[Closed] ISIS -Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

They have been pretty selective in Iraq-only going for Sunni areas where they can at least count on less resistance.

Baghdad is a different proposition all together and they may not be able to hold it even if they initially have some success there.

Iran for one won't let Baghdad fall - it is hugely important to them that they have a Shiite neighbour in Iraq to keep Saudi Arabia's power in check.

It is going to be a mess for some time though and it is likely to have security implications to the West but these people have been around for a while and are more interested in gaining territory locally.

Am i correct to assume than a large number of these mercenaries have come from this country and other European nations to fight in Syria? If so at some point they will return and aim to create chaos from within

Iran for one won't let Baghdad fall

I had wondered what their motivations were: helping the Shiites, or gaining some territory to get themselves closer to Israel. Maybe a bit of both?
Maybe this is also why the Americans (and us) -who lets face it partially created this mess by getting rid of Saddam- are seeming a bit cold on the idea of helping out.

EDIT: Not that Saddam was an angel, but he seemed to keep all the neighbours under control.

George W Bush. What a guy. What a plan.

rossi46
Am i correct to assume than a large number of these mercenaries have come from this country and other European nations to fight in Syria?

Although led by an Iraqi I believe that ISIS is mostly comprised of foreigners, many being Russians. And they're not "mercenaries".

EDIT : Perhaps Russian involvement in ISIS shouldn't be over emphasised, most ISIS fighters come from Arab countries, out of those that don't, many come from Russia/the former SU. I suspect British numbers are very small indeed.

George W Bush. What a guy. What a plan.

He had a plan??? 😆

You know that you're through the looking glass when Iran and the States are on the same side. Neither wanting to see Bahgdad fall. Ironically both are rendered powerless by their constant previous meddling in Iraq's affairs

America has seemed powerless for a while now- Mr Putin has made them look weak recently aswell. And i suspect China also will have a pop at them soon 😉

you realise that if someone took gwb and tb out there and beheaded them it would all calm down

I'll do it! 🙂

(maybe get chewkw to do it actually thinking about it... I've got to put the kids to bed)

Well it is precisely because there is zero chance of that happening that they were so enthusiastic about going to war.

War is much more attractive when it's other people, and other people's children, who are going to die, and not you or your children.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29 ]Chickenhawks[/url] sums it up nicely.

Handily, as ever [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq ]Wikipedia[/url] will tell you all you need to know about the history of this group.

And don't forget we in the West armed them when Mr Assad was the enemy in Syria 🙄

Well it is precisely because there is zero chance of that happening that they were so enthusiastic about going to war.

That and the profits, both from the weapons industry and the resources plundered...

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if these 'islamic extremists' were funded and trained (whether they themselves realize it or not) by western intelligence services as a means of furthering the demonization of the Muslim faith and as a pretext for returning troops to the area to apply further pressure to Iran and by proxy, Russia and China.

Of course, there is the possibility that they could be Russian Assets, attempting to further their powerbase in the area, but I would imagine Russia would not have an interest in creating such a high profile anti islamic sentiment.

binners - Member
You know that you're through the looking glass when Iran and the States are on the same side. Neither wanting to see Bahgdad fall. Ironically both are rendered powerless by their constant previous meddling in Iraq's affairs

soobalias - Member
you realise that if someone took gwb and tb out there and beheaded them it would all calm down

...nobody had taken a pop at the bastard

Well UK taxpayers are paying £6million a year to protect him.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6874145/Tony-Blair-costs-British-taxpayers-6m-a-year-to-protect.html ]Tony Blair costs British taxpayers £6m a year to protect[/url]

yunki - Member

I'll do it!

(maybe get chewkw to do it actually thinking about it... I've got to put the kids to bed)

I will make two of them snog each other passionately ... 😆

When ISIS get near the big oil fields America will pile in.

What do you think Mosul is then ?

I'll give it 6 months before the CIA start funding Al Qaeda to fight ISIS

Well it would require a name change so that people could forget who they were. Like when we decided to stop calling the Mujahideen in Afghanistan the Mujahideen and call them Al Qaeda instead, so that people wouldn't remember that we armed, trained, and financed, Osama bin Laden and his followers.

Perhaps we can go back to calling them the Mujahideen ?

