West Asia News and Discussions

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2014 11:14

their best bet is probably east european contractors flying Mig27 and HINDS just as Sri lanka used them effectively. they will be well trained, discreet and ask no questions. both have the power to shred the ISIS toyota pickup war parties. iran and amrika is flying drones, they can provide target data.

nothing wrong in it as the US itself uses so many contractors for the deeds that are tough to do on the books or simply more cost effective.

they can also procure lots of munitions from russia and iran instead of waiting for the uber-hellfire missiles that work only on the pathetic 2 cessnas the US gave them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jun 2014 11:48

So Obama wants to keep Syria in boil to please Saudis ?

Obama seeks 500 million US dollars to train and equip Syrian rebels

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 Jun 2014 12:24

How is the GOI responsible for these or anyone who has not returned from iraq??

Five Kerala nurses go back to Iraq after vacation

Thiruvananthapuram, June 27, 2014

Five nurses from Kerala have left to go back to Iraq having completed their leave.

Even as the ministry of external affairs is splitting hairs on how to evacuate the Indians stranded in strife-torn Iraq, they decided to go back as their service in this juncture is likely to earn them better returns. “Five of my colleagues have returned to Nasiriya (280km south of Baghdad) on Thursday morning.

Unlike Tikrit, the situation is normal there. We have been getting frequent calls from hospital authorities where we worked,” said Princy Seju, another nurse who is on leave now.

“Since most of us had paid a lot of money to get to Iraq, if we return emptyhanded now it will create financial burden on our family. That’s why they decided to go back,” said Princy, who paid Rs. 1.75 lakh to get her visa and travel papers.

She said there are nearly 1,000 nurses working in Iraq and most of them get $650-1,000 a month.

However, unlike her friends she said she would go back only after normalcy returns in Iraq. The poor working conditions and meagre returns in the country force nurses to take up jobs abroad, even in hostile conditions. Moreover, many of them take education loans and pay hefty amounts to just receive travel papers.

Statistics show that the number of Keralite women working abroad has increased drastically in last few years — about 70% them are either nurses or teachers.

Since an English eligibility test is not strictly necessary for the Middle East and African countries, most prefer working there.

“Nurses from Kerala are sought after because they are dedicated. They also act as a lifeline to their family members back home by sending money,” said Jeysamma John, who worked in a hospital in Dubai for nearly 25 years.

“Often, it’s the pitiable conditions at home forces them to take the risk of going to a hostile country.” Over 20,000 nurses pass out from the 100--odd nursing schools, government and private, every year. In private hospitals in the state, majority of them get between Rs. 15,000-10,000 a month.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Jun 2014 15:14

Now I get why it took 250 years after losing battle of Vienna for the Ottoman Turks to lose their Empire in WWI.

It would have ended by 1850s by the Russians who would wanted to over the Bosphorus but the French and Brits intervened to save the sick man of europe thus extended the Ottoman lifetime by 60 - 65 years. The monetory losses incurred by the Czars in this war forced them to sell Alaska to the US.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 27 Jun 2014 18:20

How is the GOI responsible for these or anyone who has not returned from iraq??

India still requires an Exit Clearance for Indian citjens to travel abroad, hain? Why if the guvrmand is "not responsible"?

They allow them to go to Iraq: they should put a travel ban if in their best judgement the situation warrants it, based on solid intel and situational awareness. If they don't then they do become "responsible" at least as ppl entrusted to look out for their fellow citjens. So why haven't the Mantri-Babu log in Dilli not clamped down? Are they sophisticated enough to tell what parts of Iraq are immune to Eyerak?

As I heard it in 1990-91, it is not only the Iraqi patients and hospital administrators who appreciated having Indian nurses there - and in Kuwait. So did the Iraqi Army.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jun 2014 19:31

Some gas town a hour north of Baghdad fell last night.
much closer than beiji.

in other news govt has launched a small heliborne force and captured tikrit univ.
official claims its first step to taking back the town.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2014 20:23

Ombaba proposes arming Syrian rebels. Means dejure support to ISIS!!!!

Hope this clears up any remaning confusion in desi minds.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 27 Jun 2014 20:27

Iraq ISIS Execution Site located

There would be several though.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Jun 2014 20:55

As I said before, Saudis and US are playing good cop bad in this region. Any talk of Iran-US collaboration in Iraq is just hogwash. Iran is an old and they know it. This is like post 9/11 period where Iran gave full intelligence cooperation to US against AQ but Bush turned around and gave axis of evil speech.

Last night I was thinking what would have happened if 9/11 had not happened. US was looking for a Bakara for target practice after Kosovo. If AQ/Eyeraq had not happened they could have come after India. Maybe that is one more reason POK II happened. Points to ponder for NaMo.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 27 Jun 2014 21:34

Paul wrote:
Last night I was thinking what would have happened if 9/11 had not happened. US was looking for a Bakara for target practice after Kosovo. If AQ/Eyeraq had not happened they could have come after India.

Paul, they were ALREADY well on their way to coming after India. See all that was happening with the US throughout the '90s.

First, Pressler amendment to allow Pakis to be armed while actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Second, Robin Raphael shenanigans in J&K, virtually midwifing the birth of Hurriyat.

Third, a number of sanctions regimes threatened against India, and some actually deployed like the MTCR. In contrast, all evidence of TSP's intensifying jihadi proxy war against India was either ignored or covered up (cf. the grenades from Mumbai '93 attack).

Fourth, increasingly shrill public discourse by US "experts" about the need for international solutions to Cashmere, Hindoo fundamentalism (Babri Masjid etc.), India's poor "human rights" record, and India's hegemonic designs in South Asia.

Fifth, a simultaneous campaign to invest TSPA as an anchoring force in the US-led geopolitical order, including active collusion in the subordination of elected Benazir/Sharif governments to the increasingly Islamized TSPA/ISI power structure. This was the real origin of the US-UK-Saudi-China "four fathers" axis as an organized group with big plans for their favourite son Pakistan... all had supported Pakistan individually in the past but at this point it became a coordinated nexus.

