Iraq. Is it better now?? (AKA ISIS/ISIL/IS/name-of-the-week-here) (32 Viewers)

[Fred]

The sad thing is that many Shi'aa in Iraq acknowledge that nothing went right under Maliki's regime and many stood against him which is even more sad because many of those innocents paid the price because they are Shi'aa.


Abed, I don't want to sound like I am defending my Shi'aa roots because you already know what I think of Hezbollah but I haven't seen you condemn (Or maybe I missed it) the Sunni militia groups when they have killed Shi'aa over the years. Crimes/massacre now are everywhere I agree with you, one is proudly filmed and recorded while other is being done under the table but lets be fair and recognize that one is killing and defending on what they think behalf of Sett Zainab shrines and others are doing it under Prophet Mohammad slogans.

I come from very Shi'aat minded place, the mentality is close to the Iraqi's Sadr and Iranian mentality, these radicals you know see them have always supported the Sunni's of Palestine and you know that very well (Hezbollah's ideology has always been to free Palestine since day one when the party was first formed which was under Khomeini). Whereas on the other side the radical Sunni's (not as many as today obviously) always had the ideology of persecuting Shi'aa but not as bloody as today.

I am not taking sides here, but in-case what you are reporting is true then it doesn't shock me.

That is true, definitely. I personally know lots of Shiite who were completely against Maliki. The point I was trying to make to Hoori was that denying the sectarian bias of the Maliki regime, will not allow you to understand how initially several sunni tribes actually fought alongside the ISIS troops, obviously I believe that decision was shortsighted, but at the time, those sunni's were thinking that Maliki left them no choice.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

You think you are objective but indeed you are not.

You make IS acts look like the most horrible crimes that had been conducted in the history while you intentionally ignore the acts by Shia militias, and you claim after that I'm an IS sympathizer while you are an objective person!

You said above:


How did you know it is far from reality? Is it because of your Shia roots? I posted for you a link from Reuters mentioning that members of Iraqi parliament said that Shia militias have killed those civilians, but you choose to ignore all of that because "it is far from reality view". Sorry, Hoori, but if you think you're objective about this issue, then you are wrong. You defend militias just because of your original sect, and your hatred for IS is just because of that. Don't try to hide behind the "humanitarian" mask to mention the acts of IS while closing your eyes when the crimes of Shias are mentioned, and even denying them without looking at the credibility of sources confirming them.

seriously "Reuters was unable to independently verify these claims due to the security situation in the area"

on the other hand, ISIS fucks cant wait to get on camera to brag about their retarded ideology and the acts it engenders


who in your opinion is ideologically islam's biggest enemy currently?

 

[king Ale]

You think you are objective but indeed you are not.

You make IS acts look like the most horrible crimes that had been conducted in the history while you intentionally ignore the acts by Shia militias, and you claim after that I'm an IS sympathizer while you are an objective person!

You said above:


How did you know it is far from reality? Is it because of your Shia roots? I posted for you a link from Reuters mentioning that members of Iraqi parliament said that Shia militias have killed those civilians, but you choose to ignore all of that because "it is far from reality view". Sorry, Hoori, but if you think you're objective about this issue, then you are wrong. You defend militias just because of your original sect, and your hatred for IS is just because of that. Don't try to hide behind the "humanitarian" mask to mention the acts of IS while closing your eyes when the crimes of Shias are mentioned, and even denying them without looking at the credibility of sources confirming them.

I didn't ignore anything (you edited your post and added the link later and I couldn't be arsed to address that because it didn't have to do with what I was trying to say). As I said, the Shi'a-Sunni bit was only a side note to the general point i was trying to get across. My opinion about you is an objective one because it's based on your record here. You think Daesh came to existence because of humiliation of Sunnis by Shias and you think it will never die as an ideology because people (sunnis) are given no other choice (except for lining up next to Daesh) and you know what, I'm not surprised one bit because I have been reading you for almost a decade now. You love being looked at as a victim, deliberately selecting when to believe what the media report and when to dismiss it (you are the victim after all). Your logic finds a way even to understand/justify a bunch of animals such as Daesh.

"As if" they have committed the most horrible crimes in the history? I don't remember I ever ranked them but unlike you I don't measure the dreadfulness of a crime by the people who were wronged.

