Why arnt people in the middle east standing up against ISIS?

[BlakFrankWhite]

What I'm saying isis is NEEDED and funded by the major Arab powers to fight the Shia influence...

They're just didn't sprout out of nowhere....they were formed after years of discontent by the minority Sunni's in Syria and Iraq...

If you're gonna take down isis...you need to punish their financial backers as well.

[Nick Young]

You don't understand...its much more deep rooted than that.

ISIS vs its reginal enemies...is basically sunni vs shia...those two sects HATE each other...ISIS are backed by the middle eastern powers while the kurds and others are backed by Iran.

Why you think US isn't involving itself?....because defeat of ISIS would mean Iraq and Syria going under the control of Iran again.

Many of local ISIS fighters are sunnis who grew up in the mid '00's Iraq...and they ere treated just as badly as jews were in Nazi Germany.

[BlakFrankWhite]

Just do a bit research on '00's Iraq....

Most of the leaders were Shia...all the construction, spending etc were done in the Shia populated regions...

[UK2K]

Just do a bit research on '00's Iraq....

Most of the leaders were Shia...all the construction, spending etc were done in the Shia populated regions...

And the people of Iraq (the government) is horrid. That's why they are where they are right now. That, and killing each other over who's tribe is better.

[BlakFrankWhite]

And the people of Iraq (the government) is horrid. That's why they are where they are right now. That, and killing each other over who's tribe is better.

Yup.

That's what I'm saying...isis was formed by sunnis who were treated like shit in their own country.

[DonDadda59]

They're too busy helping Dick Cheney find those weapons of mass destruction.

lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?

Please Hammer... don't hurt em

[RidonKs]

Muslim Brotherhood is THE father of Islamist extremism, Iman Zwahiri who's Bin Laden's mentor was a student of Saeid Qutb one of the most influential leaders of Muslim Brotherhood in history.

again, there have been dozens of muslim educators who have advocated extreme violence. the muslim brotherhood has a long history that doesn't start and end with assassination plots and vigilantism.

is the muslim brotherhood a terror organization in your opinion?

it certainly used to be since it used terror tactics for its own end. but those tactics more or less came to an end quite a while ago, apart from rogue elements doing their own thing.

As in compared to AlQ and ISIS? They don't have to be violent since they usually have others do their dirty work, they just theorize.

they are allied with other more extreme groups. so is practically every nation/faction in the world.

america doesn't have to be violent since they usually have others do their dirty work and just theorize.

i think my statement holds at least as true as yours...

[9erempiree]

again, there have been dozens of muslim educators who have advocated extreme violence. the muslim brotherhood has a long history that doesn't start and end with assassination plots and vigilantism.

is the muslim brotherhood a terror organization in your opinion?

it certainly used to be since it used terror tactics for its own end. but those tactics more or less came to an end quite a while ago, apart from rogue elements doing their own thing.

Muslim violence is still prevalent in today's society. It's their fundamental train of thought and their belief system that has caused this violence.

I do not believe they are just rogue or isolated incidents. If you put together all these isolated incidents it then turns into a trend. A trend usually means it is highly likely.

[Derka]

"People in the Middle East" is a bit vague.

The Iranians are fighting ISIS.

The Syrian government doesn't have the manpower to do much of anything except hold a few crucial territories.

In military matters, the Iraqis are about as close to functionally retarded as a nation-state can be.

None of the Sunni nations are going to take serious action against ISIS because Sunni/Shia strife is the major theme of all post-Mohammed Islamic history in that part of the world. Even thought ISIS has f*cking killed hundreds and probably thousands of Sunni Muslims, Sunni Gulf states are still going to fund them in the hopes of strengthening Sunni presence in previously Shia-governed areas. Why? Because f*ck those guys.

[Nick Young]

lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?

Natural selection, bitch. If you can't defend yourself from foreign invaders, your culture isn't meant to survive. Good job trying to blame Europe for the Middle East being a violent shit hole. Don't blame the Mongols either.

Learn history. The Middle East was exactly the same thousands of years ago, before Islam even existed, as it is right now. There have been brief periods of peace and happiness, but it always goes back to the default setting of violent death.

