Daesh leader threatens attacks in Turkey & Saudi Arabia, but not in Iran!

[GiannKall]

Yeah, he exists. There's nothing mysterious about him. He was captured by the Americans in 2004, they let him go because he was a low threat civilian at the time along with a few others who created the ISIS.

Before him was another Al Baghdadi, same name different chap. The original leader of ISIS. He as killed by the Iraqis and this new Baghdadi replaced him as the next leader.

So i assume if he is killed then we will hunt down Baghdadi the Third?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...mitted-john-kerry-it-created-isis-there-twist
But the punchline: Saudi's admission that it itself created Daesh, or ISIS. As for the twist: as the late Saudi foreign minister says, the Saudis only created ISIS in response to Obama's disastrous policy in the region.

After the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to a lightning Isis offensive in 2014, even the late Prince Saud al-Faisal, the respected Saudi foreign minister, remonstrated with John Kerry, US secretary of state, that “Daesh [Isis] is our [Sunni] response to your support for the Da’wa” — the Tehran-aligned Shia Islamist ruling party of Iraq.

I hope, for your own sanity, that you are aware of the nature of this source that you have quoted. It is an invented quote. First published on Sputnik News or Syrian State TV. Hence "very" credible.

I suggest you read post 9 in this thread.

Obviously it does not take a genius to figure out that there must have been a substantial ground support for ISIS among Iraqi Sunni Arabs and that alone should give you a lot to thing about.

Either 1, all 10 million Iraqi Sunni Arabs are ISIS terrorists (despite dominating Iraq on all fronts since its creation and being the most nationalist group and generally less religious and tribal than Shia dominated Southern Iraq) and have always ascribed to their ideology and views or 2, the current and past Iraqi regimes, especially those led by Al-Maliki (Shia Islamist parties, 100's of Shia militias etc.), did everything in their power to target the Iraqi Sunni Arab community.

Number 2 is obviously the conclusion given how virtually every political group and party dominated by Iraqi Sunni Arabs (Iraqi nationalists, secularist, former Ba'athist's, socialist, Arab nationalists, Islamists (MB and Salafis), traditional Sufis, tribal Sheihks, religious leaders etc.) support the protests back in 2012 and 2013 and way before.

And who can blame them when just 4-5 years before this happened all across Iraq:

However obviously in the Western media, where Sunnis are demonized, the focus will always be on the Sunni side and their faults and hardly ever on the faults of Shias. No matter if the latter is not any better.

Even well-known Western anti-Sunni Arabs (politically) and anti-KSA writers talk about this openly.

 

[randomradio]

The question is: Why the Iranians have the right to interfere in the region while the Saudis dont?

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim leader in a Shia majority state. After the Iraq War, the Shias came to power. And the Shias in Iraq were allied to the Iranians.

So Iraq and Iran are allies now and the US has become an unwilling ally with Iran because the Iraqi leadership follows Iranian dictate. So Iraq is basically Iran 2.0.

Of course the Saudis don't like it, so they built, trained and funded the ISIS as a buffer against Iran. And the US is allied to the Saudis also. Haha.

Pretty much everything happening there is a Shia/Sunni war.

So i assume if he is killed then we will hunt down Baghdadi the Third?

Of course, kill one and another takes his place. It's a never ending cycle.

However obviously in the Western media, where Sunnis are demonized, the focus will always be on the Sunni side and their faults and hardly ever on the faults of Shias. No matter if the latter is not any better.

The West is allied to the Sunnis. They just don't like particular groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The West consider Iran an enemy, and you know they represent the Shias.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim leader in a Shia majority state. After the Iraq War, the Shias came to power. And the Shias in Iraq were allied to the Iranians.

So Iraq and Iran are allies now and the US has become an unwilling ally with Iran because the Iraqi leadership follows Iranian dictate. So Iraq is basically Iran 2.0.

Of course the Saudis don't like it, so they built, trained and funded the ISIS as a buffer against Iran. And the US is allied to the Saudis also. Haha.

Pretty much everything happening there is a Shia/Sunni war.



Of course, kill one and another takes his place. It's a never ending cycle.



The West is allied to the Sunnis. They just don't like particular groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The West consider Iran an enemy, and you know they represent the Shias.

Saddam Hussein was as big a Sunni as Al-Assad is a Alawi (Shia). His rule was completely secular and the ideology of his regime was Ba'athism. You do not know what you are blabbering about. Secondly there were more Shia Ba'athi members and more Shias in the Iraqi army during Saddam than Sunnis. True, Saddam initiated a "religious campaign" in the 1990's after the Iraq-Iran War and Gulf War due to figuring out the treason (in his eyes) of quite a few Shia Islamist figures and parties in Southern Iraq. Obviously they were heavily punished but that is no different to how Saddam punished non-loyal Sunnis. One just has to take a look at his personal relations with his family to figure this out.