I'm not an ISIS sympathiser whatsoever, and I sincerely hope they are obliterated, they are nothing but a cancer, and one of the biggest dangers we have in the region if not the biggest is those radical groups. I would honestly much prefer our dictators than be ruled by the likes of those groups, and you know how much I hate the Geddaffi's, Bashar's and Mubarak's of this world.

That being said; you cannot deny the reality of the sectarian tensions in Iraq. Do you know that several sunni Iraqi tribes fought alongside ISIS in the start of this war? At the time I personally thought it was a mistake, because in Libya for example we allowed them to be a part of the revolution and now they're one of the biggest reasons Libya is being destroyed, but from their perspective at the time, they felt extremely persecuted by the Maliki regime and the Shia militia's controlling the country at the time. So to deny the reality of the sectarian tensions in Iraq is dangerous imo, because if you don't acknowledge the problem, you'd never understand why and how ISIS got to where they are right now in the first place.

Daesh is the offspring of instability in the whole region. Their advances (very well funded and supported by the usual suspects in the middle east) were catalyzed by Maliki's divisive policies in a country prone to the hugest sectarian conflicts but I do fail to understand the link between emergence of Daesh and Iraqi government's treatment of Sunnis at that time (because then you and Abed will have to find a reason to justify the existence of Boko Haram as an ideology also).

 

[Fred]

I didn't ignore anything (you edited your post and added the link later and I couldn't be arsed to address that because it didn't have to do with what I was trying to say). As I said, the Shi'a-Sunni bit was only a side note to the general point i was trying to get across. My opinion about you is an objective one because it's based on your record here. You think Daesh came to existence because of humiliation of Sunnis by Shias and you think it will never die as an ideology because people (sunnis) are given no other choice (except for lining up next to Daesh) and you know what, I'm not surprised one bit because I have been reading you for almost a decade now. You love being looked at as a victim, deliberately selecting when to believe what the media report and when to dismiss it (you are the victim after all). Your logic finds a way even to understand/justify a bunch of animals such as Daesh.

"As if" they have committed the most horrible crimes in the history? I don't remember I ever ranked them but unlike you I don't measure the dreadfulness of a crime by the people who were wronged.




Daesh is the offspring of instability in the whole region. Their advances (very well funded and supported by the usual suspects in the middle east) were catalyzed by Maliki's divisive policies in a country prone to the hugest sectarian conflicts but I do fail to understand the link between emergence of Daesh and Iraqi government's treatment of Sunnis at that time (because then you and Abed will have to find a reason to justify the existence of Boko Haram as an ideology also).

Did you read any of what I said? I don't justify Daesh's existence at all, I think they are worst than Maliki, I think they are worse than the dictators we have, I'd much rather go back to the Gedaffi days than be ruled by those fanatics. So lets just get that out of the way.

Daesh is a product of the instability in the region = yes we agree on that
Daesh is funded and well supported by the usual suspects in the middle east = yes we agree on that
Daesh is a cancer in the middle east that must be eradicated = yes we agree on that too

How did Daesh get into Iraq and succeed in gaining so much ground? Because several sunni tribes along with former Baathists fought alongside them, or supported them, or helped them, or welcomed them in some form or the other. The question is: why did they do that? what made them support Daesh? The answer is in the extreme marginilization they felt from the Maliki regime.

A similar situation albeit a lot less extreme happened in Libya, among the rebel ranks were extremists of every kind, some of them were part of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 2000's, how and why were the Libyans so accepting of them? Because at the time it seemed like there couldn't be a greater evil than Gedaffi, not even the extremists. I believe there was a similar feeling amongst sunni's when Daesh first came into the picture a few months ago, with regards to Daesh and the Maliki regime.
I don't condone that in any way, and I think they will find that as terrible as the Maliki regime was, it will most probably be worse for them under Daesh.

What I am trying to get across is a description of the reasons Daesh gained as much support as they did amongst the sunni's at the start of the conflict, not justifying it in any way, I'm trying to be descriptive here. I'm saying you that you're completely wrong in dismissing the effect of the sectarian tensions, because the reality is that they played a huge role in why many Iraqi's did support Daesh in some way or another, at least at the start of the conflict.

