What's new

Iraq's war against IS terrorism | Updates and Discussions

Alienoz_TR said:
There is a photo with Iranian flag.

There are also many Khomeini and Khamanei posters hanging in the walls around Iraqi towns.
Click to expand...

There are some posters hung by Khamenei supporters, but Rudaw added the story of the airport being renamed.
 
Last edited:
--------


The negative role of the USA in sustaining terrorism. For year the United States instead of defeating terrorism, they pushed for an "political deal" with terrorists. In Iraq they pressured the government to become "inclusive" of terrorists to make them happy and essentially hope to stop their terrorism. This did nothing but have the government and security forces eventually flooded with terrorist and traitors for the sake of "inclusiveness". Tens of thousands of captured terrorists were eventually all released under the "national reconciliation" plan which was pushed by the US adminstration. Today the entire IS structure is built on these prisoners which were released after receiving training inside the prisons. They set up an organized chain of command, a communications system and cells in every city as terrorists from different areas met in prison before being released.

In Syria the US and its allies supported terrorism to counter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah threat to Israel. Flooding in zealots to fight the arch rivals of Israel and US imperialism.

In iraq the US refused to support the Iraqi forces against terrorism. The F-16's were never delivered although bases in the south were actually just as safe as any other country in the world. The US intends to protect the Kurds from IS while keeping prolonging the war in the rest of Iraq. Pushing iraq not to accept Iranian but at the same time not being serious about supporting Iraqi troops.

The peshmerga has coalition air support on standby 24/7. Yet no support for the PMF forces. They claim that they are "secterian iranian backed militias". Yet at the same time peshmerga has openly stated that they received arms from Iran as well. There are terrorist groups fighting alongside the peshmerga and plenty of human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing against arabs committed by the peshmerga which largely goes ignored. In Kobani the Kurds were supported by 600 coalition airstrikes before defeating IS. Thousands more on the Nineveh plains. With each advance which is essentially made possible by coalition airstrikes the Kurds were falsly praised as the "Only effective force confronting IS". While the Iraqi PMF cleared up and much more populated territory than the Kurds, without having coalition air support.

Let's not forget what "US style" liberation looks like. The Kurds earned back Kobani only with the name left. The entire city has turned into rubble. While the PMF forces are clearing cities and towns with much less effect on the building and infrastructure.

Today there is a massive media war against the Iraqi PMF as they lead the war against IS. The enemies don't like seeing the PMF win any battles therefore redirect their victories and focus on "secterian cleansing" and other foolish claims. IS kills a thousand people the media doesn't say nothing, one person killed accidently by the PMF and the Aljazeera rant continues for weeks.

The town of al Baghdadi fought for 13 hours with apaches just 20 minutes away. Yet everyone just sat and watched as the town went through genocide with nearly 150 men executed and burnt while the families had mortars raining in them with water and food supplies cut from the town.

Yet in every attack on the Kurds the coalition air support does not take an hour before arriving.

The US wants to prolong the war and is not serious about dealing with IS when it comes to Iraq. Even the anti-IS Sunni tribes in Iraq are loosing hope the US support.

However there are some good news. We have good military leaders in Iraq. Hadi al Amiri, Qais al Khazali and the leaders the PMF alliance. They are taking everything into their own hands. They have made it clear that they will not accept any US sponsored "national reconciliation" deal to forgive the terrorists like before. They have called on to stop depending on the US for supporting Iraq because it is nothing but a "mirage" to keep Iraqis stuck waiting for US assistance in order to prolong the war.

The PMF has also issued strong statements warning and threatening all sides who are trying to fight the PMF whether politically of through media. They have given up on the "soft" tone speeches.
 
Alienoz_TR said:
Do you miss good, old, peaceful Ottoman rule?
Click to expand...

Wasn't alive back than.. can't miss what I didn't experience.
Anyway let's return to real news, not Rudaw or any of that shit.

Alshawi1234 said:
A basic summary of Iraq. A copy from another forum.

This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the current situation and where the future is heading, first time I read something that is spot on and not influenced by twitterati knee jerk sensationalist bull****. Excellent piece.

Some excerpts below, I recommend reading the whole article.

Iraq’s Sunni Arabs

Any discussion of ISIL and its impact has to begin with Iraq’s Sunni Arabs, roughly one-sixth of the population. There is no sugarcoating their situation. The occupation of the Sunni regions of Iraq by ISIL is a cataclysm from which the Sunni will not recover for a generation or more.

