Jihadists fighting in Syria, Iraq declare 'caliphate'

This news makes me want to vomit. I really hope the western powers and all civilized muslim countries join forces to wipe these "people" out.

.

OssanAmericaJUN. 30, 2014 - 08:53AM JST This news makes me want to vomit. I really hope the western powers and all civilized muslim countries join forces to wipe these "people" out.

Don't think Muslim countries will except Iran for selfish interests. As time marches on seems like the Western powers will do nothing. I say cut off the supply chain and destroy the confiscated vehicles and equipment now.

A Caliphate, based on fear at the point of a gun? How long will that last?

MarkG, quote: "Don't think Muslim countries will except Iran for selfish interests." What does this mean?

As time marches on seems like the Western powers will do nothing.

Which is exactly what they should do. Leave this den of vipers to itself. For too long the west has meddled in the middle east, and it has never come to anything good, and regularly come to bad.

Here's a thought. Why not just let them have their "caliphate"? Most of it is a godforsaken sh+thole anyway. 95% desert with little oil and not much else. and then, if we must intervene, do so to support the Kurds and Shiites as they come to terms with this new "caliphate".

Wakarimasen, sure, but then neighboring countries have to feed hundreds of thousands of refugee people who didn't want the caliphate placed right on top of them...

So much for the weapons of mass destruction.

Over 10 years later, and nothing but this mess.

At least Saddam kept things in check.

if we must intervene, do so to support the Kurds and Shiites as they come to terms with this new "caliphate".

Anytime one group is supported by the west, they are supporting a religious division. This is a huge mistake. The West should exit the middle east entirely, and let them sort out their own mess (or more likely, not sort it out and just devolve into constant warring).

At least Saddam kept things in check.

I agree, and I'd go so far as to say that Saddam (or someone like him) is necessary to keep things in check in the region. These people only understand a strong hand that keeps them in check. Saddam was harsh, but the country was at peace under his regime.

I tend to disagree, no one misses Saddam, many of the Iraqi Christians and Jews that I grew met and know that fled that country and resided in California have a completely different image of Saddam and having been there myself, it is NOT what you guys might think. Sooner or later Saddam or his murderous sons would have been overthrown, so regardless it doesn't matter. Once again, would've, could've, should've, can't go back to the past, it makes for a very weak argument. It's irrelevant and we have a much bigger problem on our hands, the ME in large part, the west secondly.

@oldman

give it a rest buddy, you keep repeating yourself. We know, the intel from the international community was faulty, mistakes were made, get it off your chest. Ok, so let's come back to the present. Now what to do? I'm more worried that these guys will in doubt establish a caliphate and that is very, very bad for all of us.

Drones...squadrons of them. Only semi joking..

'Now what to do? I'm more worried that these guys will in doubt establish a caliphate and that is very, very bad for all of us.'

Bass, you spend most of your time blaming this on Obama's weakness while telling others to stop blaming Bush. You also love the 'would've, could've, should've'. You used it in the preceding sentence to that quote. You still seem to be selling the neocon line and hate 'weakness'. 'Now what to do?'. You tell us. Strength? I do you the favour of not still believing that intervention in this part of the world will do any good.

Maybe this public announcement of the Caliphate will finally jell western analysts understanding of the agenda ISIS is pursuing. ISIS does not want Baghdad which has become a cellar of despair. They have merely been employing a military strategic feint (terror campaign) south before launching a north westerly assault into Syria up the Euphrates towards Al Tabqah on the way to Aleppo Vilayet. The treasures they want (and are willing to die for) are fresh water and eventual control over a Mediterranean seaport (not the oil fields in Iraq which they could neither maintain nor monetize). Success and notoriety gained in this current campaign will draw in more insurgents via Baghdad (and elsewhere) who will be keen to head north to join in eventually overwhelming assaults on Assad's armies (or simply unite with ISIS rather than pursuing (western sponsored) assaults independently in the case of certain militants already in the field). Caliphate control of this territory means a return to the pre-1924 era tribal balkanization and an end to a political map of strait edged lines devised by Cartesian minds from the west. Any Western military engagement at this point will only add to the suffering of the regional inhabitants. Already fear of staying in areas which might be targets for reprisals by Maliki forces is driving people to abandon everything and relocate their lives further north. The recent U.S. proposals to provide another half a billion in military aid to Syrian rebels at this point is madness.

Saddam was harsh, but the country was at peace under his regime.

Yeah, only 1 million+ casualties in his eight-year war with Iran. It doesn't get more peaceful than that.