In fact Saddam punished many Sunni Islamists (mostly MB supporters) in Iraq and exiled them. Many ended up in the West, mostly other Arab countries and the UK. Similar to how Shia Islamists were exiled to Arab countries (mostly Syria), Iran and the West.

This is similar to how Saddam punished SUNNI Kurds in the 1990's due to many of them supporting Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Similar to how Iranian Kurds were punished by Iran for mostly siding with Iraq during that war. Why did the same people across the border side with two different regimes? Simply because each party promised them independence/autonomy if they supported them.

When Saddam was removed in 2003 by the US, mostly Shia Islamists living abroad took over the political scene as they were the oldest opposition groups and the ones best organized. They have dominated ever since. Similar to how the communists/socialists in Iraq were the best organized opposition groups pre-Saddam.

Similarly to how Assad Senior and Junior used to punish Alawis (and continue to do) who went against their rule. Similar to how KSA and Iran punished Sunnis and Shias who do not align themselves with the rulers policies.

Iraqi Shia Arabs were never aligned with Iran. Some where sympathetic to the "Islamic" revolution in Iran and choose to fight for Iran against their own countrymen, vast majority being Shia soldiers themselves.

As for the rest of your post, it makes little to no sense again.

Alligned to pro-Western regimes who happen to be Sunni. Which is not exactly like winning the jackpot as 90% of all Muslims worldwide happen to be Sunnis. As for Iran representing Shias, since when did they assume such a "title"? I guess only in the eyes of Wilayat al-Faqih supporters.

However it is obvious for everyone that the West is not contend with Sunni Muslims, especially Sunni Arabs, determining their own future whether it be in Syria or elsewhere in the pro-Western Arab regimes. Hence why the West supports those same regimes so much because it suits their interests.

You can fool some ignorant elsewhere with that kind of empty rhetoric.

Anyway you have posted an obvious propaganda article blaming the previous foreign minister of KSA however you are not able to post a video or even a audio confirming what is claimed in that propaganda article which should not be that hard as every public statement nowadays by such an important figure (foreign minister) is recorded either by video or audio or most commonly both. Either by media attending or even private persons. Simply because it is a lie.

 

[GiannKall]

Saddam promoted the "faith campaign" for the same reason other muslim countries did the same. Soviet Union had collapsed after losing the war in Afghanistan due to the Mujahedin so Islamism gained huge popularity in the masses. As far as i know situation in Iraq and Syria is chaotic and the claims about ISIS are dubious at least. In Mosul the people who control the city are Saddams officers

 

[warfareknow]

Nice, Isis, our beloved child, is doing all right. Muahhhahahahaha

 

[randomradio]

Saddam Hussein was as big a Sunni as Al-Assad is a Alawi (Shia). His rule was completely secular and the ideology of his regime was Ba'athism. You do not know what you are blabbering about. Secondly there were more Shia Ba'athi members and more Shias in the Iraqi army during Saddam than Sunnis. True, Saddam initiated a "religious campaign" in the 1990's after the Iraq-Iran War and Gulf War due to figuring out the treason (in his eyes) of quite a few Shia Islamist figures and parties in Southern Iraq. Obviously they were heavily punished but that is no different to how Saddam punished non-loyal Sunnis. One just has to take a look at his personal relations with his family to figure this out.

In fact Saddam punished many Sunni Islamists (mostly MB supporters) in Iraq and exiled them. Many ended up in the West, mostly other Arab countries and the UK. Similar to how Shia Islamists were exiled to Arab countries (mostly Syria), Iran and the West.

When Saddam was removed in 2003 by the US, mostly Shia Islamists living abroad took over the political scene as they were the oldest opposition groups and the ones best organized. They have dominated ever since. Similar to how the communists/socialists in Iraq were the best organized opposition groups pre-Saddam.

Similarly to how Assad Senior and Junior used to punish Alawis (and continue to do) who went against their rule. Similar to how KSA and Iran punished Sunnis and Shias who do not align themselves with the rulers policies.

Iraqi Shia Arabs were never aligned with Iran. Some where sympathetic to the "Islamic" revolution in Iran and choose to fight for Iran against their own countrymen, vast majority being Shia soldiers themselves.

As for the rest of your post, it makes little to no sense again.

