welcome the genocidal "liberation" when it comes. Including tactical nukes to minimize "Boots on The ground" (BOTG) problem. Followed by total domination of the oil belt.
b) KSA interest in destroying Shiites, too short-sighted to see the next logical step.
c) Arms smuggling lobby win-win all round
d) Republican MIC (mil-ind-complex) brimming with joy. F-35s, etc, etc.
e) Reconstruction lobby even happier (Halliburton etc).

We are watching the greatest war crime of the past two centuries in progress. Numbers are not up to East Bengal standards yet, not even to Holocaust or Khmer Rouge levels, but it's only begun.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 03:14

Batori ji...

I have two thoughts on this eyesys phenomenon. They are natural decay/entropy of islamic civilization. They are also evil Jewish Agents. Both logics can be very useful if properly applied.

I disagree with CCFair-motorma on many things, but I agree with her on one thing. It is bolony to think/say Indian Muslims don't participate in jeehard. So we will have our own eyesys gangs among us at right time. All in the name of following personal-drama (pronounced darma) onlee. Our secular slaves will have orgasms when this happenes, because it proves their (sepoy) logic that Muslims are reacting to yindoo oppression.

It ain't war crime if one Abrahamic genocides another Abrahamic. Enough precaution will be taken to ensure it ain't appear "war crime" by Abrahamic definition of war crime.

From pagan perspective this means return of 5m+ slaves. People write papers on possible immigration crisis that comes from paki shores but don't think about imminent (reverse) immigration crisis emanating from Paisachika lands. The slave trade will also end the $20b repat amount that is miraculously balancing our oil payments to said Arap nations (check our balance of trade with paisachic lands).

In the long term everyone has to die (JAtasyahidhrvo' Mrtyu:). So nothing wrong in planned genocide before the nature (famine, raising oceans etc) does it. We don't blame nature with war crimes, why blame humans, who are part of nature?

All yeez well onlee! I want real eyesys to come to Pakistan and even to Yindia. It cleans up lot of nonsense in our amidst and also gives a platform for secular #mychoice wimmens to become jihadibrides.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 28 May 2015 07:34

Think about it: There is this 400% propaganda about ISIS atrocities, but if you read carefully, torturing and killing POWs (and civilians) is c'est la vie, chalta hai in those parts for all concerned. Slave trade may not be so open, that's all. So the stories about ISIS are meant to excite horror and whip up sentiment for a Righteous Crusade as

Johnny Goes Marching Off, Hurrah Hurrah!

Who can oppose such a war, hain? Yet that message is carefully hidden in all these reports. Its like reading a sentence half expressed. The Generals say how horrible ISIS is, Sen, McCain rants about Decency... but all stop there. Why isn't anyone calling flat-out for massive Dronacharya raids to conduct pest-e-sha'eed? 82nd Airborne to land in Hamadi and Mosul? Where is Bliar with his Dossiehs, justifying unilateral intervention? Where is the SOS waving pictures b4 the UNSC demanding a war resolution?
Just bombing a few 'fighters' is going to do nothing - what is needed is carpet-bombing the Palace in Riyadh and Qatar and maybe Ankara and knocking a few floors off the Burj Al Dubai skyscrapers as a demo. Followed by arrests in Dallas and Houston etc.
I think ISIS vermin should be eradicated, but that may be 40% due to brainwashing by what I see in Ulan Bator.
Maybe Ayesha in H'bad or K'rachi does not see things that way, she sees herrowic Lashkar fighting for martyrdom, and if Ayesha wants to give them a taste of Houristan, hey, hu r v to stand in the way of Darwinism at work?

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 28 May 2015 08:17

The other big question is all the complete silence from the American non-prol ayotollahs and the arms control mofos like Jeffrey Lewis and Michael Crapon at Arms Control Wonk, even as KSA and ISIS are simultaneously making noises about acquiring nukes from Pakistan, and all this happens with no protestations from Pakistan about the falsity of those claims, or from the US about this being a danger to the planet on the scale of Saddam Hussein or worse. All of these islamic rats ISIS, KSA, Pakis are on the same side in this game, and being lead by the USA playing pied piper of Hamelin....and the scum in the US state dept. have shown that they are evil enough and stupid enough to think that they can play these islamist thugs to go kill people in India or Russia and not face any blowback -- they are clearly supporting the ISIS and the paki "al aqeda" scum to go screw other peoples, anyone other than themselves.

