Deadly Daesh Attack

[BLACKEAGLE]

My only point here is that it's ISIS whom are responsible for the daily bombings in the country & responsible for the Mosul story of June, neither Douri's Naqshabandi nor tribal fighters have influence, they're nothing. So far no one has shown the opposite of that.

How could few thousands armed with small and medium guns defeat an army and drive them out of 60% of Iraq? I can't chew this.

 

[1000]

How could few thousands armed with small and medium guns defeat an army and drive them out of 60% of Iraq? I can't chew this.

Cause they didn't defeat neither clash with the 30K soldiers.

I explained it here Attack on Gaza by Saudi Royal Appointment | Page 10

Ali Ghaidan, Abbud Qanbar, the Police chief and the NCO's beneath them are the ones that made it happen by giving such instructions to their troops, instructions given by the top 3 commanders who are now held accountable.

What makes you think they will just start fleeing ones the enemy comes, this has not happened in the thousands of other clashes across Iraq since 2003 other then small groups of soldiers deserting because they did not want to fight, which makes sense considering many of Iraq's recruits are coming for payroll they're no soldier material, the bad short training doesn't get them to the right level, that also explains why many soldiers don't perform well and end up captured or dead.

They simply followed commands this time. Where does the problem lie ? the commanders especially the 2 highest Ali Ghaidan and Abbud Qanbar, everything lies in their hands. They are the ones who decide what training program the soldiers get, they are the ones who can forbid religious flags and slogans from soldiers. However they didn't do any of that to create a professional military, either they don't know it and aren't interested in the military field or they simply want to collect the paycheck.

Any soldier or group of soldiers that abandon their duty or post without permission is listed as desertion. In China they sentence such people to death, in Iraq the state is too unorganized to even find them after desertion. However this was no desertion.

Anyway what would you do in their position as a soldier with the lowest ranks which are the ranks of most soldiers, go against the command to leave the area ? together with 10-15 of other soldiers who might listen to you if you're lucky while everyone else is leaving following commands ?

Open this Command_hierarchy and look at the table on the right.
In this case the Lieutenant General Ali Ghaidan abandoned the area himself, he gave the command and the other lower commanders followed it through which they should not have if they were given proper military officer education but they weren't. Now there have been some low ranking commanders who did it right against the suspicious orders from the high command however those soldiers were too few in numbers, 10-15-30 other soldiers let's assume, We saw some of them who did that, they stayed and fought but they were killed.
Those who took of their uniforms were groups of soldiers and NCO's who did not receive the command to pull out, they realized the majority retreated but it was way too late therefor they out of fear left the area trying to blend in as civillians.

Of course a lot of equipment was left behind as well, it was no tactical retreat after all but a messy and unorganized 1, if the instructions to pull out of the city were legit ( usually) no equipment would have been left behind ( tactical retreat ). However you can't have such a retreat except if there is betrayal by commanders which was the case here.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Cause they didn't defeat neither clash with the 30K soldiers.

I explained it here Attack on Gaza by Saudi Royal Appointment | Page 10

I have heard all kinds of interpretations from all sides, so I stick to what I said.

 

[1000]

I have heard all kinds of interpretations from all sides, so I stick to what I said.

I know, except there are no video's to show presence of non ISIS armed groups in Mosul. But believe what you want.

 

[Serpentine]

I don't know, I didn't dig in enough into this. But ISIS claims they have killed and captured tens of them, pictures actually show more than 10; beheaded. However, I really doubt that the number 8000 is true. ISIS were driven out of Eastern Goutah last week.

ISIS claims many things, we shouldn't believe everything they say. There were nearly 300 forces in that base. They usually behead the corpses to scare their enemies, most of them weren't beheaded alive. And about that number, only in first 3 weeks of infighting, they killed nearly 3,000 of each other, now imagine today where that figure has reached to. After 3-4 months of very heavy clashes, suicide bombings etc. I think I have heard the news of suicide bombings in Nusra-IF strongholds more than 40-50 times in past months by IS.

People of Iraq say that ISIS with their modest forces can't drive Iraqi army out of 60% of Iraqi territories alone. That's impossible. Sunnis were fed up with Maliki so they fought along with ISIS. Anyway, what do you want from us to do? Cheer for Al-Maliki, the corrupt, sectarian, traitor on the expense of oppressed Sunnah because of ISIS? Al-Maliki with all his miserable failures still has the nerve to stay in the government.