It has become fashionable, even commonplace, to blame this sympathy for ISIL with the abuses of the Maliki government, but the root causes are far deeper. While the security forces of the last government did act harshly in Sunni areas, these actions were very much in line with the reaction of almost all non-Western governments (and some Western ones) to terrorism and insurgency.

As the scholar and analyst Fanar Haddad notes, this support for revolutionary movements was less about the rejection of the Maliki government and far more about rejection of the entire post-2003 political order, in which leaders are selected democratically, rather than chosen from among the Sunni elite. For many Sunni, the core grievance with the Baghdad government is that they are not the ones running it.

Further over-representation is often recommended by the West, but this ignores the disproportionate share of power that the Sunni already enjoy — a fact usually elided over by Western commentators but very much part of the Iraqi dialogue. In this past election, the roughly 19 to 20 percent vote share won by Sunni (and nationalist) affiliated parties has translated into 32 percent (8 of 25) of the Ministerial slots, including plum posts such as Defense, Agriculture, Education, Electricity, and Trade, plus speaker of the Parliament, a vice president, and a deputy prime minister.

Iraq's Kurds

A subtlety largely lost on the rest of the world is that the Kurds are now, de facto, establishing control in the rest of the disputed territories , often clearing Arab Sunni civilians along with ISIL, all with the help of the United States Air Force. The Kurds, who stood by and watched the ISIL invasion of Arab Iraq, now welcome international support in their own efforts against ISIL which — after some initial embarrassment over the ISIL push towards Irbil — have had impressive successes in Ninewah.

But the Kurds have also had at least four key setbacks in the past year, with — as in the rest of Iraq — the key political issues often masked by military noise.

First, it appears clear that Erdogan’s Turkey has crushed any talk of formal independence, thus the scramble to repair arrangements with Baghdad.

Third, the illusion of democracy in Kurdistan is beginning to lose its charm. Hopes that the KRG would emerge from two-family tribalism have been crushed, at least for the present.

In short, the Kurds find themselves stuck with Iraq, despite the leadership having whipped their population into an irrational (if historically understandable) frenzy about independence.

Iraq’s Shi’a Arabs

Iraq’s roughly two-thirds majority Shi’a have been the least immediately impacted by the events of last summer, though the mass attacks by car bombs have continued their murderous tempo as in past years, but they have suffered. Those few that have fallen into ISIL’s hands have been immediately executed by the apocalyptic group — a fact that gives particular urgency to the Shi’a, even if they are largely protected by their geography. Last June’s execution of 1700 Shi’a military cadets by ISIL fighters — aided by, in some reports, local tribes with Ba’ath party ties — remains a very salient rallying cry in Iraqi politics , even if largely forgotten by the West. The impressive ISIL offensives of last June never truly threatened Shi’a core communities, so their losses are largely those of the “martyrs” of the security forces and militias (though these are sufficient to keep a steady drumbeat of burials in Najaf cemetery), as they push the fight north and west towards Mosul and Anbar. Nonetheless, being confronted by a force explicitly dedicated to sectarian genocide does focus the mind, and this attack against Iraqi Shi’a is seen as being in continuity with other such acts both in time (e.g., the Wahhabi sacking of the Iraqi holy city of Karbala in 1802) and space (e.g., the governmental oppression of Bahraini and Saudi Shi’a, and the murderous campaign against the Shi’a of Pakistan).

There has been a great and frequent concern expressed over the role of the Shi’a militias (or volunteers), some of it justified, some of it overstated, reflecting entrenched Washington biases in the region. But we should remain relatively unconcerned about the militias in a military sense for at least three reasons.

Third, we have every indication that the militias intend — upon completion of their fight with ISIL — to either return home or be regularized by the central government in some way. The government needs volunteers at the moment, but seems intent on restoring the government monopoly on force at the earliest opportunity — with no objection from the militias themselves. This is, after all, what happened after 2008, albeit with Maliki’s spring 2008 attack on the Sadrists accelerating the trend.

This does not mean that there should not be concern about the militias, simply that concerns of a military nature are overly weighted. Again, the real concerns should be political — specifically electoral. Iraq will have elections again in early 2017 and 2018

Iraq turns to Iran not because they love them (in fact, the opposite is true, for the most part), but because they are there and they always will be, at least next door. Among the Shi’a of southern Iraq, people are quick to note that ISIL invaded Mosul in June, but U.S. airstrikes did not begin until August (correlated with, if perhaps not caused by, the ISIL threat to Irbil), while the Iranians were there with advisors and weapons virtually the next day, a response they replicated for the Kurds two months later.


