Skip to comments.Sunni Fighters Threaten Baghdad (Good article on situation in Iraq)
Posted on 06/22/2014 8:53:39 AM PDT by kristinn
IRBIL, Iraq A Sunni militia commander says he is ready to attack Iraq's capital and risk a sectarian war unless Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resigns.
There are military plans to enter Baghdad and save all the people from the dictator (that) will be implemented in the near future, he said.
Ahmed al-Dabbash is a founder and spokesman of the Islamic Army in Iraq, a Sunni militant group that fought U.S. forces after the 2003 invasion.
His and other Sunni forces joined the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, to capture much of the north, including Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city; last week they pressed within 60 miles of Baghdad.
That Sunni-ISIS union illustrates the incredibly complicated, always shifting alliances found here as Iraq teeters toward civil war.
It underscores the complexities U.S. officials face about how to intervene and on whose side.
Dabbash distances himself from ISIS, whose tactics and ideology are so extreme that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups have disowned it.
If someone asks me, Are you with ISIS?' I would say no, he said. I refuse their acts. But at the same time, we won't allow Shia militias to kill us steal my money, and rape my family.
Sunni militias are a mixture of former Iraqi army officers from dictator Saddam Hussein's old Baath party, tribesmen and militants, according to Dabbash and others. He insists ISIS is less than 5 percent of that revolutionary force.
ISIS's ranks hold Islamist fighters from Iraq, Syria and other countries, including the West.
Dabbash said Sunni leaders also have an understanding with the Kurds, non-Arab Iraqis who have a semi-autonomous northern enclave.
Many Kurds do oppose the Maliki government but are wary of Sunni Baathists, too, having suffered at their hands under Saddam. Nevertheless,...
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
The solution is simple. Invite all the Sunni and Shiite militants to fight for control of Iraq on a single battlefield. Wait for one to be the victor, then drop a nuke. I doubt too many civilians will complain.
So after all our work, all our effort, all our dead, all our debate - its still a sectarian, ethnic war after all.
Obama, our post-American president, has discovered that his enervating foreign, security, an defense policy has produced predictable results, that embarrass even him. It is astonishing that the side he supported in Syria is the side that he will bomb in Iraq. The present Iraq conflict is so complicated that even the ‘sophisticated’ John Kerry is unable to understand its ‘nuances.’
Other than supporting the Kurds and their sir for an independent state, the US should sit this one out. A Sarah sid” “Let Allah figure it out.”
“There are military plans to enter Baghdad and save all the people from the dictator “
Makes one wonder how ISIS Sunni Serial Killers define, “Save all the people from the dictator?”
It is still a sandbox where for the past 1500 years muzlims have been killing muzlims. What’s changed? The fact that America bankers and politicians decided to get us involved. There hasn’t been a war since WW1 where we haven’t gotten involved for primarily financial reasons.
So ISIS demands are the same as Obama's demands.
What a strange coincidence.
Watch the short video of this lady and then ask if it’s just a sandbox. Plenty has changed in the past 1500 years.
You’re right Hostage - she’s amazing... My guess is the man to her right is a liberal... just guessing. What’s your take?
The Muslims don’t have a magna carta and did not participate in the Enlightenment.
The single, pluralistic democratic republic was unobtainable. It relied upon the majority Shia being egalitarian and enlightened. They’re not there by any measure. Everyone saw this coming because Maliki wasn’t fair from the get-go. So now 100s of thousands may die.
Eventually, they’ll decide a federal state is the best way for everyone to save their necks and have an oil income too.
Let them work it out. The people are post-tribal. They’re coming forward 1400 years. Moving to an end state republic without first going to a federation of sectarian nation states was foolish. But the Shia, Sunnis and GWB wanted it that way and we’d have had to have done things differently in 2006 to prevent it.
As it turns out they have a winner-take-all republic and we’re seeing the Sunni counterattack to Shia’s king-of-the-hill rule. Until the model is replaced by a more accommodating political system the nation will suffer.
Are muzlims still killing muzlims.? Nothings changed when you get right down to it.
They are killing more than muslims. Look at the video link left in Post #9 and it is clear what must be done with radical islam.
Just how do you plan to kill the 250 million radicals?
250, 000, 000 bullets?
Before Obama the containment of these radicals was being done very well. More importantly many muslims especially in Pakistan were turning against the radical fringe and involved in helping raise the children of radical jihadists to be different than their fathers and mothers. The jihadist element within Pakistan was unpopular but the local population thought the children should not be made to suffer so they did not deport them.
Killing so many people is senseless.
What can be done is to empower the locals against the radicals and they will handle it. It was done by Petraeus in his turning around the Iraq war.
The local people were emboldened because the really nasty guys would be chased and hunted down by US Special Forces or by drones. The superior strength and the effectiveness of US forces made the streets safe and the locals more bolder to tell families of jihadists to get themselves in line.
And the most nasty guys would be put on a plane to Gitmo.
All of this effort has been pulled apart and demolished by Obama on the basis that the USA had no business in being in that part of the world to begin with.
But the link I posted in #9 is all one needs to know for why we needed and still need to be to be Iraq and other places in the region.
Although most Americans would like to let the Middle East burn itself to the ground and leave Americans alone, the sad truth is that jihadists will only get stronger and richer by taking control of that region and eventually and perhaps soon they will attack somewhere on US soil or close to it.
>>And the most nasty guys would be put on a plane to Gitmo.<<
Let them take care of their own criminals in whatever manner they wish.
You’re the expert huh? You think it’s so easy?
I guess someone should pin a medal for such a brilliant strategy.
In the meantime when there’s a million dead Americans from a dirty bomb we can all thank you for your brilliant insight on how to handle enemies of the USA.
...and why is killing so many of THESE people “senseless”?
“Just how do you plan to kill the 250 million radicals?”
Start with round the clock B52 strikes. Follow that up with chemical weapons. Follow that up with tactical nukes. Repeat as necessary.
Once the number is under 90 million re-evaluate.
He was talking about killing 250 million persons. It’s not necessary to kill so many. It’s enough to take out their leadership and to ban their ideology. Any more killing than is necessary is senseless.
Their problems stretch back over 1300 years to Mohammed's death.