Alligned to pro-Western regimes who happen to be Sunni. Which is not exactly like winning the jackpot as 90% of all Muslims worldwide happen to be Sunnis. As for Iran representing Shias, since when did they assume such a "title"? I guess only in the eyes of Wilayat al-Faqih supporters.

However it is obvious for everyone that the West is not contend with Sunni Muslims, especially Sunni Arabs, determining their own future whether it be in Syria or elsewhere in the pro-Western Arab regimes. Hence why the West supports those same regimes so much because it suits their interests.

You can fool some ignorant elsewhere with that kind of empty rhetoric.

Irrelevant. I was pointing out the demographics of the country. Saddam was a Sunni leader in a Shia majority state, and now power has transferred to the Shias because of which the Iranians are in control.

Read up on Dawa. They backed Khomeini during the Iran Revolution and are funded by Tehran. Now Iran and Iraq are allies, no different from Assad and Iranians being allies.

First, try to understand what I said, then start your dribble.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Irrelevant. I was pointing out the demographics of the country. Saddam was a Sunni leader in a Shia majority state, and now power has transferred to the Shias because of which the Iranians are in control.

Read up on Dawa. They backed Khomeini during the Iran Revolution and are funded by Tehran. Now Iran and Iraq are allies, no different from Assad and Iranians being allies.

First, try to understand what I said, then start your dribble.

Irrelevant for you maybe but not everyone else that wants to get the full picture of a very complicated issue.

Saddam was nominally a Sunni. His religion and sect played no role whatsoever throughout 80% of his almost 30 year old rule. Nor his personal life. Acting like a religious person in public is a thing that EVERY ruler in the MENA/Mu slim world has to do from time to time. You see the same from Bashar today. He started to attend Friday prayers for the first time in his life recently. You make the math.

You did not read any of my posts in this thread it seems. Too bad for you, you could have learned something.
Another thing Arab and Assyrian Christians in Iraq were heavily represented compared to their actual demographics. Many still miss the Saddam era to this day.

Power has only transferred to those Shia Islamist parties because 1, USA removed Saddam, 2 those Iraqi Shia Islamist parties being best organized and being one of the oldest opposition groups to Saddam's rule.

And 3, Southern Iraq in general being very religious overall. Recently Iraq banned the sale and consumption of alcohol to make an example and most of the law makers who pushed for this law were Iraqi Shia Arabs from the South. As well as political parties.

You are too dumb it seems. You are teaching an Arab with ancestral ties to Iraq and family living there (moreover a person who has followed Iraqi events daily for 15 plus years) about elementary subject such as the Dawa party. Stop wasting my time with nonsense and acting like a fool.

Lastly you have posted an obvious propaganda article blaming the previous foreign minister of KSA however you are not able to post a video or even a audio confirming what is claimed in that propaganda article which should not be that hard as every public statement nowadays by such an important figure (foreign minister) is recorded either by video or audio or most commonly both. Either by media attending or even private persons. Simply because it is a lie. So obviously you are not here to have a discussion.

Saddam promoted the "faith campaign" for the same reason other muslim countries did the same. Soviet Union had collapsed after losing the war in Afghanistan due to the Mujahedin so Islamism gained huge popularity in the masses. As far as i know situation in Iraq and Syria is chaotic and the claims about ISIS are dubious at least. In Mosul the people who control the city are Saddams officers

Partially true but the main reasons were the ones I described in post 20. Moreover the whole ideology that was behind his rule (Ba'athism) already lost its importance when Nasser died and after the wars in 1967 and 1973.

The "Islamic" revolution in Iran and the US-USSR proxy war (Afghanistan was its playground) also helped the rise of "Islamism".

That is why I say that without that "revolution" and without the Grand Mosque Seizure (both occurred in 1979) things would have been much better, most probably.

This region, based on my conclusions, needs strong monarchial rulers or secular rulers in order to progress until the necessary changes in the societies have occurred for them to be truly representative societies. Everything else has failed so far. You can make your own conclusions why that is.

Also Islamism today is a very politically motivated ideology that encompasses 100's of different groups and views among Sunnis and Shias. Traditionally however it was a more spiritual thing (championed by Sufis mainly in the Arab world) in the old ages. It would be a good thing if we returned to the more spiritual side instead of the political one that has failed tremendously either due to regime policies or the lack of intellect among its followers (masses).

 

[randomradio]

Irrelevant for you maybe but not everyone else that wants to get the full picture of a very complicated issue.

Saddam was nominally a Sunni. His religion and sect played no role whatsoever throughout 80% of his almost 30 year old rule. Nor his personal life. Acting like a religious person in public is a thing that EVERY ruler in the MENA/Mu slim world has to do from time to time. You see the same from Bashar today. He started to attend Friday prayers for the first time in his life recently. You make the math.