The negative role of the USA in sustaining terrorism. For year the United States instead of defeating terrorism, they pushed for an "political deal" with terrorists. In Iraq they pressured the government to become "inclusive" of terrorists to make them happy and essentially hope to stop their terrorism. This did nothing but have the government and security forces eventually flooded with terrorist and traitors for the sake of "inclusiveness". Tens of thousands of captured terrorists were eventually all released under the "national reconciliation" plan which was pushed by the US adminstration. Today the entire IS structure is built on these prisoners which were released after receiving training inside the prisons. They set up an organized chain of command, a communications system and cells in every city as terrorists from different areas met in prison before being released.

In Syria the US and its allies supported terrorism to counter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah threat to Israel. Flooding in zealots to fight the arch rivals of Israel and US imperialism.

In iraq the US refused to support the Iraqi forces against terrorism. The F-16's were never delivered although bases in the south were actually just as safe as any other country in the world. The US intends to protect the Kurds from IS while keeping prolonging the war in the rest of Iraq. Pushing iraq not to accept Iranian but at the same time not being serious about supporting Iraqi troops.

The peshmerga has coalition air support on standby 24/7. Yet no support for the PMF forces. They claim that they are "secterian iranian backed militias". Yet at the same time peshmerga has openly stated that they received arms from Iran as well. There are terrorist groups fighting alongside the peshmerga and plenty of human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing against arabs committed by the peshmerga which largely goes ignored. In Kobani the Kurds were supported by 600 coalition airstrikes before defeating IS. Thousands more on the Nineveh plains. With each advance which is essentially made possible by coalition airstrikes the Kurds were falsly praised as the "Only effective force confronting IS". While the Iraqi PMF cleared up and much more populated territory than the Kurds, without having coalition air support.

Let's not forget what "US style" liberation looks like. The Kurds earned back Kobani only with the name left. The entire city has turned into rubble. While the PMF forces are clearing cities and towns with much less effect on the building and infrastructure.

Today there is a massive media war against the Iraqi PMF as they lead the war against IS. The enemies don't like seeing the PMF win any battles therefore redirect their victories and focus on "secterian cleansing" and other foolish claims. IS kills a thousand people the media doesn't say nothing, one person killed accidently by the PMF and the Aljazeera rant continues for weeks.

The town of al Baghdadi fought for 13 hours with apaches just 20 minutes away. Yet everyone just sat and watched as the town went through genocide with nearly 150 men executed and burnt while the families had mortars raining in them with water and food supplies cut from the town.

Yet in every attack on the Kurds the coalition air support does not take an hour before arriving.

The US wants to prolong the war and is not serious about dealing with IS when it comes to Iraq. Even the anti-IS Sunni tribes in Iraq are loosing hope the US support.

However there are some good news. We have good military leaders in Iraq. Hadi al Amiri, Qais al Khazali and the leaders the PMF alliance. They are taking everything into their own hands. They have made it clear that they will not accept any US sponsored "national reconciliation" deal to forgive the terrorists like before. They have called on to stop depending on the US for supporting Iraq because it is nothing but a "mirage" to keep Iraqis stuck waiting for US assistance in order to prolong the war.

The PMF has also issued strong statements warning and threatening all sides who are trying to fight the PMF whether politically of through media. They have given up on the "soft" tone speeches.
Click to expand...


Some proper article with accurate data, what is the link btw ?

@Mosamania if you want an actual explanation of the situation you should read this posts.
 
@Alshawi1234

Those articles are related, their only other option and the option they seem to have chosen is to strengthen the IA ( government forces ).

Riyadh-talks-seek-stronger-Iraqi-army

Shiite militias mixed blessing in Iraq, Syria - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East


WASHINGTON — A plethora of new and old Shiite militias is dominating battlefields in Iraq and Syria, US experts say, raising concerns about growing Iranian influence that could exacerbate sectarian divisions and ultimately weaken the fight against the group that calls itself the Islamic State (IS).