 

[king Ale]

Did you read any of what I said? I don't justify Daesh's existence at all, I think they are worst than Maliki, I think they are worse than the dictators we have, I'd much rather go back to the Gedaffi days than be ruled by those fanatics. So lets just get that out of the way.

Daesh is a product of the instability in the region = yes we agree on that
Daesh is funded and well supported by the usual suspects in the middle east = yes we agree on that
Daesh is a cancer in the middle east that must be eradicated = yes we agree on that too

How did Daesh get into Iraq and succeed in gaining so much ground? Because several sunni tribes along with former Baathists fought alongside them, or supported them, or helped them, or welcomed them in some form or the other. The question is: why did they do that? what made them support Daesh? The answer is in the extreme marginilization they felt from the Maliki regime.

A similar situation albeit a lot less extreme happened in Libya, among the rebel ranks were extremists of every kind, some of them were part of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 2000's, how and why were the Libyans so accepting of them? Because at the time it seemed like there couldn't be a greater evil than Gedaffi, not even the extremists. I believe there was a similar feeling amongst sunni's when Daesh first came into the picture a few months ago, with regards to Daesh and the Maliki regime.
I don't condone that in any way, and I think they will find that as terrible as the Maliki regime was, it will most probably be worse for them under Daesh.

What I am trying to get across is a description of the reasons Daesh gained as much support as they did amongst the sunni's at the start of the conflict, not justifying it in any way, I'm trying to be descriptive here. I'm saying you that you're completely wrong in dismissing the effect of the sectarian tensions, because the reality is that they played a huge role in why many Iraqi's did support Daesh in some way or another, at least at the start of the conflict.

Why? Simple. Because they are a bunch of disgusting morons (and I'm being very kind here). Years and years of marginalization of Shias by Sunnis in a Shia dominant country didn't give rise to such monsters as Daesh (and rightly so). Of course you cannot compare the authority and charisma of Maliki to those of Saddam's so here's the moral of the story from your perspective: you can be as evil as you want as long as you make sure you excel at it.

 

[ReBeL]

Years and years of marginalization of Shias by Sunnis in a Shia dominant country didn't give rise to such monsters as Daesh (and rightly so).

This is the most pathetic sentence I've read on this forum since years. Talk about your objectivity when saying that Shia criminals are nothing but angels. Read this:
http://studies.agentura.ru/centres/csrc/death.pdf

Now, who is trying to play the victim card?

 

[king Ale]

This is the most pathetic sentence I've read on this forum since years. Talk about your objectivity when saying that Shia criminals are nothing but angels. Read this:
http://studies.agentura.ru/centres/csrc/death.pdf

Now, who is trying to play the victim card?

I will not read that because nothing will refute what I said there. Shias were marginalized under Saddam (learn to read) but even that was not my point. What I was trying to say and you are conveniently ignoring is that "nothing" can justify the emergence of Daesh and the like, absolutely nothing.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

"nothing" can justify the emergence of Daesh and the like, absolutely nothing.

 

[Mohad]

Why? Simple. Because they are a bunch of disgusting morons (and I'm being very kind here). Years and years of marginalization of Shias by Sunnis in a Shia dominant country didn't give rise to such monsters as Daesh (and rightly so). Of course you cannot compare the authority and charisma of Maliki to those of Saddam's so here's the moral of the story from your perspective: you can be as evil as you want as long as you make sure you excel at it.

I'm sorry, Hoori, but didn't expect that to come from you, so unreasonable and biased. Only someone who is brainwashed and full with hate would say such thing (no offense of course). If a car hit you, you will surely blame the driver not the car, the same thing goes with Saddam's regime back then. He is the main reason of spreading such hate between the two parties, and Maliki's regime only made it much worse. Fred made a very good point, but you are still not convinced. There is a reason of "the major expansion" of Daesh.

There is no smoke without fire.

I will not read that because nothing will refute what I said there. Shias were marginalized under Saddam (learn to read) but even that was not my point. What I was trying to say and you are conveniently ignoring is that "nothing" can justify the emergence of Daesh and the like, absolutely nothing.

No one is denying that, the same goes with Shia militias.

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

 

[Bisco]

whats the point you want to bring a cross?? that secret services should chop terrorist testicles and then shove them down their throat like a sock?

i can't judge the source of this story as i haven't read the book nor does this screenshot provide the source for all this macho lvl 1000000000000.

