Iraq: Eight killed by shelling on popular tourist resort in Kurdistan

[Saddam Hussein]

THen why does Iraqi army always "dissapear" away when a tough enemy shows up in Iraq? When US army first showed up, Iraqi army "dissapeared" away instead of fighting ....then later ISIS showed up, and Soleimani had to show up in Baghdad and start PMU in order to save Iraq, because the Iraqi army had "dissapeared away" again when ISIS tried to take Baghdad...but PMU sacrifice and effectiveness is what gives you the privilege to live in IRaq NOT under ISIS control and still diss PMU and Soleimani's help when your army didnt want to exist.

The same Iraqi army which made Iran suffer for 8 years, is of course hated by Iran ball lickers like you.
The Iraqi military cleared all major cities from ISIS, mainly ISOF. The PMU did not save Iraq, Soleimani certainly did not save Iraq

Iraqi army was almost non-existent in 2014, it got restructured and rebuilt.

Stay outside of our internal affairs foreigner, this is not your knowledge area.


As for the US, if the US does to any other country what it did to Iraq since 1991, they would crumble, please stfu.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

I highly doubt that if the Iranian regime keeps interfering in unstable Arab countries opportunistically (notice that they cannot interfere in any stable Arab countries - tell me what their influence/interference amounts to in Egypt, KSA, GCC states, Morocco, Algeria, Jordan etc. - the answer is zero) and continues to create/support terrorist groups, militias etc. King Abdullah of Jordan just condemned them, I saw.

There's a reason why they can intervene

They tried doing it in Afg but Taliban put a stop to it

 

[Mirzali Khan]

TSK would make mincemeat out of your shia terrorists and entire country in less than a day. Don't forget that your entire army collapse when they faced 400 ISIS terrorist.



It does not make sense that Turkey, a leader in precision strikes, would target a well-known ARAB (not even Kurdish) tourism spot with mortar shells (the explosion are definitely not 155mm artillery. This is a play by PKK to turn Arabs against Turks. The dumn Iran sponsored shia fell into the trap while the Iraqi Sunni are rightfully blaming PKK for all of this.



How can one spread chaos in Iraq. The "country" is already a complete mess thanks to your safavid friends.

Ta Pashtun yee?

 

[dBSPL]

I have one question: If Turkey is secular republic then what do sectarian accounts and sources gain from using a sectarian angle on Turkey?

Also isn't PKK a communist org? Those people don't believe in religion??

Turkiye is not the reason for the sectarian polarization in the Region, which has a history of much more than 50 years. It is a very narrow point of view to try to put the measures taken against terrorist organizations and trying to establish a presence in Turkiye's borders into this context.

The PKK is responsible for the massacre of tens of thousands of civilians and is the most important narco-terrorist organization in the region. It is officially a proxy organization of the USA. At the same time, it sits on the lap of other external forces with pragmatic relations. As long as the Iraqi army does not take responsibility to expel this terrorist organization from its borders, operations against this terrorist organization's training camps and smuggling routes will continue with the principle of eliminating the threat at the source.

This diabolical attack was NOT carried by TAF. This is a false flag operation and its main purpose is to prevent the destruction of the PKK. It is not a sectarian issue. Those who want to make this issue sectarian are actually one of the active parts of this campaign, and these are carrying other part of responsibility about dead civilians in this false-flag operation.

No Turkish state can be a party to a sectarian campaign, because it damages its origin and existence. The Turkish nation does not have sectarian unity. Half of Iraqi Turks are not Sunni. The majority of Turks in the Caucasus and Iran are not Sunni. Millions of Turks in Turkiye also come from the Bektashi tradition(core of ottomans on most times) and preserve this belief. Muslim Turks have been an important political actor in this geography since the 9th century, not only on the basis of states but also on sociological basis. Not all the states they established from the Caspian to Egypt were a Sunni nature.

The secular characteristics of the modern Turkish state are not based on making irreligion dominate, but on limiting the influence of religious authority on state policies. In fact, this is connected with historical causality that goes back to the Seljuk ruler Tugrul Bey.

The fact that the religious authority does not have the power to enforce the state administration does not mean that a nation is irreligious. But these questions you ask prove that you don't really know much about the subjects you are talking about. If you open a thread for go into more detail on these issues, I would be pleased to give you more detailed information on these issues. But first I'll have to ask you a question: Are you a sectarian? If not, Which sect do you belong to in terms of creed? ty.

 

[Corruptistan]

There's a reason why they can intervene

They tried doing it in Afg but Taliban put a stop to it

Instability/war/conflict which I wrote is the only reason and some religious affinity in places like Southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq among the Shias there. It does not help that some Shias across the world, including some Pakistani Shias, consider their leaders as demigods and follow them blindly hence the Iran worship (religious angle) which is quite funny as worshipping a nation state blindly goes against Islamic teachings.