The growth of these groups — known as popular mobilization units — poses a conundrum for the Obama administration and the coalition of about 60 countries it is leading against IS. For the time being, Iran-backed groups are providing most of the “boots on the ground” that are pushing back IS forces from key areas near Baghdad, including Diyala province. These militias are also preventing IS from overrunning even more territory in Syria. But there are disturbing reports of massacres of Sunni civilian populations by Shiite fighters, some of whom have killed Americans in the past.

At his confirmation hearing Feb. 4, Ashton Carter, the nominee to replace Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, went so far as to equate Iran and IS as the biggest threats to US national security, in part because of spreading Iranian influence in Iraq. "I have concerns about the sectarian nature of Iran’s activities in Iraq,” Carter explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The United States must continue to make clear to the Iraqi government that Iran’s approach in Iraq undermines the needed political inclusion for all Iraqi communities, which is required to ultimately defeat [IS]," he said.

US room for maneuvering may be limited, however.

Iran-backed militias have played a pivotal role in Iraq since the US invasion overthrew the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. His removal facilitated the return of thousands of Iran-trained Shiite fighters. They included members of the Badr Brigades, which was created in Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War as the military arm of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of post-Saddam Iraq’s main political parties. The leader of what is now called the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri, is Iraq’s minister of transportation and has been spotted among militiamen in recent battles as has the head of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani.

“How can we control Iran’s influence in Iraq considering that the parties in control of the Baghdad government are Shiite parties?” Alireza Nader, a Middle East analyst at Rand, told Al-Monitor. “The Iraqi government is so vulnerable at this point that it has little choice but to turn to Iran which, unlike the US, has people on the frontlines [in Iraq] taking casualties.”

In the aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow, Iran made overtures to the United States for a broad-based dialogue but was spurned. Iran began organizing new militias, known as “special groups,” such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the League of the Righteous, which attacked US forces. When the United States ended its combat mission in Iraq in 2009, militia leaders who had been jailed or blacklisted were freed and rehabilitated and some are now prominent in the fight against IS.

Among them is Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, leader of the group Kataib Hezbollah, which is on the US State Department’s terrorism list.

Even US experts on Iraq who are critical of Iran’s role concede that the militias are providing an essential service while efforts continue to reconstitute the Iraqi army and to organize national guard forces that can fight more effectively in Sunni areas, such as Mosul. The Iraqi Cabinet has agreed to the creation of a national guard but the parliament — dominated by Shiites and ethnic Kurds — has yet to approve.

As US forces pound IS from the air, however, concerns are increasingly being expressed in Washington, as well as among Sunni Arab members of the anti-IS coalition, that Iran will be the ultimate beneficiary. For some critics, these concerns are compounded by the prospect of a nuclear deal between the United States and Iran.

“What if we defeat [IS] but lose Iraq in the process?” asked Michael Knights, a leading US expert on the Iraqi military. Referring to what he called “a Hezbollization of the Iraqi security sector,” Knights told an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Feb. 6 that this was a “Yalta moment” similar to the 1945 conference in Crimea where the United States acquiesced to Soviet control of post-war Eastern Europe.

The United States needs to step up its security cooperation with the Baghdad government and “outperform the Iranians” to prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian satellite, Knights suggested. That will require “a visionary decade-spanning relationship” with the Iraqi government, he said, that will include a larger US military presence.

Phillip Smyth, an expert on Shiite militias, sketched an even bleaker and more complicated picture of the situation in Syria, where scores of new groups have emerged in the past year and a half to fight on the side of the Iran-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad.

While attention has focused on the high number of foreign fighters flocking to Syria to join IS and other Sunni jihadist groups, “one of the largest foreign fighters’ contingent is Shia,” Smyth said. Most of the fighters are members of Lebanon’s Hezbollah or of Iraqi militias but he said there are also recruits coming from as far as India, Afghanistan and Africa — many of them answering ads on social media. Smyth said these foreign Shiite fighters numbered in the “tens of thousands” and that more than a thousand may have already died in the war.

US officials contacted by Al-Monitor said they had no figures for Shiite foreign fighters in Syria. Foreigners estimated to have joined the Sunni side are about 20,000, larger than the number that joined the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Many of the Shiite groups in Syria associate themselves with the defense of the Damascus shrine of Sayyida Zeinab, a granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad and sister of Hussein, whose martyrdom in the seventh century was a defining event in the schism between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam. However, Smyth said the defense of the shrine was a cover for more extensive activities in Syria.