The next time a nuke goes off in some random part of the world and the jihadis start celebrating on the streets like they did after 9/11, it does not matter who did that nuking, the genocidal garbage in KSA and Pakistan will pay for it...and I can not say I will be all torn up emotionally about the thought of the murderous islamist scumbags being wiped off the face of this planet.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 28 May 2015 09:19

kmkraoind wrote:
vijaykarthik wrote:I think there is a flaw in the assumption that IS and Taliban are fundamentally different.
Taliban is ISI offspring. ISIS is 100% Quranic, they will not tolerate un-bearded, whiskey sipping Paki generals and will latch Paki crown jewels, saying that it belongs to all Ummah. If ISIS ever steps in Pakistan, their number one target will be Pakjab (a harami place where music is allowed, has women TV anchors, traffic is still on the road even during namaz times, where Gillette has considerable market share).

A power line with switch (PA-ISI) is called Taliban.
A power line without any switches is called ISIS.

No, your assumption is wrong. Islamic society is driven by power, not piousness. Hence, as long as TSPA has overwhelming force over the Talibs, they will not resist its demands.

Islam by the way is a political movement masquerading as a religion, so relationships are anyway determined by power/violence.

IS/Talibs will render loyalty to anyone inside Islamic with greater power than them, and with greater willingness to use violence.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 28 May 2015 09:56

UlanBatori wrote:

By now there is almost no explanation left for the rise of the ISIS, other than the obvious: it is a construct of the NeoCons/Republicans and the Conversionists in the SD, with the tacit hands-off from the WHOTUS. The clinchers were
a) the totally needless declaration that FLOTUS was worth $40 on the slave market
b) mysterious failure of air support in Ramadi despite the battlefield being a Predator's dream: target-rich, out in the open, no rush at all, no fear of AA or opposition aircraft.
c) Despite claimed pest-sha'eed of ISIS #1, no sign of any disorganization.
d) Despite enough intel to hit ISIS #1 at his home, no sign of ISIS logistics train/ funding / arms flow being in the least affected.

So what is the point? Converging agendas:
a) NeoConversionist: Destroy all the Moderates in the oil-rich Islamic belt, so that the whole world will welcome the genocidal "liberation" when it comes. Including tactical nukes to minimize "Boots on The ground" (BOTG) problem. Followed by total domination of the oil belt.
b) KSA interest in destroying Shiites, too short-sighted to see the next logical step.
c) Arms smuggling lobby win-win all round
d) Republican MIC (mil-ind-complex) brimming with joy. F-35s, etc, etc.
e) Reconstruction lobby even happier (Halliburton etc).

We are watching the greatest war crime of the past two centuries in progress. Numbers are not up to East Bengal standards yet, not even to Holocaust or Khmer Rouge levels, but it's only begun.

Damn! I wish I had written this. You have explained the game plan of the West, connected the dots. Let Islam in it's purest form run amok and feed reports of the barbarity to the American public. The disgust and hatred in the West for Islam/Muslims grows until finally they are ready for the Endlösung/last crusade. The West may even allow IS to nuke cities in non-Western non-Islamic countries to create a final outrage and coax the public to support the use of nukes. Yes, I agree, this is what the present bushfire in the Ummah is leading up to. However, we should not speak of it so openly for obvious reasons.

wig · Post by **wig** » 28 May 2015 10:01

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/commen ... 86059.html

this article by one of our former Ambassador's to Iraq examines why the fall of Tikrit is so significant.

For Iraqi Shias and Iran, taking control of Tikrit has a special meaning. Tikrit was closely identified with Saddam Hussein.
TIKRIT, the birthplace and the burial site of Saddam Hussain, has been a fulcrum in the Sunni heartland of Iraq that had fought the US forces from 2003 until their withdrawal in 2011 and since maintained a continuous challenge to the predominantly Shia regime in Baghdad, accusing it of sectarian bias, ill-treatment and vindictiveness. Tikrit also contributed some other top leaders of Iraq in the past. Colonel Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr, the first President of Baathist Iraq hailed from Tikrit. Izzat brahim Al-Douri, (the sole surviving member of Saddam Husain's inner circle until his reported death last month in Tikrit), who carried on the Baathist legacy under the appellation of Nakshabandi Order that played a role in Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL)'s takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last June, hailed from Al Dour, an outlying town of Tikrit. Saddam Hussain's own brother-in-law Adnan Khairallah who belonged to Tikrit was Defence Minister until his death in a helicopter crash in the late 1980s. Until 2003, Iraq's intelligence chiefs were mostly from Tikrit. Tikrit also happens to be the birthplace of Salahuddin al-Ayoubi, ethnically a Kurd and known to the world as Saladdin, who led the Muslim armies in the 12th century crusades and retook Jerusalem from Christian control. Tikrit was renamed Salahuddin, symbolising the connection with Jerusalem’s conqueror.