So what is really at play here is either religious ignorance or sectarianism.

As for Afghanistan, Hazaras disagree but you are right that Taliban are overall not allowing it or tolerating it. There is a historical angle here as well.

Anyway religion is just used as a means of control in the region. Taliban themselves proclaim themselves to be an Islamic state yet much of their income is due to the opium trade despite them banning it. Many practices of Pahstunwali that Taliban follow also goes against Islam. Pashtunwali is stronger than actual Islamic principles. Take the role of women in regards to divorce, inheritance, marriage (consent) that often goes against actual Islamic principles, in favor of Pashtunwali. Not to mention concepts such as badal. We see all of that in KPK and FATA as well.

Islam is used to gain political influence/misused by Mullah's, politicians etc. in very opportunistic ways which might explain the overall sad state of the wider Muslim world. It is not a coincidence.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

But first I'll have to ask you a question: Are you a sectarian? Which sect do you belong to in terms of creed? ty.

I am a Sunni Pashtun. Ty for your response. I asked this question because of what you said here

but there was a terrible disinformation in the Pkk and Iran media without any evidence. The social media posts in question are circulated in a coordinated manner by predominantly pro-PKK and some sectarian military accounts in Iraq.

Your statement about the sectarian social media accounts. What do they gain by spreading disinfo against Turkey?

Are you implying that the pro-PKK and sectarian social media accounts are doing an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing?

I don't know much about the history of the region though.

 

[dBSPL]

I am a Sunni Pashtun. Ty for your response. I asked this question because of what you said here



Your statement about the sectarian social media accounts. What do they gain by spreading disinfo against Turkey?

Are you implying that the pro-PKK and sectarian social media accounts are doing an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing?

I don't know much about the history of the region though.

I'm not implying, I'm trying to show it directly. An evil game is being played in our region. The only way for this game to be successful is to turn Iran and Turkiye into two enemies. A large number of those from both Turkiye and Iran who are overly politicized or approach the subject with religious bigotry have fallen into this trap.

 

[Foinikas]

The secular characteristics of the modern Turkish state are not based on making irreligion dominate, but on limiting the influence of religious authority on state policies. In fact, this is connected with historical causality that goes back to the Seljuk ruler Tugrul Bey.

That was until Erdogan started making Turkey more and more "islamic" in various ways. Of course not like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar,but still...he did a lot to undo Ataturk's legacy and has a neo-Ottoman kind of approach.

 

[Corruptistan]

That was until Erdogan started making Turkey more and more "islamic" in various ways. Of course not like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar,but still...he did a lot to undo Ataturk's legacy and has a neo-Ottoman kind of approach.

Most Muslim countries are "Islamic" in the sense that much of their laws derive from/get inspiration from Islamic law (the Shariah that deals with punishments is a tiny, tiny part of Shariah law which governs most aspects of life - of course with modern additions) and principles. Even many secular (on paper) republics in both the Muslim and Arab world share this characteristic.

KSA and Qatar are monarchies with mainly Islamic laws as the backbone but many of their laws are not regulated by Islam but the only condition is that they must not contradict basic Islamic principles. In fact most laws are that, even in countries like KSA.

So you cannot compare that with religiously-ruled states such as Iran that calls itself the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and which has a religious figure ("Supreme" Leader) as its head of state and most powerful politician. It is an actual theocracy ruled by Mullah's. Similarly with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic on paper as well but we are not ruled by religious people and most of our laws are British in origin with those contradicting Islam openly not followed (adjusted).

So it makes no sense to group countries together like that just because they claim to be x or y or because most of their laws are based on Islamic laws (which goes for most Muslim nations as I wrote, secular or non-secular, republics or monarchies - on paper that is) yet the actual differences are quite substantial.

I don't know enough about the laws of Turkey but I think that they are the exception due to Ataturk and his reforms and their adoption of the French concepts of secularism but even the most radical/harsh laws in this regard were modified in the past 30 years.

Anyway there is great/incredible ignorance of outsiders (non-Muslims) when it comes to the concept of Islamic and what that entails let alone Shariah which in the West is mostly reduced to a tiny faction of it (punishment) which requires very thorough (on paper at least how it is followed is another topic) and strict conditions etc.

You cannot group countries like that together, it makes no sense.

Turkey remains a secular republic and on paper (laws) is more secular than many European Christian countries. From what I am aware of Erdogan did not change that. As for rhetorics (political) every country is doing that, why single out Turkey?

 

[Saddam Hussein]

That was until Erdogan started making Turkey more and more "islamic" in various ways. Of course not like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar,but still...he did a lot to undo Ataturk's legacy and has a neo-Ottoman kind of approach.

This is often misunderstood.

Erdogan did not Islamify Turkey, he only uses Islam for foreign policy in the Arab world. Turkey itself has a lot of Unislamic things in Istanbul.