 

[Raz]

Don't get me wrong I don't want to offend anyone, but watching muslims or people from arab/persian region talk about all this makes me thank god that I was born somehwere in europe.

The place where you were brought up does influence people a lot in their life, but you guys take this shia and sunni thing way too far.

 

[icemaη]

Don't get me wrong I don't want to offend anyone, but watching muslims or people from arab/persian region talk about all this makes me thank god that I was born somehwere in europe.

The place where you were brought up does influence people a lot in their life, but you guys take this shia and sunni thing way too far.

Too far would be an understatement. The rivalry (for lack of a better word) is on par or at times exceeding the ones we have with other religions. Shiite citizens of Bahrain, for example, are considered second class citizens and treated worse than the Indian/Pakistani expats and at times from the expats themselves. And they are the majority in terms of population. I'm guessing the same situation is present in Syria, just the other way around.

 

[Azzurri7]

 

[Fred]

Why? Simple. Because they are a bunch of disgusting morons (and I'm being very kind here). Years and years of marginalization of Shias by Sunnis in a Shia dominant country didn't give rise to such monsters as Daesh (and rightly so). Of course you cannot compare the authority and charisma of Maliki to those of Saddam's so here's the moral of the story from your perspective: you can be as evil as you want as long as you make sure you excel at it.

If I didn't know you, I'd say that you're intentionally choosing to ignore parts of my posts. How many times did I say that I wasn't condoning the sunni tribes and former baathists stance of supporting Daesh in the initial stages of this conflict? How many times did I say we made a similar mistake of accepting those radicals in the Libyan revolution and we are now paying for that mistake? How many times did I specifically say that I thought Arab dictators such as Bashar and Geddaffi and even Maliki for that matter are a much better option than being ruled by fanatics such as ISIS or their Libyan counterparts, Ansar Al Sharia? After all that how can you come up with a conclusion such as that bolded statement?

I will attempt to get my point across for one last time. Let's take it point by point.

- The Maliki regime stoked sectarian tensions - I will not go as far as saying thats a fact, but that is the predominant perception amongst sunni Iraqi's.
- Baathists and Sunni Iraqi's were feeling so persecuted that they did not mind supporting ISIS troops some way or the other, bearing in mind Baathists for example being completely the opposite of ISIS/Daesh ideologically.

- I draw parallels between the previous point, and what happened in the Libyan revolution, when liberals(in the Libyan sense at least) fought alongside radicals such as Mohamed Zahawi, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and other prominent extremists, against Muammar Gedaffi. At the time nobody saw anything wrong with that, because the idea was, nothing can be worse than the Gedaffi regime. We are paying the price for that now, with Eastern cities such as Derna becoming a hotbed for extremists from all over the Middle East, they've turned it into a Talbian era Tora Bora with their public beheadings, their persecution of women and their rejection of any kind of state institutions. We're paying the price for accepting radicals during the revolution unfortunately, and Iraq have fallen into a similar trap.

- The main point I'm trying to get across though, is that if it weren't for the Maliki regime's persecution of former Baathists and their persecution of Sunni's(or at least the perceived persecution, so that we don't get into an argument over whether or not they are persecuting sunni's). Daesh would not have got as much support as it did initially and would not have made so much ground. This is not a justification, I've made it clear so many times that I think and have always thought the Iraqi's are making a big mistake, because there is no bigger danger to the Middle East than those radical groups, but it is a description of one of the main reasons they've succeeded in making ground in Iraq.

- Therefore do not dismiss the effect of sectarian tensions in the rise of Daesh, its just being politically correct, and will get us nowhere.

I will not read that because nothing will refute what I said there. Shias were marginalized under Saddam (learn to read) but even that was not my point. What I was trying to say and you are conveniently ignoring is that "nothing" can justify the emergence of Daesh and the like, absolutely nothing.

I completely agree. Nothing justifies the emergence of Daesh, however are you not interested in the reasons they've emerged, at least so that this kind of thing does not happen again? Or would you much rather just harp on about how terrible they are and not look for the reasons that such a group had so much support at the start of the conflict?

- - - Updated - - -

Don't get me wrong I don't want to offend anyone, but watching muslims or people from arab/persian region talk about all this makes me thank god that I was born somehwere in europe.