Conflicting interests
The initiation, conduct and denouement of the month-long battle that ended in wresting the control of Tikrit from the grip of Islamic State by the Iraqi government recently, mirrors a complex web of conflicting interests among Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, the Iraqi government Iran and US. It is anchored in differing sectarian,ethnic, geopolitical and security considerations that have, however, made a common cause in fighting IS. The battle line-up for Tikrit consisted of an estimated 30,000-strong Iraqi force composed of 10,000 from the army, 20,000 from an alliance of Shia militias called Hashd al-Shabi and a small Sunni tribal contingent, with Iranian military advisers in charge of the overall strategy. The Iraqi air force played a role initially until supportive US air strikes became inescapable for an early end to the fighting and had to be called in willy-nilly. As for IS, its strength was variously put, at different times of the battle, between 1,000 and 3,000 fighters that included Sunni jihadists drawn from different countries and ex-Baathists. IS was on the defensive, completely isolated by its savage acts and with its fighting abilities dented by the crippling US and allied airstrikes on its positions elsewhere in Iraq and Syria. Also the UN sanctions, global watch against its sale of stolen oil and antiques and a fall in inflow of new recruits into its ranks, thanks to the guard against travel of misguided youth to its hideouts, too contributed.

US role
The Iraqi offensive that started in the beginning of March achieved initial successes without US air support in occupying most of the outer areas and in encircling Tikrit city, depriving the IS fighters of fresh supplies and reinforcements. However, by March 25, the final thrust to enter Tikrit city was halted to minimise casualties from booby traps and snipers and to work out a new battle strategy. Before long, it dawned on Iraqi planners that any delay in finishing the campaign for Tikrit would be to the advantage of IS and that direct air support from US was indispensable for an early, successful conclusion and to reduce the losses. Within days of US air strikes, Iraqi forces took control of the entire Tikrit. There is no information on the casualties suffered by each side. Going by conventional wisdom, the attacking force would have taken more casualties. The unilateral pause by the government forces after three weeks of advance, followed by the US involvement on an appeal, is a pointer towards this.