“They have secured the rule of Bashar al-Assad and constructed a new Golan front” on the border between Syria and Israel, Smyth said. Last month, Israel bombed and killed a contingent of Hezbollah fighters in Syria that included an Iranian general and Hezbollah retaliated with a missile strike that killed two Israeli soldiers in a disputed area on the border of Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

Some analysts say that fears of a new “Shiite crescent” running from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut (with a side trip to Sanaa in Yemen where Iran-backed Houthi rebels have recently seized control) are exaggerated.

Iran has significant internal economic problems, and popular support for what is viewed as “Arab” causes is minimal, while many of the foreign Shiite groups have their own agendas and grievances, which they would pursue even without Iranian help.

Still there is no doubt that IS and other Sunni jihadist groups — which reject Shiites as apostates — have stirred up pan-Shiite feeling in countries with substantial Shiite populations, just as the US replacement of Saddam by a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad fueled the rise of IS’ precursor, al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“It’s not new and we’ve seen it in Lebanon and Syria before,” said P.J. Dermer, a former US Army colonel with long service in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Given Iran’s proximity to the battlefields and long ties with Arab Shiite populations, “we’re going to have a tough time” trying to reduce its influence, Dermer said.
 
Alshawi1234 said:
Your comment is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

Why? Perhaps I should begin.

Iran uses Hezbollah, Lebanese Arabs.
Iran uses Assadists, Syrian Arabs.
Iran uses Sadrists, Malikis, Abadists, Iraqi Arabs.
Iran uses Hamas, Palestinian Arabs.
Iran uses Houthis, Yemenese Arabs.

IRAQIS WORRY THEY WON'T BE READY FOR MOSUL OPERATION
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With the military operation to retake Iraq's second largest city from Islamic State militants just a few months away, questions persist about whether the struggling Iraqi military will be ready for the fight.

Iraqi officials continue to insist they haven't gotten the advanced weapons they need for the operation in the northern city of Mosul, and some question whether they will be ready for a spring offensive. But the Pentagon insists the U.S. has sent tens of thousands of weapons and ammunition and more is in the pipeline.

Hakim al-Zamili, the head of the security and defense committee in the Iraqi parliament, told The Associated Press Friday that "any operation would be fruitless" unless the brigades are properly prepared and have the weapons they need.

"I think if these weapons are not made available soon, the military assault might wait beyond spring," he said. "The Americans might have their own calculations and estimations, but we as Iraqis have our own opinion. We are fighting and moving on the ground, so we have better vision and April might be too soon."

A U.S. Central Command official provided some details of the battle plan Thursday, saying the coordinated military mission to retake Mosul will likely begin in April or May and will involve up to 25,000 Iraqi troops. They have cautioned, however, that if the Iraqis aren't ready, the timing could be delayed.

The core of the fighting force will be five of Iraq's most accomplished brigades, who will go through additional U.S. training before the operation.

But al-Zamili said that while several of Iraq's units have gone through training recently, "these well-trained brigades cannot get involved in battles without being equipped with advanced and effective weapons that would enable them to penetrate enemy lines."

His comment reflects a common complaint from the Iraqi government, both in recent months and throughout much of the Iraq war. The U.S., however, has sent tens of thousands of weapons, ammunition, body armor and other equipment to the country.

According to a senior defense official, the U.S. sent nearly 1,600 Hellfire missiles to Iraq last year, and has already delivered 232 more. About 10,000 M-16 assault rifles are due to arrive in the next few weeks, along with 23,000 ammunition magazines. The U.S. also has delivered thousands of rockets, mortar rounds, tank rounds, .50-caliber rounds and 10,000 M-68 combat optical sights, a rifle scope commonly used by the U.S. military.

About 250 mine-resistant, armor-protected vehicles will be delivered in a few weeks, along with sophisticated radio systems for the MRAPs and more ammunition rounds, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The public discussion of the operation, including how many Iraqi brigades would be involved and how Kurdish Peshmerga military would be used, triggered questions about whether it provided any key information to the enemy.

The Pentagon doesn't often disclose as much about an operation before it takes place, but in some cases it can be a strategic tactic intended to affect the enemy, trigger a reaction or even prompt some militants to flee before the assault begins. Military officials also said none of the information released by U.S. Central Command could be put to any operational use by the Islamic State militants.