The place where you were brought up does influence people a lot in their life, but you guys take this shia and sunni thing way too far.

No offense taken. Things like the constant conflicts between Sunni's and Shiites are a sad thing in the middle east. The product of poor education, corruption, and several other factors.

Saying you're lucky to be born in Europe is a pragmatic if slightly hurtful(from our perspective) way to look at things though

 

[Raz]

No offense taken. Things like the constant conflicts between Sunni's and Shiites are a sad thing in the middle east. The product of poor education, corruption, and several other factors.

Saying you're lucky to be born in Europe is a pragmatic if slightly hurtful(from our perspective) way to look at things though

Well I'm in no way would want to have been born in that region, anyway of saying it otherwise would be just a blatant lie. Not that I think it's a bad place, but seeing you talk about this stuff shia, sunni conflicts is just depressing. I mean from my point of view they are literally nothing and sound so retarded for people to destroy everything possible around them is just something I cannot easily imagine.

You guys that are educated and have access to so much info on the internet and a lot of you even traveled to other places and some even live in other places where there is no such thing as shia, sunni nonsense (that's how I see this ridiculous conflict) you still choose sides and think about it as one group vs. another. To me it's just depressing.

I'm not even thinking about the outside forces that are involved with status qua interests and agendas, that's a whole other sad story (though this stuff happens everywhere), but the shia sunni is like time traveling to medieval times.

 

[Fred]

Well I'm in no way would want to have been born in that region, anyway of saying it otherwise would be just a blatant lie. Not that I think it's a bad place, but seeing you talk about this stuff shia, sunni conflicts is just depressing. I mean from my point of view they are literally nothing and sound so retarded for people to destroy everything possible around them is just something I cannot easily imagine.

You guys that are educated and have access to so much info on the internet and a lot of you even traveled to other places and some even live in other places where there is no such thing as shia, sunni nonsense (that's how I see this ridiculous conflict) you still choose sides and think about it as one group vs. another. To me it's just depressing.

I'm not even thinking about the outside forces that are involved with status qua interests and agendas, that's a whole other sad story (though this stuff happens everywhere), but the shia sunni is like time traveling to medieval times.

If you're referring to me, I'm not taking sides at all, I think its very sad that such conflicts exist at a time and age such as this, very sad. But the sad reality is that those tensions exist; we have two choices; either we acknowledge the fact that it does exist and try to address that, or you can pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing about it.

The Middle East isn't all bad though. Some of the GCC countries such as the UAE and Qatar are one of the safest countries in the world, the standard of living is one of the highest in the world as well, and all in all despite being countries that are relatively young, are good places to live and work IMHO.

 

[Raz]

If you're referring to me, I'm not taking sides at all, I think its very sad that such conflicts exist at a time and age such as this, very sad. But the sad reality is that those tensions exist; we have two choices; either we acknowledge the fact that it does exist and try to address that, or you can pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing about it.

The Middle East isn't all bad though. Some of the GCC countries such as the UAE and Qatar are one of the safest countries in the world, the standard of living is one of the highest in the world as well, and all in all despite being countries that are relatively young, are good places to live and work IMHO.

No not you, but there are many people here besides you who seem like that.

About problem solving? Well imo it has to start with internal culture change, no outside forces will ever change this stuff if they are bent on keeping their same ways.

 

[Fred]

No not you, but there are many people here besides you who seem like that.

About problem solving? Well imo it has to start with internal culture change, no outside forces will ever change this stuff if they are bent on keeping their same ways.

For sure, we definitely agree on that. Unfortunately people cannot get along in this region, if it isn't sectarian conflict, its tribal, if it isn't tribal its religious, the problem is in the culture, as you said, we will always find something to fight about. This is where we should take a leaf out of Europe's book, there you have a continent that was recently embroiled in two world wars, yet they've found a way to put their differences aside and unite in many ways.

 

[Raz]

This might sound a bit stupid, but from an outsider perspective it seems the region and it's people really like war and that it's their way of life... Tribal mentality/culture imo is the biggest problem in the long run, change that and people will start to unite with time and change will happen. Change has to be from the bottom up, from foundations.

Reading rebel or turk you see that with all this blame game nothing will change no matter what will prevail in this newest conflict or the one after that.