I'll give it 6 months before the CIA start funding Al Qaeda to fight ISIS

Doubtless after funding ISIS in the first place, with assistance from MI6 and Mossad

all good though; guns give people jobs; war is good for the economy

One things for certain, hundreds of "British" jihadists are about to get on the job training. Just how many will eventually return to the UK to spread their goodwill is anyone's guess.

Mujahideen

AKA ISIS

Perhaps we can go back to calling them the Mujahideen ?

[img] [/img]

Kin attention seekers.

Imagine naming your political party / army after a crap bottom bracket / chainset standard....

Muppets.

@chluke- they haven't. It is more properly ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) but the Merkans wouldn't have understood that.

Actually it's the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Levant is a very western word.

Just out of interest, are they allowed to use the ISIS word? I thought Shimano had that trademarked?

And today Tony Bliar has that "What's going on here" look slapped all over his Chevy Chase.
"Weren't me Guv" he insists.

😆

Got to agree with jivehoneyjive, in so far as western foreign policy towards the Islamic states and/ or states adjacent to the Suez seems to have changed from outright subjugation towards support of hardcore Islamic groups who place religious concerns way above the national interests of these countries.

seems like the west wants to render any Islamic state as chaotic as possible, divide and conquer, keep them distracted from their objective interests.

I just saw the photos of the massacre that is all over the news- scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany and DR Congo a few years ago.
Horrific.
I guess it's been happening in Syria these past couple of years that it's perhaps become acceptable to these jihadists. Even Al Qaeda disowned them.
Barbaric animals.

Bugger, I posted in the other thread...

1/3 of the 9/11 casualties, will be interesting to see how folk react.

Nothing there about 9/11 Squirrel??
Is it the correct link?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2 ]guardian article[/url]

It soon became clear that in less than three years, Isis had grown from a ragtag band of extremists to perhaps the most cash-rich and capable terror group in the world.

Armed by us and the US and funded by Saudi Arabia - i think they could well do some damage for years to come.
Oh the Irony

So the UK government has now decided that ISIS should be banned as a terrorist organisation and that membership and support for them should be a criminal offence.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/16/isis-syrian-terrorist-groups-banned-britain-iraq ]Isis terror group to be banned in Britain[/url]

Funny how ISIS has for years been operating in Syria taking large swathes of the country and committing horrifying atrocities and yet it wasn't classed as an illegal terrorist organisation and membership and support for it wasn't a criminal offence.

But now that they are causing trouble for that nasty sectarian and corrupt western-backed government in Baghdad, and are doing exactly the same things in Iraq as they have been in Syria, they suddenly become unacceptable terrorists and supporting them becomes a criminal offence.

[i]Home Office officials said that the move was triggered by the jihadist organisation's actions in Syria but developments in Iraq had underlined the need to ban the group in Britain.[/i]

Yeh right......"triggered by the jihadist organisation's actions in Syria" which has been going on for years - not since last week. In fact they have been fairly quiet in Syria since they've been focusing on Iraq. So it clearly wasn't "triggered" by actions in Syria. That's just another blatant Tony Blair type lie.

[i]Security minister James Brokenshire said: "We condemn all acts of terrorism committed in Syria"[/i]

Well I can't say that I can recall the UK government condemning acts of terrorism committed by the "rebels" fighting the Syrian government. These condemnations must have been very low key. By their own admission they didn't even class them as terrorists until this week.

Perhaps now they will put pressure on Tony Blair's very special friends, the dictators in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to stop supplying weapons to these newly discovered terrorists ?

Interesting read, this: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/16/sorry_george_w_bush_but_this_whole_mess_is_still_your_fault/
It calls for the impeachment of George Dubbya, and I was reading an op-ed today that said it wouldn't be impossible for Parliament to impeach Blair, as well. Very rare, last done in 1809, IIRC, but if the political will was there...
I admit to finding the idea of Blair and Bush being effectively on trial simultaneously highly appealing.

Nothing there about 9/11 Squirrel??
Is it the correct link?

No, I was referring to 1000 claimed dead vs ~3000 on 9/11

I've been wondering how an irregular force of what? 10,000? Or less probably, has been able to rout the US trained and equipped Iraqi army.
globalfirepower.com says they've got 271,000 front line troops and the tanks and guns to go with it. They must be a special kind of completely effing useless unless there is a bigger plan going on.

I've been wondering how an irregular force of what? 10,000? Or less probably, has been able to rout the US trained and equipped Iraqi army

Ironic isn't it that the UK has re-opened it's embassy in Tehran. The West must be very worried now that Iraq will descend in to full civil war and the Iranians will feel empowered by having an anti-western state as their neighbour.