The operation itself comes as no surprise to the Islamic State group. Iraqi leaders have for months made it publicly clear that they were planning an operation to retake Mosul and that they were eager to get started. In addition, U.S. officials had already acknowledged they were beginning preparations for the Mosul mission, including using airstrikes to shut down supply lines the insurgents were using to get equipment or people in and out of the city.

Discussion about the operation also could give a public boost to the Iraqi forces, underscoring how committed they are to the mission. And it appeared to at least temporarily stifle what had been persistent criticism of the Iraq situation, including suggestions that the Islamic State had been gaining ground and momentum.

Islamic State militants overtook Mosul last June, as the group marched across large sections of Iraq and Syria, sending Iraqi forces fleeing. The military, plagued by corruption, low morale and insufficient training and equipment, has made little progress in regaining its footing since.

At this point, officials estimate there are between 1,000 to 2,000 Islamic State insurgents in Mosul.

News from The Associated Press
 
Alienoz_TR said:
Why? Perhaps I should begin.

Iran uses Hezbollah, Lebanese Arabs.
Iran uses Assadists, Syrian Arabs.
Iran uses Sadrists, Malikis, Abadists, Iraqi Arabs.
Iran uses Hamas, Palestinian Arabs.
Iran uses Houthis, Yemenese Arabs.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "Maliki's" or "abadists", moqadatas militia isn't even operating against IS right now. The PMF mobilized on orders from Sistani and Iran offered a hand. Iraq has to fight IS either way with or without Iran. If anything I could easily say the complete opposite. Iraq uses Iran to fight IS.

The Houthis are ziadis who's influence who Yemen existed long before the current iranian region. It goes back to hundreds of years.

The Lebanese Shia were uneducated poor peasants with no right for education or high rankings positions. Iran helped them become the strongest party in Lebanon and force Israel out of their country. who wouldn't accept such assistance?
Asad and the SSA are fighting for their country. Turkey, the gulf, and the west have all allied in order to break the Iran, syria, Hezbollah alliance to remove any possible threat towards Israel.


IS kills egyption Sunnis, IS killed Lybian Sunnis, Alqaeda kills Yemeni Sunni, Somalian al shabak kills Somalian Sunnis. Iran didn't have to do with any of that.

Iran has a clear strategy. They use peaceful means to exhort their influence. They build schools, hospitals, libraries and infrastructure to spread their ideology. They avoid any political, religious, or military confrontation with any side. However Sunni states use terrorists to counter peaceful means, forcing the other side to retaliate.

You see the logic. Attacking a group and blaming them for fighting back... That is flawed logic. You don't hit someone and except him to stay quite. To be honest any other country which has experienced as much terrorism as the Shias of Iraq did, they would have completely cleansed the other side. Even in the so called democratic and liberal countries if Europe would have reacted in a worse manner than the Shia of Iraq did. During WW2 all the Japanese in North America were put in concentration camps to avoid possible sabotage and infiltration. While we Iraqis had to accept thousands of terrorists for the sake of national reconciliation.
 
1000 said:
Wasn't alive back than.. can't miss what I didn't experience.
Anyway let's return to real news, not Rudaw or any of that shit.




Some proper article with accurate data, what is the link btw ?

@Mosamania if you want an actual explanation of the situation you should read this posts.
Click to expand...

If you believe this stuff to be an "Actual Explanation" I am extremely disappointed in you. The heroic Shia militias there to save the day from the evil control freaks of Sunni Arabs of Iraq. If this doesn't scream biased I don't know what does.
 
1000 said:
You know I can't blame people like this, many recruits fooled into ISIS mostly poor locals. Hardcore ISIS members are usually foreigners. The latter usually get killed, the first get captured often.
Click to expand...
The Taliban also have a habit of enlisting children or women to do suicide bombings. Their mentality is evil and twisted.
 

Similar threads

N
China releases videos showing evidence of terror attacks
Replies
0
Views
759
narcon
N
H
Saudi Arabia’s approach to terrorism, hypocritical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fukuoka
Fukuoka
Sher Malang
The Battle for Iraq Is a Saudi War on Iran
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Euphrates_Lion
Euphrates_Lion
Falcon29
Why the Russian-Iranian front is winning and everyone else is losing
2 3
Replies
35
Views
3K
DRaisinHerald
DRaisinHerald
I
Indian media and propaganda terrorism against Bangladesh
2 3 4
Replies
53
Views
5K
khair_ctg
khair_ctg

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom