The Spread of the Caliphate: The [Wannabe] Islamic State

[Typhoon]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

On the other hand, the current situation is a result of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et al policy.

[Doc]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

On the other hand, the current situation is a result of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et al policy.

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

Everyone fantasized that the Milo Doctrine meant no more war, it doesn't. It allows the people you want to genocide to come out of the woodwork, gives you names and faces. That's all. If you take "genocide" off the table then the number of dead will only increase.

Democrats are not cut out for this. Neither are Euro leftists.

http://www.strategypage.com/%5Chtmw%5Ch ... 40717.aspx

Meanwhile the Wikileaks documents clearly show there were still a lot of chemical weapons in Iraq in 2003 and Saddam’s plan to rebuild his chemical weapons capabilities as soon as the UN embargo was gone were clear and easy for Iraq to accomplish. What is lost in all this conspiracy talk was that Iraq still has the capability to rebuild its chemical weapons arsenal and manufacturing capability. While most of the key technical people were Sunni Arabs (and thus unlikely to work for the current Shia government), that expertise can be hired, as can the specialists needed to run the chemical plants that are quite legal until they are tweaked to produce deadly chemical weapons instead of useful and quite beneficial chemicals. For some reason that never became a headline grabbing story.

With the "Caliphate" comes the Chemical Weapons experts.

So how would this speculation place the US at risk?

It is not speculation that People particularly Sunnis in Iraq know how to make chemical weapons. Even without the wikileaks documents Even before the invasion of Iraq this was known to be fact. As for the chemical weapons many were found in Iraq. The speculation that these are a threat in general is not even in question given the nature of ISIS. Do you think that for one minute they would not use chemical weapons if they saw using them to be expedient? There are in fact some claims they have already used them.

What's more I did not say they put the US at risk Making that speculation on your part. My view is that ISIS will be completely rejected by the vast majority of ME Muslims because of the very brutality they have already shown themselves to use as their standard operating procedure in homogenizing the populations they control.

The ME has a front row seat in this. It is up close and personal for them. They are the ones at risk. They are the ones that need to reject jihadism. It is up to them to kill it or be consumed by it. If they chose the latter, then the US is certainly at risk along with the rest of the world.

[Mr. Perfect]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

How so?

Seeing how you may be brand new to politics you may not know that in the Middle East there are a multitude of terrorist groups who have "Death to America" as part of their core ideology, and of course anyone that wants Americans or America "dead" is a threat to America.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

[Mr. Perfect]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

On the other hand, the current situation is a result of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et al policy.

That would be like saying Eisenhower was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is, laughable.

[Mr. Perfect]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

I notice that you couldn't name a Democrat in the last half century.

And it should be observed that today's Democrats have sworn off the militaristic tactic of the ancient Democrats you mentioned, particularly dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

[Typhoon]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

How so?

Seeing how you may be brand new to politics you may not know that in the Middle East there are a multitude of terrorist groups who have "Death to America" as part of their core ideology, and of course anyone that wants Americans or America "dead" is a threat to America.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Sure. Why are the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party so easily scared and intimidated by a bunch of yahoos yelling slogans?

[Typhoon]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

I notice that you couldn't name a Democrat in the last half century.

And it should be observed that today's Democrats have sworn off the militaristic tactic of the ancient Democrats you mentioned, particularly dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

[Simple Minded]

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

When it comes to waging war in the 21st century, Republicans are as weak as kittens compared to the Democrats of the 20th century!

[Parodite]

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

When it comes to waging war in the 21st century, Republicans are as weak as kittens compared to the Democrats of the 20th century!

Not when they let Mr.P. do foreign policy. A nuclear testosterone fest.

[Mr. Perfect]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

How so?

Seeing how you may be brand new to politics you may not know that in the Middle East there are a multitude of terrorist groups who have "Death to America" as part of their core ideology, and of course anyone that wants Americans or America "dead" is a threat to America.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Sure. Why are the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party so easily scared and intimidated by a bunch of yahoos yelling slogans?

Because of course they occasionally act on the slogans.

V6cq6nEMibM
gSjeyB3ClcM

[Mr. Perfect]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

I notice that you couldn't name a Democrat in the last half century.

And it should be observed that today's Democrats have sworn off the militaristic tactic of the ancient Democrats you mentioned, particularly dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

I think we would favor dropping nuclear bombs on military targets and civilians. I certainly wouldn't put a limit on it.

[Typhoon]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

How so?

Seeing how you may be brand new to politics you may not know that in the Middle East there are a multitude of terrorist groups who have "Death to America" as part of their core ideology, and of course anyone that wants Americans or America "dead" is a threat to America.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Sure. Why are the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party so easily scared and intimidated by a bunch of yahoos yelling slogans?