It never ceases to amaze me, the complete lack of understanding of the situation out there, this time thanks to a total screw up President who favoured Shi-ite over Sunni, what did he think would happen?

We here in the UK are so deep into the reason for the mess throughout the entire region dating back to both World Wars, badly drawn borders after the first, establishing Israel after the 2nd, establishing the Shah of Iran and countless other smaller examples of imperial meddling including the recent Blair Bush Oil Agenda driven incursion and the drive by in Libya.

Now with a Liberal in the White house and a Political eunuch in No 10, Russia making them both look like wimps, it's hardly surprising local forces have taken over the baton. 'They' understand one thing and one thing only, strong forceful action, it's medieval over there and only medieval tactics work, the whole region is tribal, they have blood feuds dating back years, 'democracy' as we understand it would never function, heck we've been screwing up since the original Crusades, thinking that by cosying up to Iran it'll sort itself out is so naive as to be criminal. Shi-ites are the minority, they are a troublesome minority at that, it's bad enough we fall out with Islam, but to now attempt to take sides between the warring factions and to pick the wrong side is stupidity. It's not just Saudi that's Sunni, ****stan is Sunni, pretty much the entire Islamic world is Sunni which was why they were happy enough for Iran to be the fall guy, this latest turn of events is not going to end well, in fact it may even be the start of something much much worse, not good news at all.

I see Tony Blair's middle east peace envoy role is going well. I reckon he could really make a difference if he went to Iraq personally and asked them all to calm down a bit, i that will do it.

Well the next bonus we'll be getting is the city boys amping up the news of Oil issues to drive up prices if they haven't already done so.

I think the Russians are being quite restrained in not standing up and saying "Why the * do you think we were arming Assad? Who the * did you think these 'freedom fighters' were he was involved in a civil war with, you ****-wits?!!"

Once again Putin shows that his ex-KGB brain is considerably better at reading international situations, and that his policies are far more effective than the Wests indecisive and ineffectual (not to mention expensive) meddling. No bloody wonder he gets 80% approval ratings at home, compared the contempt we view the idiots we're lumbered with (such as Blair) and their bloody stupid policies

@ross - oil prices jumped some days ago as a result of this. Most oil traders are not in the city, they are sat in companies around the world who need and use oil so buy more when events like this occur.

Also I suspect this action doesn't come as a surprise to the US or UK military or governments. It was fairly predictable at some stage and I am sure they had the intelligence briefings with various scenarios. there is a view that having your two enemies fighting each other is not a bad thing.

rossi46 - Member
Next stop Baghdad- but then where after that?

us, their going to attack us, the PM said so, I think we better bomb them first.......

The people in that regime, as well as trying to take territory, are also planning to attack us here at home in the United Kingdom.

I hope he's got some sort of secret service dossier to back up thee claims

They've got WMD's apparently. They could probably deploy them in 45 minutes

[img] [/img]

the whole region is tribal, they have blood feuds dating back [s]years[/s] centuries

At least this time the brainwashing media picked the catchy and easily remembered ISIS than the Al-Keyaydeur we had so much trouble learning to pronounce. Why the name even sounds like the archetypal enemy in a strategy shoot'em up...

Funny how ISIS has for years been operating in Syria taking large swathes of the country and committing horrifying atrocities

I think the Russians are being quite restrained in not standing up and saying "Why the * do you think we were arming Assad? Who the * did you think these 'freedom fighters' were he was involved in a civil war with, you *-wits?!!"

I was about to ask why the hell did the Western world label Assad as a lunatic genocidal leader and arm the "resistance". What a total F up!

+1 ernest and binners.

I like this: http://www.cityam.com/1403210711/forget-neocons-how-lawrence-arabia-can-help-save-iraq-chaos

Apparently there are over 300 British nationals who have joined ISIS. Is that 300 KNOWN or are M16 just giving a rough guesstimation 😐

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10917357/The-brilliant-brothers-who-left-British-suburb-for-jihad-in-Syria.html ]Bristol Jihadis[/url]

That's 300 potential terrorist atrocities than could happen on British soil. Worse is that they have openly admitted that they can't keep track of them!
And that's just those who are or have been to Syria and Iraq- what about all the nutters lurking on our streets who are 'under the radar' ?

To be honest it's a bloody concern at the very least 😯

Apparently there are over 300 British nationals who have joined ISIS. Is that 300 KNOWN or are M16 just giving a rough guesstimation

No one outside ISIS can know any accurate details about its membership. How many of its fighters are British nationals is pure speculation - they don't offer their membership lists for perusal.

Total membership estimates of ISIS vary from as much as 10,000 to, according to a former Saudi intelligence officer, no more than 3,000. I believe that they do release details of the nationalities of their "martyred dead" which offers the best indication of their makeup with regard to nationalities, most are Arab. I'm not sure if ISIS has announced the death of more than one Brit, I don't think they have.

I feel fairly sure however that the huge publicity they have been receiving recently, much of it focusing on their stunning victories, will massively help their recruiting drive, British TV has even broadcast bits of their recruiting videos.

That's 300 potential terrorist atrocities than could happen on British soil. Worse is that they have openly admitted that they can't keep track of them!
And that's just those who are or have been to Syria and Iraq- what about all the nutters lurking on our streets who are 'under the radar' ?

To be honest it's a bloody concern at the very least

Calm down, despite all the scare tactics by successive governments terrorism in the UK remains an extremely small problem. At least wait until there is some evidence that this is no longer the case before panicking.

In the meantime focus on problems which have a far greater impact on us than terrorism, such as type 2 diabetes, lorries turning left, and cancer.

Talk of "nutters lurking on our streets" just plays into the hands of warmongering governments.

There's a difference between joining a paramilitary organisation in a faroff land to fight there in what you see as a just cause, and suddenly becoming a domestic terrorist. I had family who ran away from home to join the international brigades, they didn't all come home and blow up a school.

Firstly, ISIS is:

Well trained
Well equipped
Strategically aware
Building in numbers but most importantly finance
Also building a propoganda machine (see front covers of papers about british jihadi's

All of the above point to a bigger regional play. This is all about oil and control and Israel.

Iraq is sandwiched between two of the most powerful players (and enemies in the middle east) Iran and Saudia Arabia. One is shia and generally hates the western world (iran) and one is Sunni and gets a regular booti call from the US (Saudi). Iraq is a failed state and the only way to now control its vast oil fields is to divide the nation.

Saudi's with the US and Israel may look at ISIS and think 'Iraq is a problem state, the only way to control is to break it up'. ISIS will do that for them, control the middle of the country, annoy Iran and the Saudi's with the US control the south with the puppet government.

In all of this, many people / children will die / become orphans and another humanitarian disaster. Sad 🙁

Looking back on history after the World Wars, this cycle just seems to repeat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/hes_behind_you

I think it's time the West called it quits on messing about in other peoples countries and focused on the real issues that affect the futures of [b]all our children[/b]:

[b]
Did you know that despite the swift decline of bees, you are still more likely to be killed by a bee than by a terrorist; given that much of our food depends upon bees, the future of the planet as it stands is none too pretty; all the oil in the world won't fix that[/b]

The good news is, change is happening

I don't think ISIS are particularly well trained and equipped. They might have seized a lot of equipment recently but it's not that that's brought them success, their main adversary in Iraq the Iraqi army is far better equipped - the US government having spent over $20billion training and equipping it.

And whilst ISIS undoubtedly has experienced fighters in its ranks I doubt that a 20year old medical student from Cardiff is better trained or suited to war than an Iraqi who has experienced armed conflict throughout his life, be it full war or just daily NATO bombings during the implementation of the No Fly Zone.

I guess there is this assumption that ISIS must be a remarkable fighting machine because of their recent spectacular successes, but that's probably misreading the situation.

I was wrong to previously refer to ISIS's "stunning victories", that's misleading - they haven't had any stunning "victories" they've had stunning "successes", for example when they took Iraq's second city, Mosul, without a fight.

So how does ISIS do it ? Well it would appear to me in a simular way to how the Taliban swept to power in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is not a complete misnomer, many of the Taliban fighters that eventually took Kabul were young, inexperienced, and of student age and demeanor, they did surprisingly little fighting under the circumstances.

The single most important tactic the Taliban had was to form alliances with warlords. A warlord switching sides could add vast areas under Taliban control without the need for any actual fighting.

Secondly they brought both an end to fighting and they brought order in areas which came under their control, the yearning for peace and stability at almost any price from war weary people should not be underestimated.

And thirdly they were brutal to those who opposed them, staging public executions and leaving the bodies on display so that everyone could see and know what to expect.

ISIS tactics appear to be rather simular, they have forged alliances with people ideological quite different to themselves. They relish in displaying just how brutal and merciless they are by posting videos of their atrocities, and leaving decapitated or crucified bodies in the streets for children to gorp at and their enemies to ponder over.

They also bring an end to fighting/violence and restore order which is welcomed by the local population. For example although it is hardly reported in the western press car bombings, many of them carried out by ISIS, are a regular occurrence in Baghdad - almost daily, if ISIS takes control of Baghdad their bombing campaign will cease.

And finally ISIS are greatly helped by the fact that the US backed (up until now) Iraqi prime minister is corrupt, power hungry, sectarian, bigoted, and despised by many Iraqis, and the Iraqi army is both demoralised and seen as the tool of the PM.

One is shia and generally hates the western world (iran) and one is Sunni and gets a regular booti call from the US (Saudi). Iraq is a failed state and the only way to now control its vast oil fields is to divide the nation.

To portray the Shias in Iran as enemies of the West while the Sunni in Saudi Arabia as the West's friends is misleading imo.

Firstly the people of Iran have very good reasons not to trust the West - it was the West which organised the overthrow of an elected Iranian government, the West then went on to support to the hilt a brutal and hated dictatorship.

When this hated Western-backed dictatorship was eventually overthrown the US responded by supporting and encouraging their friend and client, Saddam Hussein, to attack the new Islamic Republic. This Western backed war resulted in the loss of well over half a million Iranian lives.

US support for Saddam Hussein during this war ranged from supplying him with some of the most advanced military hardware available, to supplying him with the chemical weapons to use against the Iranians.

Despite decades of hostile acts by the West against Iran, Iran, and Shia Muslims generally, have never carried out reciprocal hostile acts against the West. In contrast a small minority of Sunnis, often Saudis, have for years engaged in hostile acts against the West.

The West has fought Saudi dominated Sunnis in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost all those involved in 9/11 were Saudis, none were Iranian. The killers of Lee Rigby were Sunni, and so on. To claim therefore that Iranian Shias hate the West but that Saudi Sunnis don't is misleading imo.

And I don't believe that the West wants to see the breakup of Iraq, not least because of the problems an independent Kurdistan would cause Turkey a staunch/pivotal NATO member in the region.

So according to the news, the artist formally known as ISIS (or as they would now like to be known- The Islamic State) have a 5 year plan- and it's [url= http://www.****/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html?ito=social-facebook ]World Domination![/url] 😐

Or at least to 'take back a bit of Europe'.

Sooooooooooooo- good luck with that 😆

Considering they are fighting against the combined might of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and the good ole USA, I can't help but wonder who helped finance their PR campaign...

but I could make some educated guesses 😉

wonder who helped finance their PR campaign

good ole USA

Well them and i'd guess Saudi Arabia.

Considering they are fighting against the combined might of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and the good ole USA, I can't help but wonder who helped finance their PR campaign...

The US and the former colonial powers of the region have subcontracted support for the jihadists fighting in Syria to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, 3 countries which despise and won't tolerate Western style democracy.

Out of the 3 Kuwait probably has the greatest involvement in supporting the jihadists in Syria.

Isis gains in Iraq are an unintended consequence of Western foreign policy. The history of neo-colonism and Western foreign policy is the history of unintended consequences.

Well here is the man of the moment (well in Iraq at least)

Its a war cry allright, i wonder if the CIA are feeling pleased with their latest project 😉

Well here is the man of the moment (well in Iraq at least)

You mean al-Baghdadi ? Well I think you'll find that al-Baghdadi reckons it's no longer Iraq but now the "State of the Islamic Caliphate", and he's the Caliph. That al-Baghdadi is one bad daddy. igmc

2014 marks the 100th aniversary of (modern) British miltary involvement in Iraq I don't think you can put all the blame on Bush and Blair. I gues the question is "what would have happened if we hadn't done anything?" and "Can we feasibly get away without doing / try to do anything for the time being?"

I gues the question is "what would have happened if we hadn't done anything?"

Bush and Blair were absolutely adamant that if we 'hadn't done anything' Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party would have remained in power.

That's why it was apparently necessary to send an invasion force of over a quarter of a million and spend eight years fighting at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and $2 trillion.