Erdogan is an Islamist in the Arab world, but keeps Turkey secular.

 

[Foinikas]

Turkey remains a secular republic and on paper (laws) is more secular than many European Christian countries. From what I am aware of Erdogan did not change that. As for rhetorics (political) every country is doing that, why single out Turkey?

He didn't officially change it,but he changed various aspects of society,emphasizing religion and the Ottoman past,more than any other leader in recent Turkish history,that I can remember.

Bhai,Erdogan's rhetorics are causing problems in the region. That's the difference. When you're talking about "borders of heart" and "blue homeland" and "these places used to be ours",talking about everything from Greece down to Iraq,Libya and Palestine...and launching operations or provocations,well I'd say that's a dangerous rhetoric.

 

[Foinikas]

This is often misunderstood.

Erdogan did not Islamify Turkey, he only uses Islam for foreign policy in the Arab world. Turkey itself has a lot of Unislamic things in Istanbul.

Erdogan is an Islamist in the Arab world, but keeps Turkey secular.

I didn't say that he made Turkey like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan,but he did step on a lot of Kemalist principles.

He lives a rich life and his government is full of corruption,but he uses Islam to get voters.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

I didn't say that he made Turkey like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Afghanistan,but he did step on a lot of Kemalist principles.

He lives a rich life and his government is full of corruption,but he uses Islam to get voters.

he's a dictator now

 

[Corruptistan]

He didn't officially change it,but he changed various aspects of society,emphasizing religion and the Ottoman past,more than any other leader in recent Turkish history,that I can remember.

Bhai,Erdogan's rhetorics are causing problems in the region. That's the difference. When you're talking about "borders of heart" and "blue homeland" and "these places used to be ours",talking about everything from Greece down to Iraq,Libya and Palestine...and launching operations or provocations,well I'd say that's a dangerous rhetoric.

And what is wrong with emphasizing that Turkey is a majority Muslim nation with a long and proud Islamic history and tradition? None of the laws that he removed are anti-secular. I remember the removal of the stupid (in my eyes) ban of headscarfs in Turkish universities.

Normal for any nation state to talk/put emphasis on its past.

Anyway Turkey is not the one funding religious/terrorist militias in certain Arab countries that aim to weaken the central authority in those states (basically creating a second state within the state loyal to a foreign entity), that is the work of Iran so why not single out Iran instead? I know about the silly Greek-Turkish rivalry, but come, hard to take seriously.

Turkey interferes for other reasons (geopolitics which every regional power is trying to do) not religiously or motivated by sectarianism.

Turkey picked a side in the Libyan civil war, how is that different from anyone else involved? What with Palestine? Erdogan uses Palestine to rally supporters home and abroad as many leaders (if not all Muslim leaders) have done throughout history. Even non-Muslim leftists use Palestine for their political gains. No country has used Palestine more cheaply than Iran without ever firing a single rocket at Israel directly.

As I see it, Turkey is actually the biggest regional reason why KRG is not a fully independent entity today.

Anyway I am not saying that Turkey/Erdogan is a saint, nobody in the region is that, but to mention Turkey and Iran in the same sentence, when it comes to negative interference in the Arab world and support of militants/militias is a sign of a seriously laughable agenda driven attempt of spreading disinformation.

Not only that Turkey can offer FAR more positives to the Arab world than Iran can and sane Arabs know about this already.

Not only that Turkey is hosting and helping 6-7 million Arabs within Turkey itself.

There is a reason why Iran is widely hated in the Arab world while that is not the case with Turkey.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

As I see it, Turkey is actually the biggest regional reason why KRG is not a fully independent entity today.

Anyway I am not saying that Turkey/Erdogan is a saint, nobody in the region is that, but to mention Turkey and Iran in the same sentence, when it comes to negative interference in the Arab world and support of militants/militias is a sign of a seriously laughable agenda driven attempt of spreading disinformation.

Not only that Turkey can offer FAR more positives to the Arab world than Iran can and sane Arabs know about this already.

Not only that Turkey is hosting and helping 6-7 million Arabs within Turkey itself.

There is a reason why Iran is widely hated in the Arab world while that is not the case with Turkey.

Shows how you didn't do your homework.
Turkey sustained the KRG post 2003 against a Baghdad which has been hostile to Kurds. There's a reason the KRG invites Turkey to build bases on its lands, as bargaining chips against Baghdad.

Turkey was the main cause of the Syrian war that caused the millions of refugees.

Turkey is far more damaging to Arab countries than Iran, Iran's influence is barely present in Arab countries other than Iraq, and it is in Iraq as Iraqi Shias feel close to Iranians.

Iran does not try to carve any lands out of its neighbors, Turkey does, and has. What is the big problem with it? Arabs aren't waiting for Turks to come with their different language and instill their trash on them. Libya and Syria need cleaning, Iraq needs to bolster up its defense to deter their wannabe ottoman dying sultan.