Because of course they occasionally act on the slogans.

V6cq6nEMibM
gSjeyB3ClcM

The majority of the attackers were Saudi nationals.

How does the supposed manly men Republicrat "testosterone trust" of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et al respond? By invading Iraq thereby laying the groundwork for ISIS.

As for the event itself, the attackers got lucky in terms of the amount of damage. As for the number of fatalities, more Americans kill each other per yearly quarter.

How do the politicians and bureaucrats respond? By a massive suppression of civil liberties and increased surveillance. The country goes along with it and even demands more.

[Typhoon]

Haven't seen one person in the world ask the right question about this yet. That question is, "are recent events in Iraq a concern for US et al security interests". The answer is unequivocally yes.

. . .

Democrats are not cut out for this. . . .

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

I notice that you couldn't name a Democrat in the last half century.

And it should be observed that today's Democrats have sworn off the militaristic tactic of the ancient Democrats you mentioned, particularly dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

I think we would favor dropping nuclear bombs on military targets and civilians. . . .

No surprise. Typical of the talk one hears from armchair wannabe warriors on the internet.

At least the old school understood the morality of their actions

[Curtis] LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.

--- Robert McNamara

[YMix]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

[Doc]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

[Typhoon]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

Al Q or ISIS or whatever they're currently called controls only one of the three pseudo-states, not quite the general understanding of "fallen" as in the fall of S Vietnam.

[YMix]

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

And ISIS (or Al Qaeda for that matter) is not likely to conquer all three of them.

[Mr. Perfect]

The majority of the attackers were Saudi nationals.

And?

How does the supposed manly men Republicrat "testosterone trust" of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz et al respond? By invading Iraq thereby laying the groundwork for ISIS.

Sort of like how Eisenhower laid the groundwork for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for the event itself, the attackers got lucky in terms of the amount of damage. As for the number of fatalities, more Americans kill each other per yearly quarter.

Actually we were luckier than the terrorists, there were 50,000 people in the towers and they only got less than 3,000.

How do the politicians and bureaucrats respond? By a massive suppression of civil liberties and increased surveillance. The country goes along with it and even demands more.

Which has nothing to do with the topic.

[Mr. Perfect]

No surprise. Typical of the talk one hears from armchair wannabe warriors on the internet.

Also typical of real generals who do war games everyday.

At least the old school understood the morality of their actions

True. Great Warriors like Patton and Eisenhower understood the morality of not crushing evil in the crib as hard as you can.

[Curtis] LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.

--- Robert McNamara

[/quote]
Robert McNamara is not the guy you would quote to support this POV.

[Doc]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

Al Q or ISIS or whatever they're currently called controls only one of the three pseudo-states, not quite the general understanding of "fallen" as in the fall of S Vietnam.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly Iraq has fallen and broken into three pieces. Now it will be a more general war. If ISIS continues as they are going I imagine that they will not win that war. But in any event, stupidity has it price in flesh.

[monster_gardener]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

Al Q or ISIS or whatever they're currently called controls only one of the three pseudo-states, not quite the general understanding of "fallen" as in the fall of S Vietnam.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly Iraq has fallen and broken into three pieces. Now it will be a more general war. If ISIS continues as they are going I imagine that they will not win that war. But in any event, stupidity has it price in flesh.

fo

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Doc.

Bad news on the Telly......

FOX and otherwise...

The Muslim Devils in Human Form of the Set Born ISIS Kaliphate are driving back the Kurds......

[Doc]

"How long before Iraq falls to Al Qaeda?"

Not likely to happen.

I think it already has Ymix. Iraq is no longer a single state but three states.

Al Q or ISIS or whatever they're currently called controls only one of the three pseudo-states, not quite the general understanding of "fallen" as in the fall of S Vietnam.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly Iraq has fallen and broken into three pieces. Now it will be a more general war. If ISIS continues as they are going I imagine that they will not win that war. But in any event, stupidity has it price in flesh.

fo

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Doc.

Bad news on the Telly......

FOX and otherwise...

The Muslim Devils in Human Form of the Set Born ISIS Kaliphate are driving back the Kurds......

Yes I saw that. Indications are that they are running out of ammunition.

[YMix]

ISIS are driving back the Kurds......

I doubt it. The Kurds probably pulled back from the lowlands and into their hills. Sinjar, on the other hand...

The problem was terrain. Sinjar, unfortunately, is only at the edge of the sheltering hills. It’s about 20 km east of the Syrian border, on mostly level ground—easy ground for jihadis in those white Toyota pickups—and, worst of all, due west of Mosul, which has always been a nasty hole full of haters, pogrom specialists. The Kurds of Suleimaniyah would only drive to Kirkuk in the daytime—as for Mosul, they wouldn’t go there at all, ever.