Are you doubting that Bush and Blair's involvement in Iraq had any significant effect on the course of Iraqi history ?

Or are you suggesting that Al-Qaeda were poised to seize power in Iraq anyway ?

If you want to know how someone as insignificant as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became a major player in Iraq today you have to go back to the speech Colin Powell made at the UN in 2003.

Colin Powell effectively took a man who no one had ever heard of, and who was sheltering in the Western imposed No-Fly Zone to put himself beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's forces, and instantly made him an internationally known figure throughout the world

Overnight as a consequence funds and volunteers from across the world poured in the direction of al-Baghdadi, he's never looked back since. Another unintended consequence of failed Western strategy.

If you want to know how someone as insignificant as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became a major player in Iraq today you have to go back to the speech Colin Powell made at the UN in 2003.

Colin Powell effectively took a man who no one had ever heard of, and who was sheltering in the Western imposed No-Fly Zone to put himself beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's forces, and instantly made him an internationally known figure throughout the world

Overnight as a consequence funds and volunteers from across the world poured in the direction of al-Baghdadi, he's never looked back since. Another unintended consequence of failed Western strategy.

Sorry ignore the above ^^ as it's incorrect. I'm referring Colin Powell's reference to al Zarqawi the founder of ISIS in his 2003 UN speech. Al Zarqawi was eventually killed by the US and al-Baghdadi took over ISIS in his place.

I had a good night last night and I'm not thinking straight 🙂 😳

. I gues the question is "what would have happened if we hadn't done anything?" and "Can we feasibly get away without doing / try to do anything for the time being?"

In answer to the first question: not much, there were no WMDs and Israel would have looked after itself.

To the second question: Yes, so long as they are cut off from arms supplies.

Are you doubting that Bush and Blair's involvement in Iraq had any significant effect on the course of Iraqi history ?

No - just they were very far from the first people in their position to meddle with Iraq, just some of the most blantant and arguably unsuccessful.

they were very far from the first people in their position to meddle with Iraq

Well no, the Romans were messing about with Mesopotamia 2,000 years ago. But I think most people would agree that what we have today in Iraq has more to do with what the US led invasion force did 10 years ago than what the Romans did 2,000 years ago.

Obviously George Bush and Tony Blair and their supporters would have liked to have taken all the credit for the situation in Iraq today, had everything gone according "to plan", but as it's turned out to be a complete **** up they now want to pass the buck and blame just about anyone but themselves.

So well done for reminding everyone that the disastrous situation in Iraq is not all Bush and Blair's fault when it so clearly is.

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2666213/Blair-growing-pressure-stand-Middle-East-peace-envoy-diplomats-demand-removal.html ]Tony Blair is still stirring up the region in the name of all of us in Europe.[/url]

Edit to add non DM [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/23/tony-blair-middle-east-envoy-quartet-sacked ]Link[/url]

Just wondering, now that it's all kicked off again in Israel- how long before ISIS and Hamas join forces to kick Israels arse?
Those Hamas rockets seem to be getting more and more range, do you suppose they are being armed with the weapons our governments gave to the Syrian rebels?
Oooooh, the irony if that were true 😯

Wonder how much of this is true?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html ]US Allies Saudi Arabia behind ISIS[/url]

Just wondering, now that it's all kicked off again in Israel- how long before ISIS and Hamas join forces to kick Israels arse?

ISIS is fighting a fractured and mostly unprofessional army in Iraq.

In Syria they are facing a determined and regular army with limited resources.

If ISIS took on Israel do you think it'd amount to much? I wonder how quickly Saudi Arabia would collapse.

The IDF would firmly 'kick' ISIS into the weeds. (if you want to talk about it in very basic terms).

Look what a very young Israel did to Egypt in 67? Attack and out maneuver at speed from air and land.

There seems to be a lot of 'leftwing' hate for Israel on STW.

On all sides Israel is faced with people who aren't exactly friends. In the middle east/Arab world the only thing that is respected is brute force/attack. Democracy doesn't exist in their mindset. So how should Israel act against such foes?

There seems to be a lot of[s] 'leftwing' hate for Israel[/s] concern for disproportionate levels of violence, heavy civilian casualties, and the use of collective punishment on STW.

FTFY

If ISIS even toy with the idea of crossing the Jordanian border the Israeli Air Force will erase them from the planet in no time at all. They will be well aware of this