Maliki is just a person, ISIL's problem is any Shia ruling Iraq, I'm surprised that you still don't know it. If the only problem is Maliki, then why the hell did they start suicide bombings in 2005-2006 even before Maliki came to power? You see these excuses are old. Ironically, even Maliki had more number of Sunni officials in his cabinet and close circle than other Arab countries do respective to their minorities. I don't like Maliki either, but you should admit my friend, a sectarian agenda doesn't allow you to admit that Iraq is facing the same terrorism threat that your country, Egypt, Libya and others are facing. But since you don't like Shias, you can't just admit it. All the terrorism began before Maliki even came to power. I believe secretly, you don't even believe that Shias have a right to rule Iraq as a majority. Am I wrong? Answer honestly.

 

[1000]

Maliki is just a person, ISIL's problem is any Shia ruling Iraq, I'm surprised that you still don't know it. If the only problem is Maliki, then why the hell did they start suicide bombings in 2005-2006 even before Maliki came to power? You see these excuses are old. Ironically, even Maliki had more number of Sunni officials in his cabinet and close circle than other Arab countries do respective to their minorities. I don't like Maliki either, but you should admit my friend, a sectarian agenda doesn't allow you to admit that Iraq is facing the same terrorism threat that your country, Egypt, Libya and others are facing. But since you don't like Shias, you can't just admit it. All the terrorism began before Maliki even came to power. I believe secretly, you don't even believe that Shias have a right to rule Iraq as a majority. Am I wrong? Answer honestly.

ISIS spokesmen, their problem is everyone. The only benefit they have in Iraq is that gullible Sunnis like many on this forum will support ISIS in Iraq cause killing Shi'a is good says their religion.

 

[Serpentine]

ISIS spokesmen, their problem is everyone. The only benefit they have in Iraq is that gullible Sunnis like many on this forum will support ISIS in Iraq cause killing Shi'a is good says their religion.

Yes actually they are in conflict with anyone who doesn't accept them.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

ISIS claims many things, we shouldn't believe everything they say. There were nearly 300 forces in that base. They usually behead the corpses to scare their enemies, most of them weren't beheaded alive. And about that number, only in first 3 weeks of infighting, they killed nearly 3,000 of each other, now imagine today where that figure has reached to. After 3-4 months of very heavy clashes, suicide bombings etc. I think I have heard the news of suicide bombings in Nusra-IF strongholds more than 40-50 times in past months by IS.

Maliki is just a person, ISIL's problem is any Shia ruling Iraq, I'm surprised that you still don't know it. If the only problem is Maliki, then why the hell did they start suicide bombings in 2005-2006 even before Maliki came to power? You see these excuses are old. Ironically, even Maliki had more number of Sunni officials in his cabinet and close circle than other Arab countries do respective to their minorities. I don't like Maliki either, but you should admit my friend, a sectarian agenda doesn't allow you to admit that Iraq is facing the same terrorism threat that your country, Egypt, Libya and others are facing. But since you don't like Shias, you can't just admit it. All the terrorism began before Maliki even came to power. I believe secretly, you don't even believe that Shias have a right to rule Iraq as a majority. Am I wrong? Answer honestly.

Your problem is that you deliberately keep mixing between ordinary Sunnis and ISIS/Qaeda, between just demands of Sunnis and terrorism. Sunnis formed militias in the past to fight Qaeda and they suffered thousands of casualties, and as soon as Qaeda got weakened, Maliki denied Sunni demands and kept oppressing them even when they peacefully protested and killed their representatives and accused any Sunni who stood in his way of being a terrorist.

Maliki phucked up Iraq with his stupid policies, even his closest local and international allies said so.

 

[Serpentine]

Your problem is that you deliberately keep mixing between ordinary Sunnis and ISIS/Qaeda, between just demands of Sunnis and terrorism. Sunnis formed militias in the past to fight Qaeda and they suffered thousands of casualties, and as soon as Qaeda got weakened, Maliki denied Sunni demands and kept oppressing them even when they peacefully protested and killed their representatives and accused any Sunni who stood in his way of being a terrorist.

Maliki phucked up Iraq with his stupid policies, even his closest local and international allies said so.

As I said, I don't like Maliki either and I would like another person, a more capable one who can unify the country replacing him.

I don't mix ordinary Sunnis with ISIS, but you can't deny that some of them do sympathize with IS. Even if Malike is the worst person, that still doesn't justify their action. Yes Sahwa forces also fought against them, I'm not generalizing.

Maliki will most probably replace another one. But let me point out another clear hypocrisy:

When Saddam was oppressing Shias and ruling with iron fist, crushing any kind of voice against him and killing most of his opponents, all these countries and people who are 'concerned' about Sunnis' rights in Iraq, not only were dead silent, but also helping him and arming him to teeth. Why? Because it was mainly Shias who were oppressed. So dear although I understand that your concern about Sunnis in Iraq may be genuine (and yes many things should be fixed), but don't blame me for thinking that a very strong hypocrisy is involved here (not talking about you specifically, but also these Arab sheikdoms who have done nothing good for Iraqis except war and disaster).