Significance of the campaign
The Iraqi offensive in Tikrit is noteworthy on several counts. Firstly, this was the third attempt to evict IS from Tikrit. The earlier two attempts by the Iraqi army, without Iranian advisers or a direct US role had ended in failure. Viewed in the light of the western assessment of a year or so as the time required to restore the Iraqi army battered by the IS in Mosul last June into a fighting force, its performance in retaking Tikrit in March seems a remarkable turnaround, apparently under Iranian direction. Secondly, until the Tikrit offensive,Tehran's long-suspected military presence in Iraq was kept under wraps and denied by Iran and Iraq, though news of the killing of its officers earlier by the IS near Baghdad could not be suppressed. With the Tikrit campaign, Iran's close involvement in Iraq was no longer a covert affair with the media in both the countries reporting from the very beginning the presence in the battle zone of redoubtable General Qassem Soleimani the commander of the Al Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Thirdly, the Tikrit campaign offers a glimpse of the converging stakes and early signs of an evolving modus vivendi between the US and Iran in fighting the IS in Iraq, while opposed to each other everywhere else. Despite existential threats from the IS, Iran showed extreme reluctance to fight the IS together with US because of a deep distrust of American intentions in the region, the economic sanctions imposed to roll back its alleged nuclear weapon programme, branding its Al-Quds Force a terrorist organisation, and support to overthrow the pro-Iranian Bashar Assad regime in Syria. In fact, in the popular narrative purveyed by the Iranian and pro-Shiite media of Iraq, the IS is nothing but a covert creation of the US to fight Shias and to topple Bashar Assad govt in Damascus. Given the history of the US-Iran friction, a joint fight against the IS is not a political option for Iran. As a corollary, the Shiite regime in Iraq with close links to Tehran has ruled out US troops on ground in the fight against the IS and merely pressed for speedy delivery of US weapons and aircraft. US had no direct role initially in the Tikrit battle, being kept away from the Iran-directed offensive until its air support became indispensable. The US Secretary of Defence was quoted in early March as saying that Iraq did not ask for air support in Tikrit.
In fact, Iraq did not even consult US over the timing or the course of operations of the Tikrit campaign, though the US claimed to have had advance knowledge. Formidable resistance from the IS and the ensuing stalemate eventually led to Iraq accepting the US air cover, complying with the US condition to keep Shia militias and Iranians away from the battle zone, though the latter two claimed that they withdrew on their own in protest against US involvement. (Curiously, the US' direct involvement in the Tikrit battle in response to an Iraqi request coincided with the breakthrough in Geneva in the US-led six-power talks with Iran over the latter's nuclear programme in end March). By excluding Iranians and Shiite militia from the battle zone, US has signalled to Sunnis, within and outside Iraq, its neutrality in the sectarian polarisation and distanced itself from a potential retributive brutality of Shia militias against Tikrit residents. Fourthly, It would be interesting to compare the US air strikes against the IS in the obscure Syria-Turkey border town of Kobane in aid of Kurdish militia in Jan-Feb with that in Tikrit in March in support of the Iraqi army. It took weeks for the US air force to bring the IS to its knees in Kobane, while in Tikrit it took the US only a few days to subdue IS. This lends support to the view that in fighting the IS, the US is more focused on Iraq than in Syria where both US and IS aim at ousting Bashar Assad.
Fifthly, Iraq allowed the experienced Kurdish militia Peshmarga only a marginal role in Tikrit. The autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan has an IOU to Iran for the latter's timely supplies of arms and ammunition last June that helped its militia in fending off the advance of the IS on the Kurdish capital Erbil. Further, Kurdistan is on the northern edge of Tikrit area. The Kurdish militia thus could have been involved operationally in the Iranian directed offensive to put pressure on IS from the north of Tikrit, somewhat easing the situation for Iraqi forces moving in from the other directions. The virtual exclusion of Kurds therefore seems to be a political fallout of Baghdad-Erbil friction.
Deep distrust and on-and-off tiffs between Kurds and the Iraqi government over a host of issues, notably the contested oil rich Kirkuk and nearby mixed Arab-Kurdish areas, sharing of oil revenues and open display of secessionist aspirations by some Kurds apparently have led to the restricted role for the Kurdish militia in the Tikrit offensive. Baghdad sees in militarily empowered Kurds an existential threat to the country's territorial integrity and fears that a Kurdish role in evicting the IS would buttress its territorial claims, albeit within the sovereignty of Iraq.
Lastly, the Sunni contingent in the battle is little more than tokenism, to place a non-sectarian façade. Sunni tribal leaders generally had expressed a preference to fight the IS under US command rather than the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. Sunnis' contribution in Tikrit liberation is far below its weight and indicates the extent of the trust deficit between the two sects and underscores the efforts needed to draw Sunnis into the mainstream anti-IS campaign.
The control of Tikrit paved the way for the eventual onward Iraqi campaign northward and westward to liberate Mosul and Anbar respectively from the IS. The defeat of the IS and ex-Baathists in Tikrit by the Iraqi troops, helped initially by Iran and later by US albeit in a mutually excluding arrangement, signifies a modus vivendi of some sort between the two in Iraq. This further seals the geopolitical, strategic, political and sectarian changes wrought by the 2003 Iraq war, as an increasingly irreversible landmark event, though the Shia-majority and Iran- supported regime in Baghdad may not be free from recurrent challenges.
The role of Iran
The open role of Iran in Tikrit fighting can be seen in this light. The defeat of the IS in Tikrit in an Iran- directed offensive would have projected Tehran as the saviour of Iraq, particularly its majority Shias as also the region from the monstrous IS. This would have led to consolidation of its strategic influence in Iraq and directing further onward campaign in Anbar and Mosul. However, the IS' stubborn resistance, forcing the Iraqi govt to seek US air support, which proved decisive in ending the battle, deprived Iran of such an aura.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 28 May 2015 20:21

UlanBatori wrote:By now there is almost no explanation left for the rise of the ISIS, other than the obvious: it is a construct of the NeoCons/Republicans and the Conversionists in the SD, with the tacit hands-off from the WHOTUS. The clinchers were
a) the totally needless declaration that FLOTUS was worth $40 on the slave market
b) mysterious failure of air support in Ramadi despite the battlefield being a Predator's dream: target-rich, out in the open, no rush at all, no fear of AA or opposition aircraft.
c) Despite claimed pest-sha'eed of ISIS #1, no sign of any disorganization.
d) Despite enough intel to hit ISIS #1 at his home, no sign of ISIS logistics train/ funding / arms flow being in the least affected.