Sixth, helping TSPA/ISI "stabilize" Afghanistan with the Taliban, and working hard through Track-II to confer acceptance and respectability on the Taliban.

Seventh, an explosion in American goodwill towards Beijing as the economic relationship blossomed, and willfully ignoring Chinese proliferation to Pakistan.

There was SURELY something being planned at the time we conducted Pokhran II. In fact, Kargil had probably been envisioned and plotted out long before 1998, in Washington and Islamabad, as the opening gambit to taking J&K away from India. Send intruders, occupy heights, take advantage of jihadi "insurgency" rising to fever pitch, provoke India to cross LOC/IB in retaliation, and then attack her like Iraq or Yugoslavia.

As you suggest, I believe we threw a spanner in these works with Pokhran II in 1998. All previous calculations were off the table. Musharraf, like a spoilt child, wanted his lollipop anyway and went ahead with the Kargil plan, hoping the Americans would carry off their promised part of it (using "internationalization of nuclear flashpoint" as an excuse). But Clinton decided against it because there actually WERE nukes in the picture at this point... publicly acknowledged to exist BOTH in India's hands AND in Pakistan's.

(Remember how Clinton had begged tearfully that Nawaz should not conduct Chagai tests in response to Pokhran II? That was because a "nuclear rogue India" and "non-nuclear-armed Pakistan" would have been a perfect justification for American intervention following a Kargil-type intrusion. Sharif messed that up by testing, and therefore had to return empty handed after his meeting with Clinton during Kargil. THAT may be why the TSPA was so angry with him. Remember also that Madeline Albright had already proposed a Kosovo-style SEAD campaign against India in response to the Pokhran tests, letting the cat out of the bag!)

Let's always remember: while Pakis are not mentally stable, their widespread and persistent delusion that America will help them "Get Kashmir" did not exactly evolve out of thin air; it is a public reference to promises that had been privately made, and for which plans had in fact been laid but later scrapped.

I don't think we will ever quite understand the full import of what two governments... PV Narasimha Rao's and Atal Bihari Vajpayee's... REALLY did to safeguard India during those perilous times. Not until many deeply-buried files are declassified (by the Americans, not by us) decades from now.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Jun 2014 22:03

Thanks RDji, we paradoxically have to thank AQ for this. ABV bought us the extra time we needed by dint of POK II and the rest is history. It should also be noted that 9/11 precipitated the 2001 dot com meltdown. This meltdown caused at least $1 Trillion damage to the US economy. In turn the US thought they were being very smart and Machiavellian in invading Iraq and costing the US another $3 Trillion. In all his damage caused the US at least $4 Trillion and consequent lack of support from the US public for another misadventure. The Afghan misadventure has cost the US more buckets of money.

This has bought India at least 10 - 15 precious years, strengthened the Pakistani Taliban and consequently weakened Pakistan. All this time India had the weakest government since independence .

The last decade, had POKHRAN II and 9/11 not happened, may have been the best time to take down India.

With China showing signs of breaking out of western pacific region, TTP gathering steam in Pakistan, and the meltdown in Iraq, the US will be embroiled in these regions for quite some time to come.

So the question is, with loss of prosperity in the west, Iraq/Syria involvement, belated realization over Pakistan's reliability above and of course the 2007 meltdown , has the window of opportunity for the west to take down India passed for some time?

We can continue in another thread.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 27 Jun 2014 22:45

Please continue on this.
Could it be that the weakest governments were foisted on India by design to extend that window? What has changed now?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Jun 2014 23:18

Indonesian East Timor 2002, Kosovo of Yugoslavia 2008, Egypt 2014
India.....2020

Naaa , Indian bought Insurance in 1998 .

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 28 Jun 2014 04:44

Paul wrote:...
This has bought India at least 10 - 15 precious years, strengthened the Pakistani Taliban and consequently weakened Pakistan. All this time India had the weakest government since independence .

The last decade, had POKHRAN II and nau-gyara not happened, may have been the best time to take down India.

.....
So the question is, with loss of prosperity in the west, Iraq/Syria involvement, belated realization over Pakistan's reliability above and of course the 2007 meltdown , has the window of opportunity for the west to take down India passed for some time?
....

If I'm reading your posts correctly, with reference to events in last decades you are suggesting that "if those events had not happened...xyz would have happened to India". First of all, the foundation of your argument is that those events happened by chance and not by design. Second assumption, taking down India is the best possible outcome. If I was East India Company (EIC) 2.0, why would I take down India? I can prop up Pakistan and support impotent Kangriss party, as a counter as I'm busy in ME. That we know was successfully accomplished. Third, what does India have that EIC 2.0 needs, definitely not oil or nat. gas, but a huge talent pool and biggest untapped consumer market. And if EIC is confident to grab that without "taking India down", why waste time, energy, money taking "India down"? Same reason, why NoKo has not been taken down. Not because of similarities between India and NoKo, but baby Kim can be manipulated very easily. So, I feel that celebrating "not being taken down", with/without insurance policy could be illusionary. That is just me thinking, and I've been wrong multiple times.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Jun 2014 08:31

Iraq Crisis: Delhi-class destroyer heads for Persian Gulf to evacuate Indians

New Delhi: India launched its first initiative for the possible evacuation of its nationals from war-torn Iraq with a powerful Delhi-class destroyer being dispatched to the Persian Gulf by the navy.

The decision to launch the operation was given the go ahead at a meeting of the Crisis Management Group which was attended by the three service chiefs.

The Delhi-class destroyer will reach the coast of Iraq in the Persian Gulf today while heavy lift transport planes of the IAF have been told to be on a standby to fly out at short notice.

Each of the ships can adjust a thousand-odd persons. The Navy had performed such a task when NATO forces led an attack on Libya in 2012.

Official source said commercial flights are operating regularly out of Baghdad and Erbil and most areas of Iraq are "safe."

Indian are largely in safe areas but the way the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) is running over the country, New Delhi wants to be sure in its plans lest it is found wanting.