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

As I said, I don't like Maliki either and I would like another person, a more capable one who can unify the country replacing him.

I don't mix ordinary Sunnis with ISIS, but you can't deny that some of them do sympathize with IS. Even if Malike is the worst person, that still doesn't justify their action. Yes Sahwa forces also fought against them, I'm not generalizing.

Maliki will most probably replace another one. But let me point out another clear hypocrisy:

When Saddam was oppressing Shias and ruling with iron fist, crushing any kind of voice against him and killing most of his opponents, all these countries and people who are 'concerned' about Sunnis' rights in Iraq, not only were dead silent, but also helping him and arming him to teeth. Why? Because it was mainly Shias who were oppressed. So dear although I understand that your concern about Sunnis in Iraq may be genuine (and yes many things should be fixed), but don't blame me for thinking that a very strong hypocrisy is involved here (not talking about you specifically, but also these Arab sheikdoms who have done nothing good for Iraqis except war and disaster).

Nothing is called Shia oppression in Iraq, that's just a lie. The vast majority of Baath party were Shia, many of country ruling party were Shia. Many of the high ranking people in the army or civil services were Shia. Everybody was against Saddam had to begone whether he's Shia, Sunni or Kurdish. Furthermore, Iraqi Baath is far from being sectarian, this is a well known fact.

 

[Serpentine]

Nothing is called Shia oppression in Iraq, that's just a lie. The vast majority of Baath party were Shia, many of country ruling party were Shia. Many of the high ranking people in the army or civil services were Shia. Everybody was against Saddam had to begone whether he's Shia, Sunni or Kurdish. Furthermore, Iraqi Baath is far from being sectarian, this is a well known fact.

Really? Then why only Shias rebelled against him in 1991? If they weren't feeling oppressed, they wouldn't risk their lives to challenge his rule.

And btw, if you believe it, you should also accept that Assad's secular government had nothing to do with sectarian policies, right? How come you call the Syrian 'revolution' a Sunni uprising, but when it comes to Iraq, everything was okay and fine and no sectarian policy were involved?

Iraq is a Shia majority country, so it's natural to have Shias in government or army or other sectors, that doesn't mean they weren't being oppressed.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Really? Then why only Shias rebelled against him in 1991? If they weren't feeling oppressed, they wouldn't risk their lives to challenge his rule.

And btw, if you believe it, you should also accept that Assad's secular government had nothing to do with sectarian policies, right? How come you call the Syrian 'revolution' a Sunni uprising, but when it comes to Iraq, everything was okay and fine and no sectarian policy were involved?

Iraq is a Shia majority country, so it's natural to have Shias in government or army or other sectors, that doesn't mean they weren't being oppressed.

In Syria nobody had had problem with Bashar, we didn't even know what the word Alawi means until some kids wrote on a wall in Daraa "Down Assad", because of that their fingernails were slipped off and some of them were tortured to death. Even when those kids relatives' tried to talk to authorities to get them out of prisons they told them to be thankful that their women hadn't been brought along their kids to get raped. After-then the revolution started and became bigger and the killing dramatically increased. Yet we got all the sectarian mindset Bashar and his father have had for 43 years. Everything became clear.

 

[Serpentine]

In Syria nobody had had problem with Bashar, we didn't even know what the word Alawi means until some kids wrote on a wall in Daraa "Down Assad", because of that their fingernails were slipped off and some of them were tortured to death. Even when those kids relatives' tried to talk to authorities to get them out of prisons they told them to be thankful that their women hadn't been brought along their kids to get raped. After-then the revolution started and became bigger and the killing dramatically increased. Yet we got all the sectarian mindset Bashar and his father have had for 43 years. Everything became clear.

That's exactly the case for Saddam then. When Shias revolted against him, he killed thousands of them, not only that, he used chemical weapons on Kurds too and brought the country on the verge of total collapse, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of his stupid wars. But we didn't see any kind of 'condemnation' from the very same countries and people who are bashing Iraq now before Saddam bite them in the arse by attacking them. Actually Maliki, no matter how bad he is, is far better than Saddam. About Assad, ironically, the ones who are fighting him now are far far more sectarian that Assad could ever imagine.

 

[Superboy]

How could few thousands armed with small and medium guns defeat an army and drive them out of 60% of Iraq? I can't chew this.

ISIS has way more than a few thousand fighters. ISIS lost over 2,000 fighters just fighting Nusra and IF in Syria alone. IMO, ISIS has no less than 200,000 fighters at any given time. Most of ISIS fighters are from Saudi Arabia.

 

[1000]

Mosul - guest house of al Nujaifi ( governor )
IS mainly foreigners as the Arabs can hear from the dialect ( Saudi ).

looks like Abu Waheeb in camouflage the one that killed truck drivers

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152627855977668