Mostly tongue in cheek. All the while we were complaining because the US acted unilaterally. Now we are beginning to complain when they are hesitant / not willing to act / unsure. Far it be from me or anyone of us to ascribe a reason but with people complaining both when action happens / doesn't happen, the superpower does get into a quandary.

Its likely that the US wants to move out the ME, doesn't want to handle the frankeinstein they helped create, and are allowing the muslims to stew in their own gravy. Besides, with enough shale and more trouble in the Eastern corridor, they can only do so much in ME. They have pretty much sucked the place dry. I think there is a great rebalancing happening with the Iranians coming out of the closet.

I still don't think we are underestimating the IS phenomenon greatly. The other groups never wanted to establish a caliphate though that was the grand ideology (and the end game) but these are the fellas who are doing just as they are saying - establish a caliphate and try and do a bit of governing etc etc.

Tidbit: The Tajik spl ops boss disappeared a few weeks back and a lot of them qn as to what happened to him. A few hinted that he was getting militant and was supporting IS greatly. A lot of them scoffed at those rumors. Well, long story short: looks like he has joined the IS.

Damn.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32917311

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 28 May 2015 21:30

vkji:
It's not so much complaining that the S-P is not acting, as
a) wondering why there isn't a lot more screaming to act
b) wondering why they are not acting out of self-interest.

Look at it this way: After 9/11/2001, the GOTUS policy objective was to make a) the US homland and b) US interests abroad and c) US freedom to operate, all safe from fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. FIT was defined by the entity "Al Qaeda" and the GOTUS and 'Dossieh" Bliar set out in GOAT (Global Offensive Against Terror, for those who might not be familiar with history) to destroy that entity by bombing goats in Afghanistan while allowing the Pakis and Saudis to get away free, and in fact whole Paki economy was shored up by GOAT. They were down to < a few million in forex b4 9/11 and were up above $4B shortly thereafter, all US taxpayers' money.

So then Dubya and his neocon gang and Halliburton types inspired the brilliant idea of invading Eyerak. Obviously to grab the oil.

12 years later, BO has practically withdrawn from Eyerak, but control of oil was not in the hands of the neocons and Halliburton, it was with a democratically elected-at-gunpoint 'govt" of the majority Shia.

And suddenly and conveniently, a massive Sunni invasion of the uber-fundoo, worse-than-AQ goon gangs stars mass-murdering and raping and enslaving the entire population!!!

The 'maps" are showing everywhere from Algeria to India, and Central Asia to central Africa, ruled by the ISIS. Why is this in line with ***stated*** US foreign policy goals or strategies? They want Iraq to be governed by Islamic fundoos worse than AQ?

And why is there not total screaming for a massive US war effort to roll them back. The obvious way is to roll them back is to win the "hearts and minds" of the KSA/Quatar/ Turkey sheikhs by the recommended procedure. But far from that the govt seems perfectly content (slight obligatory noises can be ignored) to allow this to happen before there is any serious contemplation of doing anything about it.

This is worse than 1941 by a long shot: the Nazis were not particularly interested in bothering Americans as long as they could be kept out of the war. The ISIS OTOH does things like fix slav-market prices for the FLOTUS. Shows that they are bogus entities, puppeteered from somewhere far away.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 21:51

UB Mahasaya...

Being a narrow-minded yindutva-phundamentalist, I read only (and only) from pagandesh Interests perspective.

I understand and know the back ground on 9/11 and also agree with the fact that TSP and KSA are let go Scot-free despite the fact that they are the real culprits of 9/11.

But I see following developments happening since 9/11 that are in pagandesh Interests.

- Afghanistan is brought back to pre-taliban state. The difference is now we have a ebil-kabootar in control of desiya-chaaracakshus.
- Pakistan lost 40-50,000 lives. Now we have a TTP in Pakistan. Pakis are slowly moving away from western control to chinese control.
- Iran is forced to work with desh.
- KSA's days are numbered.
- Arap spring ensured that reduced scop/influence-area for GCC
- Greatsataan is busy licking wounds
- Ayirope is pulled into recession
- Cheena is nicely pulled into Pak-Af. It will have its own developments (I know china aint puzzis like saxons and did more genocide than saxons????) but is it wrong to have few dreams?