As of now, the advice is against mass evacuations. However, the situation is fluid, said an official.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2014 10:32

BLiar and his personal ME interests above that of the region's.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... iddle-east
Tony Blair accused of conflict of interests in Middle East
Critics unite to demand his sacking as Quartet's envoy as evidence emerges of his private business interests expanding in region

Tony Blair
Tony Blair. Rumours are circulating in London and Cairo of plans by Blair to advise the Egyptian government under President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Photograph: John Alex Maguire/Rex Features

Iraq's latest bloody crisis and its links to the 2003 war brought Tony Blair back into the headlines this week, along with calls for him to step down as a Middle East peace envoy – but new evidence has emerged that his private business interests in the ever-volatile region are expanding.

Aides to the former prime minister confirmed that he was actively considering opening an office in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, which is in the frontline of the struggle against political Islam. But a spokesperson denied suggestions by a leading Arab economist that he was being considered for a job advising Oman on its long-term development, after his controversial £27m consultancy project for the Kuwaiti government in recent years.

Retired diplomats and political enemies united to demand Blair be sacked as the envoy of the Quartet – the UN, US, Russia and EU – after achieving little to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace in seven years.

Blair's Middle Eastern activities cause some irritation in Whitehall, where officials say they are not always aware of what he is doing and exactly who he is representing in meetings abroad – even though he is routinely briefed by British embassies. "He moves in mysterious ways," quipped one senior figure.

"The Blair organisation is like a sort of government with different departments doing different things," an ex-employee said. "His office is run on Downing Street lines. It's like he's never not been PM."

Aides said the Abu Dhabi office would be used for managing projects in Kazakhstan and Romania. But it will give him a presence at the heart of a strategic region. The former prime minister is close to the Abu Dhabi crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is often described as being obsessed by Islamists and has lobbied hard for a tough UK line against the Muslim Brotherhood. Blair already has a contract to advise Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth funds.

Rumours are circulating in London and Cairo of plans by Blair to advise the Egyptian government under President Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi, the former field marshal who overthrew the democratically elected but unpopular Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, a year ago.

Blair has visited Cairo twice this year in his Quartet role. Alastair Campbell, his former communications chief, has also visited, and confirmed that he met "officials and politicians" to discuss "perceptions in the international media about Egypt in respect of concerns that are obvious".

Morsi's removal was followed by the killings of more than 1,000 Brotherhood supporters, mass death sentences and other human rights abuses as well as the widely condemned imprisonment of three al-Jazeera journalists after an often farcical and chaotic trial this week.

Middle Eastern sources said it was likely any work by Blair on Egypt would be done on behalf of the UAE, which with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in backing Sisi financially and politically. "It's pretty basic fact-gathering in support of a broader project helping the Egyptians," said one consultant.

Blair's spokesperson said: "Neither Mr Blair nor his organisations are making any money out of Egypt and there is no desire to do that."

Blair has, however, recently commissioned his own"briefing document" on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in parallel with a controversial wider review for David Cameron by Britain's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins. Aides said it was for Blair's sole use. It was not linked to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which researches Middle Eastern and other issues.

The UAE is running an energetic campaign highlighting the activities of the Brotherhood, using London-based advisers to bolster their demand that its activists should not be allowed to operate in the UK. "We hope that our friends will not help our enemies," one Emirati official said. The Brotherhood insists it is a peaceful organisation that abides by UK law.

Cameron spoke to Bin Zayed about Iraq, Syria and Libya this week – a reminder of close relations with a key political and commercial partner. Britain's trade with the UAE is expected to reach £12.5bn by 2015. UAE investments in the UK amounted to £40bn by the end of 2012.

In another link between Abu Dhabi and London, Bin Zayed is advised by a low-profile former British soldier called Will Tricks, who "raised a lot of eyebrows" in Whitehall, according to ex-colleagues, when he left his MI6 posting in the UAE to work for the crown prince.

His comments on the Muslim Brotherhood and support for Sisi are stronger than anything said publicly by the UK government.

"Blair is a paid employee of Abu Dhabi because of his Mubadala contract," said Christopher Davidson, a Gulf expert at Durham University. "He should not be regarded as representing UK national interests."

Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: "Tony Blair has to decide between his Quartet role as envoy to one of the most dangerous conflicts on the planet, his burgeoning media role in pushing for intervention in Iraq and Syria and his business interests across the globe including in the Middle East. These roles are incompatible and create a huge conflict of interest."

Blair's views on political Islam are no secret. "He's always taken a fairly strong view about not tolerating Islamic extremism and gets fed up with moderates for not acting, but he has become more right-wing on this," said a former diplomat. "The problem in Iraq was that he conflated extremism with Saddam Hussein."

Even some who admit that they share Blair's view of the Brotherhood as an extremist organisation say that does not mean endorsing repressive methods to crush it, as have been used in Egypt, where it has been proscribed.

Talk of his possible role in advising Sisi has provoked speculation and criticism. "He clearly is very experienced and has a tremendous amount of contacts – so he can provide support to any vision that Egypt might like to adopt," said Samir Radwan, a former Egyptian finance minster. "But Tony Blair sometimes waffles. If he can abandon that, he can be effective. But whether his agenda will allow him to find a way out of the tension between the Muslim Brotherhood and the government, I don't know. That would be problematic – but it doesn't make it impossible.

"Sisi himself left the door open to inclusion … what the situation needs is a catalyst. Can Tony Blair play that role? If he stops waffling, maybe. The caveat to all that is that Blair's credibility is very low in Egypt. If the Egyptian government comes out and says that Mr Blair has advised us, it would not sit well in the street because of what he did in Iraq."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jun 2014 21:14

Sadly, There's Nothing the U.S. Can Do to Save Iraq

by Gary C. Gambill
The National Post
June 27, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/4738/us-cant-save-iraq

Since the fall of Mosul to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) earlier this month, an idea that almost no one in his right mind was publicly advocating a few short weeks ago is steadily gaining currency among American politicians and pundits — that the United States should, in some capacity or another, go to war in Iraq. A few words of advice to those who are jumping on the bandwagon:

First, understand that the United States didn't start this fire and can't put it out. The sectarian conflict now raging between Muslims in the heart of the Arab world was primed to erupt by decades of brutal minoritarian rule in both Syria (Alawites over majority Sunnis) and Iraq (Sunnis over majority Shiites), and by over a millennium of religious antagonism before that. The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq overturned an applecart that was bound to falter during the 2011 Arab Spring revolts anyway. The Bush and Obama administrations both could have done more to ensure that the quasi-democratic system they left behind was capable of weathering the storm, but their errors are academic now. Like the Syrians, the Iraqis will have to fight it out.