This is what happens when a group of people live in a harsh desert climate and have opium and hash as the only ways to pass the time.



Loads of these guys are high on opiates and hash all the phucking time, especially in Afghanistan. That's what you people need to realize. It's a region dominated by violent megalomaniac opium junkies for thousands of years. The religion changes. The people stay the same.

[imdaman99]

lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?

lol #REKT

To answer the question, it's a simple answer with a complicated attempt at a solution. Bad leadership. It is believed that a 'Messiah' will reappear to declare war on these fake Muslims (not just this group, all these groups that have caused dissension) and basically it will be the end of days. Day of Judgement could be right around the corner...

[RidonKs]

Please read ^^that^^. Seriously. You can blame the US all you want for not rebuilding an army they were at war with a decade ago, but they have to help themselves at some point. If you can't even clean your shit routinely, then the fact that you suck is on you.

i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.

The U.S. discovered significant problems as it stepped up its assessment of Iraq's security forces in recent months, American officials said. They say they noted that more competent Sunni military tacticians in units in the north had been forced out by the Shiite-dominated government.

Across the military U.S. military personnel found the Iraqis were failing to properly maintain equipment. Training standards have declined sharply from 2011, when U.S. military forces advised Iraqi units.

The ISIS insurgents "are not strong, but the military is very weak," said Atheel Al Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province who said he fled its capital Mosul in the middle of the night on June 10 before the city fell. "There was no responsible leadership, there was no planning, there was no correct utilization for the military tools."

"The leaders and the soldiers have no military experience and have no convictions," he added.

Instead, the Iraqi command that ran Mosul by direct order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled the city like a fief, Mr. Nujaifi and other residents said.

"They are not an army, they just take money. No more," said a local Sunni militant in Mosul who said he fought alongside ISIS. "They don't care about orders, weapons or vehicles. They are paid just to get money."

so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...

[Nick Young]

i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.





so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...

Stop patronizing and infantilizing Iraqis. They are grown ass men capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their actions. The United States did not force them to be a shitty national security force. In fact by arming and training them, the US did everything it could to help them. The Iraqi soldiers are the ones choosing to show up high every day and put in half-assed effort and then throw down their weapons and run away from ISIS/join ISIS. US is not to blame here. Stop belittling Iraqis and talking about them as if they are all helpless children.

[9erempiree]

lol #REKT

To answer the question, it's a simple answer with a complicated attempt at a solution. Bad leadership. It is believed that a 'Messiah' will reappear to declare war on these fake Muslims (not just this group, all these groups that have caused dissension) and basically it will be the end of days. Day of Judgement could be right around the corner...

[UK2K]

i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.





so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...

The US government didn't act like anything... Except a sugar daddy. What they did with the money (steal it) is more their fault than ours, I would think. We have given them $26 billion dollars, and they've done what with it? Gave it to ISIS, when they deserted and ran in droves, leaving behind weapons far more advanced than ISIS had. Well guess what, now ISIS does have it, so the Iraqis will continue to run.

The Afghans are the same way. We leave, they surrender and abandon their posts and run every chance they get, over the same area where I MYSELF KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF THE TALIBAN/INSURGENCY five years ago. It's not hard. I did it. We did it. All it takes is to be aggressive. We lost men, sure, but for every one we lost, we killed 50. It's a war of attrition, that's how you beat an ideology.

I think ISIS would have been prevented with a small force of trainers, and a small force of garrison forces ALLOWED to engage the enemy. Unfortunately, when you basically advertise we are not going to fight anymore, people take advantage.

Remember Korea? We won. Kinda. They let us win, then when we left, they took over anyway. That's how you beat America. Rely on their populations discontent for military involvement, and wait. That's it.

I dont even remember the feeling of the country at the time, but withdrawing troops from the ME was a mistake. It was from the beginning, and it is now. As I said, the problem is, once we leave, the America populace wont let us go back.

And as I have said on this board numerous times, a few thousand US troops, without their hands tied behind their backs, would wipe out ISIS by Christmas. That's the difference between an army and a militia.