In summary, we are (back) at the cusp of pre-9/11 global-situation (down by dot-com bubble, perceived/real weakness of amirkhan, mess in ayirope, bullish chinaa, confused pakis etc). There will be have to be a more spectacular event (than 9/11) to trigger next round of global-orgy. It aint gonna happen in pagandesh because it wont pull saxons/huns into the playing field. We need diwali celebrated either in ayirope (most likely) or freeborld (less likely) or hunborld (preferably) for next GWOT to start. May mahaakaala choose appropriate place for his tandavanritya this time.

Only bad thing is that India didn't strengthen as much as it can thanks to MMS-SoniaGandhi affair. Whattadoo, secularism is more important than idea of india naa...

This time/round pagans are better equipped at least from governance and leadership perspective. On top of it the titterwaadis are ensuring that there is no luv left for secular-backstabbers.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 28 May 2015 22:06

UlanBatori wrote:

It's not so much complaining that the S-P is not acting, as
a) wondering why there isn't a lot more screaming to act
b) wondering why they are not acting out of self-interest.

These are rational questions we all should ask. Is the West, the EU in particular, so blind and stupid that they don't see or understand the threat posed by IS so close to the border of the EU? And is the EU blind to the radicalization/Islamization in Turkey, a neighbor ,with millions of Turks inside EU countries? Same question for North Africa? Can't they grasp the threat? Is the western elite that naive/stupid?

Self-interest is something the West understands like no other? Yet they aren't doing anything meaningful to stop the brewing storm. Why?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2015 22:12

Multatuli wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:

It's not so much complaining that the S-P is not acting, as
a) wondering why there isn't a lot more screaming to act
b) wondering why they are not acting out of self-interest.
These are rational questions we all should ask. Is the West, the EU in particular, so blind and stupid that they don't see or understand the threat posed by IS so close to the border of the EU? And is the EU blind to the radicalization/Islamization in Turkey, a neighbor ,with millions of Turks inside EU countries? Same question for North Africa? Can't they grasp the threat? Is the western elite that naive/stupid?

Self-interest is something the West understands like no other? Yet they aren't doing anything meaningful to stop the brewing storm. Why?

I think a controlled demolition is the new strategy instead of shak-n-howl strategy before.

This is the theater of Arab Spring phenomenon... Bokos/iSlamic are products of these springs to keep the waters muddy till west-approved dictators take up the control..

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 29 May 2015 03:43

Multatuli wrote: Self-interest is something the West understands like no other? Yet they aren't doing anything meaningful to stop the brewing storm. Why?

Not sure the US is doing nothing, If you take a wider view of what the US is doing these days:

1. Taking the economic shackles off Iran so Iran can throw around its weight in the region (whether Iran takes the bait is not certain)
2. Allowing the ISIS to take down the Shias and other non-shia muslims and not taking any action against ISIS most of the time.
3. Only time assistance against ISIS is provided is when they need to be contained, as they did with the recent air support against ISIS in Tikrit, when there was a danger of the ISIS overrunning the Iraqi army.
4. Allowing the ISIS to continue to take over oil fields and reap its revenues, with no overtures made to ensure that the ISIS does not gain more and more wealth by its illegal sale of oil
5. Leaving behind huge amounts of weapons and such for the ISIS to steal and deploy -- this raises the cost of any entity like Iran that wants to take on the ISIS
6. Allowing KSA and ISIS to weaken and destroy other less vicious islamic states like Jordan or Syria as UBji points out earlier.
7. Allowing Turkey and KSA to provide moral and diplomatic support to ISIS and allowing the IS to create its own banks and whatnot, sowing the seeds of the caliphate that the IS is openly stating it wants to revive.

All of this seems to be another type of "offshore balancing" of islamic countries in west asia, and to allow the rise of an islamic caliphate with a despot-in-charge to challenge the other despots in the region. All of these sunnis will stay together until they wipe out the Shias in the region, and once they have achieved that they may either (a) turn on each other to gain control of the "ummah" in the region, or (b) turn their attention towards the US and EU. Of course, US and EU would know this already and will do their best to have IS focus its attention eastward rather than north/west ward. Either way, that would be a good outcome from India's perspective, if it can keep ISIS support in India contained and all ISIS thugs out of India one way or another.