Second, don't believe the hype about ISIS taking Baghdad. The group has managed to gain control of most areas where Iraq's 15-20% Sunni Arab minority predominates because locals acquiesced in its advance and garrisoned soldiers had little stomach for fighting in such a hostile environment. While the confessionally mixed Iraqi capital may be plagued by jihadist terrorism in the months ahead, the number of combatants Iraq's Shiite majority can throw into the city's defence dwarfs the number that ISIS can field, even if large numbers of Iraqi Sunnis unite under its banner and a steady stream of foreign jihadis continues to join its ranks. Do the math. Baghdad won't fall.

Third, recognize that the Iranians will be delighted if the U.S. Air Force starts pounding ISIS, a problem they created by encouraging the excesses of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and propping up the embattled regime of President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria (ISIS, as its name suggests, is a two-headed monster). Prospective American intervention will be less about defending Baghdad than about helping Iranian-backed government forces and Shiite militias seize back the Sunni heartland of northwest Iraq. It's going to be a long, bloody campaign, certain to involve massive civilian casualties. The Iranians would love for the Obama administration to share the costs and take some of the heat for the horrific measures that will be necessary to cleanse Iraq of ISIS.

Fourth, consider also that U.S. intervention could be a blessing for Al-Qaeda senior leaders in Pakistan, who have always been more interested in killing Westerners than Shiites or Alawites (one reason why they have been eclipsed in the Syria-Iraq theatre). Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri would have preferred that the many hundreds of European Muslims now fighting in Syria and Iraq had stayed home and plotted attacks in their countries of origin. A U.S.-led air campaign against ISIS would weaken Al-Qaeda's main competitor for the loyalties of Sunni jihadists in the region, while giving Zawahiri exactly the narrative twist he needs to refocus Sunni angst on the West.

Is that thumb still up? Don't get me wrong. I understand the temptation to jump in and kill terrorists when the opportunity presents itself. With Iran and various rival Sunni states financing and equipping opposing Islamists to do their dirty work (you don't bring a knife to a gunfight), the Syria-Iraq theatre is an extraordinarily target-rich environment. But as long as they're busy killing each other, the United States should leave bad enough alone.

Gary C. Gambill is a Shilman-Ginsburg fellow at the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum.

It begs the question what is there about modern Iraq that is worth saving?
Its a colonial construct to give the betrayed descendent's of the Sharif of Mecca a place outside Hejaz to rule after the Ottoman collapse.

Shanmukh · Post by **Shanmukh** » 29 Jun 2014 00:13

I was led to this perception by the theories of Ramana-ji, and Rudradev-ji, among others. All these developments bring into question the larger point - can Islam actually adapt to governing a sedentary populace, if the governed are also Muslims? If you look coldly into the map of west Asia, the bulk of the Sunnis are (the orthodox Muslims) are exactly in places which is the domain of the nomad. The traditionally settled areas of Iraq and Iran are Shiite, as are the traditionally settled lands of the Levant (which are a mix ot eclectic brands of Islam). About half the worldwide Sunni Muslims are in the subcontinent, and are basically either in full turmoil because Islam has not been able to adapt to the settled populace, or has been living in the lands of the infidels. Egypt, at first sight, is an exception, but a history of Egypt shows that Egypt has always been a hotbed of unorthodox movements, right from the Fatimid days (funnily enough, no one dared declare that he was not Islamic). Indonesia, parts of Philippines, and Malaysia, nominally Muslim countries until the 20th century, are beginning to face the same problems of the other Sunni societies of West Asia - ideology vs practicality, in the sedentary lifestyle context. I am not very aware of the developments of west Africa, but maybe someone more knowledgeable about Sub-Saharan Africa can do a background of the region.

The main inspiration for new forces for Islam has always been from the nomads. Whenever Islamic dynasties weakened, they were replaced, not by an inside movement that would rejuvenate the governance, but by an outside force (a new Qabila, as Ramana has pointed out). Governance, industry and prosperity of the people always took a subsidiary role in Islamic governments. When the Arabs weakened, they were replaced not by the already existing Persians and the Syrians (although they both tried, and the Persians, to some extent, even temporarily successfully), but by the outside Turks. When the Turks weakened, they got replaced by the Mongols, the Tartars, the Cirassians, etc. The same pattern repeats in North Africa too. Each weakened dynasty got replaced by a new nomadic group from the fringes of the Saharan desert (a new nomad, in short). The same pattern is repeating today. The new force, from outside (there is no real outside now literally, but the same new nomadic stateless groups are the new forces in Islam, bringing about a new Qabila). This begs about the question. Can Islam adapt to the sedentary living without changing itself fundamentally (Turkey tried it, by battering Islam into submission - `For the people, in spite of the people', as Ataturk charmingly described his government.) And can Islam be governed by a sedentary people (and their associated ideology) without the latter being irrevocably changed?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 29 Jun 2014 02:07

nageshks wrote: Whenever Islamic dynasties weakened, they were replaced, not by an inside movement that would rejuvenate the governance, but by an outside force (a new Qabila, as Ramana has pointed out). Governance, industry and prosperity of the people always took a subsidiary role in Islamic governments. When the Arabs weakened, they were replaced not by the already existing Persians and the Syrians (although they both tried, and the Persians, to some extent, even temporarily successfully), but by the outside Turks. When the Turks weakened, they got replaced by the Mongols, the Tartars, the Cirassians, etc. The same pattern repeats in North Africa too. Each weakened dynasty got replaced by a new nomadic group from the fringes of the Saharan desert (a new nomad, in short).