You did not read any of my posts in this thread it seems. Too bad for you, you could have learned something.
Another thing Arab and Assyrian Christians in Iraq were heavily represented compared to their actual demographics. Many still miss the Saddam era to this day.

Power has only transferred to those Shia Islamist parties because 1, USA removed Saddam, 2 those Iraqi Shia Islamist parties being best organized and being one of the oldest opposition groups to Saddam's rule.

And 3, Southern Iraq in general being very religious overall. Recently Iraq banned the sale and consumption of alcohol to make an example and most of the law makers who pushed for this law were Iraqi Shia Arabs from the South. As well as political parties.

You are too dumb it seems. You are teaching an Arab with ancestral ties to Iraq and family living there (moreover a person who has followed Iraqi events daily for 15 plus years) about elementary subject such as the Dawa party. Stop wasting my time with nonsense and acting like a fool.

Lastly you have posted an obvious propaganda article blaming the previous foreign minister of KSA however you are not able to post a video or even a audio confirming what is claimed in that propaganda article which should not be that hard as every public statement nowadays by such an important figure (foreign minister) is recorded either by video or audio or most commonly both. Either by media attending or even private persons. Simply because it is a lie. So obviously you are not here to have a discussion.



Partially true but the main reasons were the ones I described in post 20. Moreover the whole ideology that was behind his rule (Ba'athism) already lost its importance when Nasser died and after the wars in 1967 and 1973.

The "Islamic" revolution in Iran and the US-USSR proxy war (Afghanistan was its playground) also helped the rise of "Islamism".

That is why I say that without that "revolution" and without the Grand Mosque Seizure (both occurred in 1979) things would have been much better, most probably.

This region, based on my conclusions, needs strong monarchial rulers or secular rulers in order to progress until the necessary changes in the societies have occurred for them to be truly representative societies. Everything else has failed so far. You can make your own conclusions why that is.

Also Islamism today is a very politically motivated ideology that encompasses 100's of different groups and views among Sunnis and Shias. Traditionally however it was a more spiritual thing (championed by Sufis mainly in the Arab world) in the old ages. It would be a good thing if we returned to the more spiritual side instead of the political one that has failed tremendously either due to regime policies or the lack of intellect among its followers (masses).

Again, completely irrelevant.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Again, completely irrelevant.

Completley irrelevant for those oblivious to history and ground realities and for those who refuse to educate themselves or discuss the topics at hand. Irrelevant for people who ascribe to a simple worldview whenever complicated topics emerge. I did my part and I cannot help you any further or anyone else here.

 

[randomradio]

Completley irrelevant for those oblivious to history and ground realities and for those who refuse to educate themselves or discuss the topics at hand. Irrelevant for people who ascribe to a simple worldview whenever complicated topics emerge. I did my part and I cannot help you any further or anyone else here.

Read my posts again. Saddam is completely irrelevant to the discussion. My only point was after Saddam left, Iran took over, that's it. What Saddam did when he was in power is completely irrelevant. The discussion is about ISIS.

 

[GiannKall]

Izadi massacre
spicher
human slavery
child soldier
mass massacre of Kurds, Shias, Christians and Turkemans
and so on

I doubt they have done worst things compared to shia and kurds. They all have blood in their hands

 

[Serpentine]

In 2014 ISIS blitz, when they were capturing large areas Iraq and Syria, while every single country in the world, including ones mentioned in this thread were watching like a potato, it was Iran that rushed to help Iraq, sending 2 planes full of weapons to Iraq on the same night, and also sending planes full of weapons to Kurdish Peshmerga.

ISIS is the legitimate son of Saudi Arabia and the ideology they stand for, saying that Iran is allied with Daesh while Saudi Arabia actually opposes it is ought to be one of the most ridiculous jokes ever told.

It's amazing how some people aren't even smart enough to ask themselves why would Iran unleash a savage terrorist groups on its 2 closest allies in region, Iraq and Syria? Why would it send dozens of advisers to Iraq to help fight Daesh? Why would it accept casualties in fights against Daesh?

Even a simpleton would ask these questions first and foremost.

 

[Madali]

Must suck for Iranian haters that EVERYONE works for us, Syria, Russia, USA, Israel, Daesh, etc.

*flex*

 

[Fafnir]

I doubt they have done worst things compared to shia and kurds. They all have blood in their hands

Really!?,thats funny because I dont remember iran or the kurds burning prisoners alive in cages

Heres a picture of Muath Safi Yousef Al-Kasasbeh a few seconds before he was burned alive