Maybe the reason for US staying out of the sunni/shia bloodbath right now would be so that the gulf despots are forced to openly take on the ISIS or stay quiet until the point the ISIS gets enough power and ambition to want to take down these despots. Much depends on what a post-sanction Iran does when it is allowed to get more powerful, it seems like.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 May 2015 05:55

Once again, no pinglish in threads other than BENIS please.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 May 2015 07:59

Imagine Ayatollah Khomeini and Idi Amin getting together with Yahya Khan and Tikka Khan and Pol Pot and the Rwanda Hutu regime and Sierra Leone Crazy Boyz, and you don't come close to achieving the horror that the ISIS (supposedly) has achieved. So how is this in long-term American or EU interest?

One explanation is that the US and EU have simply given up, as in "why should we care about these anti-western ppl anyway? Let them kill each other!"

But if a single Caliphate rises over that whole belt, and has enough money to buy modern weapons and a few nukes and other WMD plus a few delivery systems from NoKo/ PRC, plus a 2-million-pest army, it won't be so much fun, will it?

Sick as it seems, I believe that the ISIS is being supported to take over Iraq just to make BO go out in disgrace and ensure a Republican win in the upcoming election. Don't know what EU's excuse is - maybe they are in shock from the UkBapZi misadventure and Comrade Putin's kindness. The Comrade has a sensible view of the ISIS (wants to keep them out of Russia).

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 29 May 2015 08:04

UlanBatori wrote: One explanation is that the US and EU have simply given up, as in "why should we care about these anti-western ppl anyway? Let them kill each other!"

This is pretty much the same attitude these fools had in the years before 9/11 made them react like someone tasered their gonads, to the point where they went and attacked the wrong country because taking down saddam hussein was more important than taking down pakistan and its "al qaeda", and thus the GOTUS helped establish the ISIS in Iraq, by getting 10s of thousands of young americans killed (and 100s of thousands disabled/permanently ill) for nothing in Iraq and Afghanisthan.

Maybe we all misunderstood what the GOTUS meant when it said it was fighting for "freedom and democracy (for ISIS)"...now we know. Obviously, the geniuses in the US State Dept. don't learn their lessons the first time around...and so they wait for a 9/11 reprise before they get all freedom-ey on everyone, maybe this time they will go attack North Korea or Burkina Faso to defend freedom and democracy like they did in Iraq and Afghanisthan.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 29 May 2015 12:51

There are too many factors at play in US for us to attribute everything to a grand plan across POTUS from both parties. The MIC (military industry complex) has their own influence and leverage. The Oil lobby and neo-cons have their own leverage regardless of party in power.

Tactical considerations such as Sunni-Shia balance, teaching lesson to Russia by asking KSA to bring down oil price, honorable exit out of Af-Pak have a strong influence as well. Long term strategic considerations such as addressing Israel's long term security needs, eliminating islamic fundamentalis threat to US and its interests in the longer term, avoiding one major power center to evolve in middle east that cannot be controlled by US, etc. have a strong influence as well.

In addition, the desire of the POTUS of the day to make some awe inspiring victories in the desert has its own influence too.

We need to study all the key players, key decision makers, influencers, the current leverage and practicality of various influences called out above to come to a full and accurate understanding over both the tactical and long term plans of US for the mid east region.

However, one thing is very evident to even causal observers. US wants the mid-east to be in a constant state of turmoil if it cannot have its own puppet governments in all the states.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 29 May 2015 15:01

Tuvaluan, the points you mention all contribute to the scenario described by UB ji in the long term if the Ummah does not take corrective measures. If what we see happening with Muslims/Islam (jihadization) isn't turned around, then in 10 years from now, the US could very well say 'enough of this, we are going to cut out the disease for good'.

If we take the present situation with Islam, the way things are developing in the Ummah, the history of the white Christian West, their way of thinking and doing things (dealing with non-Christians, non-whites, non-Westerners) into account and extrapolate, then the scenario described by UB is a likely outcome.

schinnas wrote:

There are too many factors at play in US for us to attribute everything to a grand plan across POTUS from both parties.