This is pretty much what happened in India too and is par for the course in China too. This has mostly to do with the fact that the forms of governance other than democracies have no way to ensure a smooth transfer of power. In fact they don't have any plans whatsoever for a transfer of power. So when they weaken and fall, as they inevitably must, the barbarians at the gates take over. Pretty much nothing to do with Islam.

Shanmukh · Post by **Shanmukh** » 29 Jun 2014 03:12

KrishnaK wrote:
nageshks wrote: Whenever Islamic dynasties weakened, they were replaced, not by an inside movement that would rejuvenate the governance, but by an outside force (a new Qabila, as Ramana has pointed out). Governance, industry and prosperity of the people always took a subsidiary role in Islamic governments. When the Arabs weakened, they were replaced not by the already existing Persians and the Syrians (although they both tried, and the Persians, to some extent, even temporarily successfully), but by the outside Turks. When the Turks weakened, they got replaced by the Mongols, the Tartars, the Cirassians, etc. The same pattern repeats in North Africa too. Each weakened dynasty got replaced by a new nomadic group from the fringes of the Saharan desert (a new nomad, in short).
This is pretty much what happened in India too and is par for the course in China too. This has mostly to do with the fact that the forms of governance other than democracies have no way to ensure a smooth transfer of power. In fact they don't have any plans whatsoever for a transfer of power. So when they weaken and fall, as they inevitably must, the barbarians at the gates take over. Pretty much nothing to do with Islam.

KrishnaK-ji,
I beg to disagree, about one point. India has been invaded, successfully, many times, but each time there was a successful invasion, there was a push back from the core against the incursions. The intruders would be ousted, and their institutions would be replaced by Indic ones. The Greeks and the Kushanas invaded in the wake of the fall of the Mauryan empire. The Guptas expelled them, and drove them out (their institutions were at least, replaced). The Huns invaded and destroyed the Gupta empire. They were expelled by the Vardhana empire. From the fall of the Vardhana empire ~646 CE, to around 1000CE, there were no real successful invasions of the core lands of India (sure there was some nibbling around Sindh and Zabul, but the core itself was never invaded, and the dynasties that replaced each other were all Indic). The Ghaznids and Ghurids invaded and destroyed the Rajput empires. There was a fight back under the Rajputs of Mewar and Malwa, in Bengal under Raja Ganesh, and in the south by the Vijayanagar empire. In fact, after the defeat of the Delhi Sultanate by the Timurids, there was almost complete replacement of the Islamic structures, except in the Indo-Gangetic valley (and even there, the fight back was beginning). The Mughals invaded, and the fight back occurred under Shivaji and the Marathas, and the Sikhs. The British invaded successfully against these kingdoms. The Freedom Struggle expelled the British. This pattern holds true for India, China, and even Russia. Repeatedly invaded, they repeatedly fought back to drive out the invaders. No such impulse existed in Islamic countries. You may want to wonder about why this happened. The only real counter example in the narrative is the Safavid dynasty (even there, the fight back, such as there was began by the Turkomans, and the Azeris - who are also Turkic). The native Persian, Egyptian, Syrian fightback was completely non-existent, at least in successful terms, after 1000CE (before that, there were sporadic, if desperate, revolts by the Persians particularly in the present province of Fars, and on the Caspian Sea Coast). Once they had been Islamised, they completely lost their spark of genius to fight back. Islam always looked outside for the next ruler, not within. Maybe something for us to wonder about.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2014 22:48

Israeli PM Netanyahu endorses Kurdish independence citing chaos in Iraq

Citing the “collapse” of Iraq amid the ISIS insurgency and sectarian violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the de-facto independence of Iraqi Kurds. Netanyahu has also called to support the “Kurdish aspiration for independence.”

ISIS declares creation of Islamic state in Middle East, shortens name to ‘IS’

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 29 Jun 2014 23:07

Ulan Bator News Announces Creation of New Slum:

ISNT

Islamic Slum of North Terroristan

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 30 Jun 2014 00:23

nageshks wrote: No such impulse existed in Islamic countries. You may want to wonder about why this happened. The only real counter example in the narrative is the Safavid dynasty (even there, the fight back, such as there was began by the Turkomans, and the Azeris - who are also Turkic). The native Persian, Egyptian, Syrian fightback was completely non-existent, at least in successful terms, after 1000CE (before that, there were sporadic, if desperate, revolts by the Persians particularly in the present province of Fars, and on the Caspian Sea Coast). Once they had been Islamised, they completely lost their spark of genius to fight back. Islam always looked outside for the next ruler, not within. Maybe something for us to wonder about.

I'm a little confused boss. So the way I see it, the only difference between Hindu/indian behaviour and the muslim ones is in most of the muslim countries their religious identity was completely subsumed. The hindus have managed to hang on. Iranians aren't going to go back to being zoarastrians any more than Indian muslims are. But they have managed to keep their Persian identity and state intact just as Indians have managed to do the same. It is Iran today that's claiming leadership of the muslims everywhere, particularly the shiites. It is Iran that the Sunni Arab states are shit scared of.
Have you read MJ Akbar's book, In the shade of swords ? The story he paints is far different to what you state. For example, in the face of the crusades, the muslim world threw up a Salah ad-din. From the very heart of the muslim world, Syria. Anyway, my last post on this topic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jun 2014 01:06

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/world ... .html?_r=0

Iraq Says Russian Experts Have Arrived to Help Prepare Jets for Fighting

BAAGH DAD — Iraqi government officials said Sunday that Russian experts had arrived in Iraq to help the army get 12 new Russian warplanes into the fight against Sunni extremists.The move was at least an implicit rebuke to the United States, where concerns in Congress about the political viability of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government have stalled sales of advanced jets and helicopters to Iraq.“In the coming three or four days the aircraft will be in service to support our forces in the fight” against the insurgents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, said Gen. Anwar Hama Ameen, the commander of the Iraqi Air Force, referring to five SU-25 aircraft that were flown into Iraq aboard Russian cargo planes Saturday night, and two more expected later Sunday. General Ameen said that Russian military experts also had arrived to help set up the planes, but that they would stay only a short time. President Obama ordered 300 American military advisers into the country, and the Iranians have reportedly sent advisers from their Republican Guards’ Quds Force. At least three United States Special Forces teams are said to have deployed north of Baghdad in recent days, tasked with carrying out a survey of Iraqi forces to determine their state and needs.