At least Saddam kept things in check

This statement is totally outrageous. Kept in check? Genocide and mass murder are keeping things in check? By that logic Hitler was doing a good job.

Yeah, only 1 million+ casualties in his eight-year war with Iran. It doesn't get more peaceful than that.

That's how war works. You realize he was in power for many years after the war, right?

This statement is totally outrageous. Kept in check? Genocide and mass murder are keeping things in check? By that logic Hitler was doing a good job.

Not outrageous at all. If you compare the country under his rule to the country now, the place was a paradise when he ruled.

I'm not saying he was a good guy - he was a dictator and a harsh guy. But he kept things in line, and there is no one doing that now.

Are there any white guys thousands of miles away that we can blame for this?

There is nothing bad about this. The people of the region are fighting to build a state where they can live the way they want under a government of their choosing. Not a puppet regime loyal only to the west. Iraq is an artificial nation created from western intervention. It's time is over. The west needs to stay out and let things play out naturally.

".....and all civilized muslim countries"

Which ones would those be?

My preference too would be to leave the entire dump to its own devices but that is not likely to happen with all our Western leaders who always want to "do something". note currently Obama is sending money to Syrian opposition - says he will fund anti -ISIS groups. What a joke!

I think we all know Saddam was a maniac and all, but agree that life for the average Iraqi was probabaly better under his (later) rule - after he got a bloody nose in Iran and then Kuwait.

although since the lid was ripped off not sure even the Arab stronman will ever be able to exercise the same degree of control as Saddam once did - look at Egypt and Syria and more to follow.

you spend most of your time blaming this on Obama's weakness while telling others to stop blaming Bush.

I said, it doesn't help blaming bush because he's NOT president anymore, when you guys did it the first year, fine! The second, ok, but the third and following... Obama, OBAMA is president, Pelosi bragged about his foreign policy is great. So far, I'm still waiting to see some greatness or some ideas or solutions, since he made this mess trying to exit in a hurry.

You also love the 'would've, could've, should've'. You used it in the preceding sentence to that quote. You still seem to be selling the neocon line and hate 'weakness'. 'Now what to do?'. You tell us. Strength?

Yes, and wisdom, which he has neither. If HE did, he wouldn't constantly make excuses like you libs always do, when it comes to Obama, for if he had both, he would follow his generals and he would've followed through with hiscRED LINE promise or are you saying the Sainted one knows more than they do?

I do you the favour of not still believing that intervention in this part of the world will do any good.

Sitting back on the porch widdling away won't help much either.

@darknuts

Lol riiight....

Oldman13:

" Over 10 years later, and nothing but this mess. At least Saddam kept things in check. "

Well, yes. So, can you explain to us why Obama wants to repeat the same thing in Syria by replacing the Assad, who "keeps things in check", with a Sunni Jihadist regime? If Obama succeeds, the new Caliphate will extend from Baghdad to the Mediterranean.

The European and the American, providing weapons to the same groups, when they are fighting in Syria and they are pious there, but. when they cross the border and start the same stuff in Iraq they become evils. so it depends against whom they are fighting.

In the 80s, Europeans and the Americans, gathered all the terrorists groups from all over the world and set training camps on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the purpose was to fight against the Russia, they used to call the very similar talibaan and Alqaeda groups Mujadeen ,the pious, even the American imposed Dictator in Pakistan to carry the orders. some of the European universities used to publish books on Jahad for the said training camps.and now the same groups turn their Guns on their own creators.

The lesson is never support and create armed groups or private militias

when they cross the border and start the same stuff in Iraq they become evils. so it depends against whom they are fighting.

I pretty sure that the rebels Obama wanted to support is a very different group than the one that is Mad Maxing in Iraq. There are many different rebel groups fighting Assad.

Marx was right about one thing, religion is the opiate of the masses.

FizzBit:

" I pretty sure that the rebels Obama wanted to support is a very different group than the one that is Mad Maxing in Iraq. "

You can be "pretty sure", and Obama might "want a lot of things", but to to believe that somehow there is a firewall between Sunni jihadist factions is wishfull thinking. You can bet that whatever weapons he sends to the Sunni jihadis in Iraq will end up with ISIS. How does on "vet rebels" anyway? Ask them if they are wonderful democrats? Of course in the interview their representatives say whatever gets them the deliveries. Stop dreaming!

Willib,

I was just stating a fact. No opinion. Not sure what you think I'm dreaming about.

And I don't even know what this means:

How does on "vet rebels" anyway?