There is a deep state in the US, they manage/infuence GOTUS policies, no matter which party is in power. And they do think as described in above posts.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 29 May 2015 15:13

Green on Green in Dammam
Shia mosque bombed

Terrormonitor.org ‏@Terror_Monitor 24m24 minutes ago
#BREAKING - car bomb hit in Shia mosque in #Dammam, in #Saudi Arabia.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 29 May 2015 19:12

Dammam is the HQ of Aramco and houses a large american worker group that is fenced inside the Aramco Campus. Same place where the truck bomb in a US Marines barracks killed hundreds of US soldiers in the mid 1990s.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 May 2015 20:13

" Flawed figures
The true story behind reports of hundreds of labourers dying to build Qatar's World Cup 2022
Qatar has a terrible human rights record, and often treats workers like slaves, but imprecise arguments and exaggerated numbers do not help."

http://scroll.in/article/731013/the-tru ... d-cup-2022

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 29 May 2015 22:45

Multatuli wrote: then the scenario described by UB is a likely outcome.

Multatuli, I am not sure that UB's outcome can be taken for granted, as there will be a lot of local opposition unless US and other ground allow reality to manufacture sufficient consent from the local populace to have the local support for such an undertaking or outcome that will result in mass deaths on a scale not seen in a century. I think UB is laying out how such consent will be manufactured to allow such actions, and I agree. There will be a lot of backpressure from the local "liberal" crowd in every country unless they are also convinced that war is the solution...don't see that happening knowing how the irrational "liberal" mind operates in a self-defeating manner in such times.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 May 2015 08:08

schinnas, you precisely capture the nah-nah-nah-nah environment of conflicting agendas and egos and ignorance and predjudice that characterize a dysfunctional government. Of course all these factors need deep and indefinite analysis. And this is the environment that allows a free hand to the sh1ts who set up the ISIS because they DO DEEP ANALYSES --- ALL THE TIME. And they have agendas that are very clear to them, and probably very coordinated with their stock/ hedge fund purchases and short-sell decisions. $$Trillions$$ are probably being made from the horrors visited upon the innocents in the Middle East and North Africa, and hundreds of Trillions more are planned to be made.

As smart as we @BRF are in doing our armchair, part-time relaxation chai-biscoot "analyses", just imagine what a team of super-hot-shot thinkers, totally bought-out and devoid of any compunctions or conscience-type hindrances (like KissMahAssinger as a stinking example) can do in planning and executing brilliantly malevolent plans. With virtually unlimited money and forces at their command.

Bottom line: There is NO WAY that a horde like ISIS can be funneling oil supplies and weapons to their front lines, without the precise knowledge, if not top-level complicity, of NATO and the US Govt. And they are doing precious little about it, which makes the latter probability a certainty. The EU may be staying away because they understand too well that they are outclassed. These ppl can start the ISIS invading Brussels Berlin and selling Frau Whatzit and mass-executing the EU Parliament and NATO HQ any day now, just as easily as they do it in Iraq. Why not? What weapons work against them, if they have not worked in Iraq?

BTW, price of oil has risen back to within 10% of it pre-'sanctions' level, at least at the gasoline pump. Which means spot market of 1-2 weeks back (because the gasoline stations pay for each shipment at a pre-agreed price and have to sell that b4 they can buy more), and the trend is sharply upward. So they've lost interest in the "crush Russia" scam, tons of money have been made by short-selling oil drilling equipment makers' stock (and probably now they are being bought up at rock-bottom prices), renewable energy companies (see what happened to Ha?? Solar). So the purpose of the price-fixing has been achieved, its now time for the next game.

WW3 may not b far off. And if things get desperate enough, the way to stop it all is with a barrage of tactical nukes and thermonukes that depopulates the inhabitable metros and the military centers of the Middle East in short order. The next POTUS and the next German and French Presidents may well get elected on such platforms either explictly or in back-room deals. Back to dysfunctional govt - a candidate who shows that s(he) will cut through the jungle and get things moving, to Let Freedom Ring and Make America #1, can win in the US, I think. With the evidence coming in from the MidEast, a candidate who promises "France 4 Les Francais", "Deutschland Uber Alles, fur Des Aryen" etc is going to make more and more sense to the electorates over the next few months.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 May 2015 08:24

BTW, what happened to the Counter that was keeping track of US and NATO deaths in Eyerak and Afghanistan? Have they really stopped, or just stopped counting? Insurance Co. ads are now beginning to speak openly about soldiers coming back broken.