This was the first report of Russian military aides in the country, although General Ameen said they were experts, not advisers.American officials, citing intelligence reports, have said that Iran has been sending surveillance drones over Iraq as well as supplying the government with military equipment and support.
On Thursday, Mr. Maliki said the Iraqis, in an arrangement with the Russian Ministry of Defense, had ordered a dozen SU-25s, a ground-attack fighter jet useful for close air support operations.“They are coming very fast,” General Ameen said in a telephone interview, “because we need them in this conflict against the terrorists as soon as possible.” He said the Russians would leave within around three days after the aircraft were ready for service.The Iraqi military used SU-25 jets extensively during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, but they have not been used in Iraq since 2002 or earlier.Still, General Ameen said they would soon see action again. “We have pilots who have long experience in this plane and of course we have the help of the Russian friends and the experts who came with these aircraft to prepare them,” he said. “This will produce a very strong punishment against the terrorists in the coming days.There have also been unconfirmed reports that Iran was prepared to return some of the Iraqi warplanes that Saddam Hussein flew to Iran in 1991 to escape American destruction. Those included 24 French F1 Mirage fighters, and 80 Russian jets.”

Shanmukh · Post by **Shanmukh** » 30 Jun 2014 01:31

KrishnaK wrote:
nageshks wrote: No such impulse existed in Islamic countries. You may want to wonder about why this happened. The only real counter example in the narrative is the Safavid dynasty (even there, the fight back, such as there was began by the Turkomans, and the Azeris - who are also Turkic). The native Persian, Egyptian, Syrian fightback was completely non-existent, at least in successful terms, after 1000CE (before that, there were sporadic, if desperate, revolts by the Persians particularly in the present province of Fars, and on the Caspian Sea Coast). Once they had been Islamised, they completely lost their spark of genius to fight back. Islam always looked outside for the next ruler, not within. Maybe something for us to wonder about.
I'm a little confused boss. So the way I see it, the only difference between Hindu/indian behaviour and the muslim ones is in most of the muslim countries their religious identity was completely subsumed. The hindus have managed to hang on. Iranians aren't going to go back to being zoarastrians any more than Indian muslims are. But they have managed to keep their Persian identity and state intact just as Indians have managed to do the same. It is Iran today that's claiming leadership of the muslims everywhere, particularly the shiites. It is Iran that the Sunni Arab states are shit scared of.

Shia Persia is mostly the doing of the Safavid dynasty, which I did mention was the counter example, but even they began as an Azeri-Turkoman force fighting against the Ottomans. Safavids did not begin as a Persian fightback - the Persian identity became a convenient tool (even during the Safavid times there were a very significant number of Zoroastrians. Shah Abbas (I or II, I cannot recall), destroyed the Padouspanian - a Zoroastrian statelet on the Caspian coast and deported 80K families of Zoroastrians as state slaves to central Persia) to develop the difference with their political enemy, the Ottomans. For the Safavids, a difference with the Sunni Ottomans (who were their principal enemy) was essential to maintain their separate identity, so they evolved differently. However, the native Persian fightback ended around 1000 CE (the native Persian dynasties that had arisen in the wake of the weakening of the Abbasids were all smashed by the Turks, and that was the end of their resistance). The Safavid conversion of Persia to Shiite faith was as brutal as the conversion of Persia from Zoroastrianism to Islam in the first phase. And in any case, we were speaking of settled populace being governed by the Sunnis (the orthodox Islam), rather than the Shias, which was my point of departure.

Have you read MJ Akbar's book, In the shade of swords ? The story he paints is far different to what you state. For example, in the face of the crusades, the muslim world threw up a Salah ad-din. From the very heart of the muslim world, Syria. Anyway, my last post on this topic.

Salah al Din was a Kurdish opportunist, who took advantage of the Turkish Jihad (his predecessor was the Turkish Nuraddin, who had already defeated the Crusaders and taken back the remnants of Edessa (Turbessel and the regions east of the Euphrates, at any rate), and left Salah al Din the machinery for continuing the Jihad) against the Christian infidels. His fight against the Crusaders was also a case of a Jihad against the infidels, not a case of patriotic fervour against the Crusaders taking the land of the locals. Muslims were fighting the Christians as an expression of their religious fervour, not nationalistic fervour. Arab nationalism in the 20th century was probably the first expression of nationalism (such as it was) in the Sunni Muslim world.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Jun 2014 06:27

Now the question is: Can we keep Indian Muslims insulated from this? I had mentioned a while back that we should watch out for a pan indian secessionist movement taking place within the next 5-10 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2014 06:44

One half wit quoting a half baked writer!!!

----
No RoyG, India cannot do anyhing as its a democracy and people should be free to chose to be attracted to flames.
However if they cross the line in India then law and order should take precedence.

If you chose any other line psec half wits will cry foul and bring in self goals.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jun 2014 07:03

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... e-minister

Saudi king fires deputy defence minister

RIYADH // Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah on Saturday sacked the deputy defence minister, Prince Khaled bin Bandar bin Abdul Aziz, just a month and a half after appointing him. A royal decree cited by the official SPA news agency said the decision was taken at the request of Crown Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, who is the defence minister.The reasons for the move were not immediately known, and no successor was announcewd for Prince Khaled, who was appointed to the post on May 14.Saudi Arabia has been on alert following turmoil in Iraq where Sunni Islamist militants have seized control of major cities from the Shiite Muslim-led government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.
On Thursday, King Abdullah instructed authorities in the oil-rich kingdom to take “necessary measures” to defend it from Islamist militants battling the Baghdad government.Moves in the ruling family are closely watched at home and abroad for clues to who will rule the world’s top oil exporter, a country that also has a huge influence over Muslims through its guardianship of Islam’s holiest sites.Prince Khaled was moved to the post of deputy defence minister in May when King Abdullah removed him from his position as governor of Riyadh Province and appointed his son, Prince Turki, in his place.The move was seen as strengthening the grip of his branch of the ruling dynasty as it approaches a difficult decision over how to transfer power to the next generation.King Abdullah, who is over 90, has made a series of changes and appointments over the past two years that have consolidated the position of his allies in the family.The most recent was the appointment of Prince Muqrin, a former intelligence chief, as deputy crown prince.The newly created position made Prince Muqrin, the youngest son of the kingdom’s founder, King Abdulaziz Al Saud, next in line to succeed in the world’s top oil exporter and birthplace of Islam after his half-brothers King Abdullah and Crown Prince Salman

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jun 2014 07:29

Saudis shivering in their palaces? gents,there is a new caliph in town who claims to be the leader of all Muslims!

Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East

Militants name Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as Caliph as experts say move represents 'new era of international jihad'
Adam Withnall

Sunday 29 June 2014

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has reportedly declared the areas it occupies in Iraq and Syria as a new Islamic state, removing Iraq and the Levant from its name and ushering in “a new era of international jihad”.

The announcement will see the Isis now simply refer to itself as The Islamic State, and the group has called on al-Qa’ida and other related militant Sunni factions operating in the region to immediately pledge their allegiance.

According to Isis’s chief spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, the declaration of the “restoration of the caliphate” was made after a meeting of the group’s Shura Council. In recent weeks, Isis has captured large areas of western and northern Iraq and for two years has held parts of Syria, imposing a harsh interpretation of Islamic law and in many cases, killing large numbers of opposition Shia Muslims.

Adnani said all jihadist organisations must now offer up their support to Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has been declared Caliph of the new state.

Charles Lister, visiting fellow at the Qatar-based Brookings Doha Centre, said that the declaration signalled “massive trouble” regardless of the perceived legitimacy of the Isis group, adding that the next 24 hours will be “key”.

Iraqi Kurdish forces take position as they fight jihadist militants on 29 June in the Iraqi village of Bashir, 20km south of the city of Kirkuk (AFP/Getty Images) Iraqi Kurdish forces take position as they fight jihadist militants on 29 June in the Iraqi village of Bashir, 20km south of the city of Kirkuk (AFP/Getty Images) Charlie Cooper, a researcher for the Quilliam counter-extremism think-tank, said the fact Baghdadi has been named Caliph was particularly controversial.

He told The Independent: “There hasn’t been a Caliph since the Ottoman Empire outside of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, and the Caliph is appointed as the only legitimate successor to Prophet Mohammed.”

“The fact that Isis has done this has huge ideological and theological implications and it is a big challenge to al-Qa’ida, their spokespeople may well try to reclaim their legitimacy.”

In the latest example of Isis’ sophisticated use of social media, Cooper said a new propaganda video released 15 minutes before the announcement included a “hint” towards what was about to come, with a Chilean foreign fighter describing Baghdadi as his “Caliph”.

“Everything that Isis has done has been very tactical with meticulous in planning,” he said.

“There will be a lot of criticism from people saying announcing the restoration of the caliphate is premature, but Isis have rapidly evolved over the past few years and there’s now a cult of personality about Baghdadi in Arabic social media.

“He is a very popular figure, and this will make people from al-Qa’ida and other groups question whether they should really be fighting for him.”
Read more:
Russian fighter jets arrive to hold back Isis approach
Helicopter gunships launch dawn air strikes on Isis-held Tikrit

The news came as the Iraqi army was reportedly pushed back by rebel fighters protecting insurgent positions in the northern city of Tikrit today.

The military began its attempt to win back control of the city on Saturday, with a multi-pronged assault spearheaded by ground troops backed by tanks and helicopters.

Security officials said the army was coordinating the campaign with the US, but reports from the ground suggested it had been forced to pull back to the town of Dijla, 25km to the south, after a failed assault in which both sides suffered casualties.

Meanwhile, Iraqi officials said they had received delivery of the first Russian fighter jets it has bought second-hand to help stop the militants’ advance.

The five Russian Su-25 planes are expected to enter service in the next three to four days, with more of the planes understood to be arriving soon.

Iraqi air force commander Anwar Hama Amin said the military is “in urgent need of this type of aircraft during this difficult time”.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has blamed much of the rebels success on the Iraqi military’s lack of air support. The country signed contracts to buy F-16 jets from the USA, but has been slow in receiving them.

He said Iraq is also hoping to acquire second-hand fighter jets from Belarus. The deals are together thought to be worth about $500 million (£293m).

The UN says that more than 1,000 people, largely civilians, have been killed in fighting between Iraqi forces and the rebels.

The US has now deployed drones to the region around Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town, though the White House said it has not yet authorised air strikes against militants and the drones will only be used for ‘force protection’.

Other countries including Iran are thought to have stationed military equipment and forces in the region.

Professor Peter Neumann, of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London, said the significance of the announcement should not be underestimated.

“It's a declaration of war - not only against the West and all the countries that are currently fighting Isis but, more importantly, against al-Qa’ida. Isis now see themselves as the legitimate leaders of the movement and they expect everyone to fall in line.

“For ideological jihadists, the caliphate is the ultimate aim, and Isis - in their eyes - have come closer to realising that vision than anyone else. On that basis, Isis leaders believe they deserve everyone's allegiance.

“This could be the end of al-Qa’ida. It depends on how al-Qa’ida will respond. Unless they come out fighting, this could mark the end of [Osama] Bin Laden's vision and his legacy.”

Prof Neumann said the declaration of a caliphate showed how confident Isis was after making spectacular gains in Iraq in recent weeks.

“They haven't lost any of the momentum they gained when capturing Mosul,” he said. “On the contrary, they've held on to it, gained more territory and have seen jihadists from other groups swear allegiance to Isis.

“They must think their dream of creating the caliphate is finally coming true, and it's coming true faster and more dramatically than even they expected.”

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2014 07:48

yesterday they crucified 8 people in a public square in syria. reports say they were rebels not of ISIS.

like the LTTE they are wiping out all other outfits who can challenge for power under western patronage.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1326032/isis-c ... n-display/

graphic image from a older episode here (WARNING graphic) http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/upl ... ucify1.jpg

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Jun 2014 09:56

Just last week experts on CNN were saying no caliphate!

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Jun 2014 11:38

F16 could have also come from pakis if F16 were not available when ISIL was not facing air attacks. After all Americans allowed pakis to acquire more F16 from third party too. Iran already has Russian technical staff since few days for advising Iran AF now.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Jun 2014 13:51

X-post from Kurdistan thread:

Israel's Netanyahu calls for supporting Kurdish independence

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 30 Jun 2014 15:46

AAB Turkey ka kya hoga? Independent Khurdish homeland was their sum of all fears. They were so eager to tear Syria apart...........if only they had known. An old Bhartiya saying "never fight with neighbors to please somebody from other village".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2014 17:53

Russia is sending 12 su25 planes for the iraqi air force.
7 arrived over the weekend.
Ground crew have been sent to set them up.

Now another dozen frogfoots, a dozen hinds and lots of ammo should up the ability to smack the isis.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 Jun 2014 18:31

I assume that all Iraqi pilots and ground staff who were familiar with Russian-built warplanes, were either killed in 1990-91 or 2003, or have now joined the ISNT (Islamic S**t Nutcases of Tikrit). So if these Russian planes are going to start flying in 3 days, who is flying, controlling and maintaining them? They have to be foreign, either Syrian or Russian. Does Iran have a lot of Russian hardware, in order to have trained pilots and ground staff? (Su-25 is old, it was used in the Georgia pleasantries of the Dubyan era, and even then it was old).

The net outcome from all this may be now that Russia gains back the foothold they had in Iraq, and the Americans are out, loved universally in the region. Putin is smart enough, one hopes, to make a deal with Kurdistan, because they are not fundoos, and they have no love for Turkey (NATO member), KSA (Al-Lie) or ISNT, or the Shias, or for Iran or Syria. A truly independent bunch, and hence should make good friends.

Pity, they are still too far from the Black Sea, and Georgia is in the middle, so I guess the prospect of Russian oil and gas pipelines reaching the Persian Gulf is still a bit remote. Otherwise BO's cup of Rooh Afza would be truly full and he may reach for the whole bottle.

Now back to the ISNT. Their shortening their name to become THE Islamic State, and the declaration that the Caliph of Baghdad is the only legitimate ruler in Islam, so appointed by The Prophet (pbuh) himself, should have interesting implications for the Saudi royalty's claims to be Keepers of the Holy Places. Per the ISNT, there is The Islamic State, and the The Apo-State(s), all waiting to be liberated and their mijjiles chopped off.

How are they going to keep the ISNT happy enough to not want to liberate Riyadh?

BTW, with the love between the followers of The Prophet and his (former) closest buddy still flaming away, are Shias allowed to pray in Mecca during Ramzan (and return alive to their home countries)?

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Jun 2014 18:45

UlanBatori wrote:Their shortening their name to become THE Islamic State, and the declaration that the Caliph of Baghdad is the only legitimate ruler in Islam, so appointed by The Prophet (pbuh) himself, should have interesting implications for the Saudi royalty's claims to be Keepers of the Holy Places. Per the ISNT, there is The Islamic State, and the The Apo-State(s), all waiting to be liberated and their mijjiles chopped off.

This is a major event; all good hands of BRF should be on deck to analyze this event for its implications on rest of the world:
- Saudi
- Middle east
- Islamic countries outside of middle east (is Mullah Omar going to be relegated to Mullah for the rest of life for no hope of being calif himself? Will he revolt or will he submit?)
- Our country (hate to bring domestic factor here but it is some relief that at this juncture we have a NAMO govt at center. What opportunity will this provide to congoons to further screwup the nation?)

It is clear that US and Israel are behind this update supporting the caliphate while the FIFA world cup diverts the attention of people at home.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 30 Jun 2014 18:59

The SU-25 is one tough airplane and the jihadis only have some manpads and heavy machine guns to counter it. That plane can get the job done. I don't know if it is an all weather night time sniper pod capable warrior, but during the daytime, it will be a holy terror. The jihadi road block nonsense should come to an abrupt halt, at least during the day. Same for the roving pickup trucks with the heavy machine gun in back. They had better find some way to hide during the day. More power to the SU-25 and cannister bomblets. The sunni jihadis have no chance to take Baghdad, BTW. The sunni caliphate is a political terrorist arrogance that may only live under constant bomb threat. Johann where are you?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Jun 2014 19:39

Satya the ISIS is exerting the war phase of the Koranic teachings. Time is up for the Hypocrites that have got used to a life of just mundane Jihad. Call is for hard Jihad as Mohammed himself lamented and called for. That is why they are also executing 'moderate' muslims in Mosul, Tikrit and their occupied areas. One may think Saudi, Iraq were hard enough Islamic states..but no clearly even AQ felt they have regressed into putting JIhad into the backburner. Just sending funds for wahabbi/ salafist schools worldwide is not a good enough pious Islamic act. One must leave a comfortable family, home and fight. So many brothers from the West have shown that path. Caliph Baghdadi himself is a PhD in Islamic Studies, so he knows his Koran, Hadis very well. They rightly reckon organized peaceful kind of Hajj and stone kissing is blasphemic. Islam is meant to hate Idol worship in the strictest sense of the term. And this 'peaceful' Hajj and stone kissing has become so ritualistic that it is negating the true aim of actively waging Jihad. This talk of Itjihad etc doesn't work when this phase of Islam which is purer is activated.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2014 19:40

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... -war-10682
"Syria and Iraq: Different Countries, Same War".

The emerging strategic reality was given pungent expression by Ayad Jamal al-Din, a liberal Iraqi cleric and politician: “The war in Syria and the war in Iraq are one and the same,” he said on June 10. “Both in Syria and in Iraq, it is a war against ISIS. The United States strives to weaken the Syrian regime, and this benefits ISIS, but in Baghdad, it supports the regime against ISIS. This is suspicious and perplexing, to tell you the truth.”