All the vulnerable minorities in the Northern hills had been hit by waves of violence from the Sunni majority to the south: the few remaining Assyrian Christians who held out in little mountain towns like Zakho, a pitiful remnant of the genocides perpetrated against them by the Ottomans, and then by Sunni militias in the 1930s; The Turcoman, who are Sunni but Turkish-speaking—in other words, not Arab—and don’t you ever doubt that Arab chauvinism has a HUGE part in what passes for Sunni jihadism. The Turcoman are the third-biggest ethnic group in the country, and because they’re non-Arabs, often Shi’ites, and just plain “visible minority,” have been subjected to pogroms, discrimination, and mass murder for generations.

The Turcoman towns are in a particularly dangerous position, on the plains at the foot of the northern hills. They’ve been taking a lot of casualties fighting off the northern prong of the Sunni advance. Tal Afar, the most important Turcoman town in the North, seems to have fallen to the I.S.I.S. as of June 23, 2014, though it’s always a good idea to wait a day or two before believing any wartime claim about cities lost or gained.

What makes it easy to believe Tal Afar has fallen is topography. I.S.I.S. is a mobile force, fast and light. Anything on the plain is vulnerable to it at this point, and Tal Afar, unfortunately, is a lowland town, with an official altitude of about 1300 feet/400 meters.

The biggest and strongest of the hill tribes, the Iraqi Kurds, are a little safer. Not only do they have the best fighting force in Iraq in the Pesh Merga, but they are safe behind a wall of high hills. The big Kurdish cities, Erbil and Suleimaniya (my beloved home in 2009-10), are safe behind high hills, far from the Sunni plain. Suleimaniya has an official altitude of about 2900 feet/900 meters, and the hills that surround the city are much higher, with Halgurd, Iraqi Kurdistan’s highest point, reaching 12,000 feet. Terrible, terrible ground for a light, mobile attacker like I.S.I.S—thank god, or tectonics, or whatever.

[Doc]

ISIS are driving back the Kurds......

I doubt it. The Kurds probably pulled back from the lowlands and into their hills. Sinjar, on the other hand...

The problem was terrain. Sinjar, unfortunately, is only at the edge of the sheltering hills. It’s about 20 km east of the Syrian border, on mostly level ground—easy ground for jihadis in those white Toyota pickups—and, worst of all, due west of Mosul, which has always been a nasty hole full of haters, pogrom specialists. The Kurds of Suleimaniyah would only drive to Kirkuk in the daytime—as for Mosul, they wouldn’t go there at all, ever.

All the vulnerable minorities in the Northern hills had been hit by waves of violence from the Sunni majority to the south: the few remaining Assyrian Christians who held out in little mountain towns like Zakho, a pitiful remnant of the genocides perpetrated against them by the Ottomans, and then by Sunni militias in the 1930s; The Turcoman, who are Sunni but Turkish-speaking—in other words, not Arab—and don’t you ever doubt that Arab chauvinism has a HUGE part in what passes for Sunni jihadism. The Turcoman are the third-biggest ethnic group in the country, and because they’re non-Arabs, often Shi’ites, and just plain “visible minority,” have been subjected to pogroms, discrimination, and mass murder for generations.

The Turcoman towns are in a particularly dangerous position, on the plains at the foot of the northern hills. They’ve been taking a lot of casualties fighting off the northern prong of the Sunni advance. Tal Afar, the most important Turcoman town in the North, seems to have fallen to the I.S.I.S. as of June 23, 2014, though it’s always a good idea to wait a day or two before believing any wartime claim about cities lost or gained.

What makes it easy to believe Tal Afar has fallen is topography. I.S.I.S. is a mobile force, fast and light. Anything on the plain is vulnerable to it at this point, and Tal Afar, unfortunately, is a lowland town, with an official altitude of about 1300 feet/400 meters.

The biggest and strongest of the hill tribes, the Iraqi Kurds, are a little safer. Not only do they have the best fighting force in Iraq in the Pesh Merga, but they are safe behind a wall of high hills. The big Kurdish cities, Erbil and Suleimaniya (my beloved home in 2009-10), are safe behind high hills, far from the Sunni plain. Suleimaniya has an official altitude of about 2900 feet/900 meters, and the hills that surround the city are much higher, with Halgurd, Iraqi Kurdistan’s highest point, reaching 12,000 feet. Terrible, terrible ground for a light, mobile attacker like I.S.I.S—thank god, or tectonics, or whatever.

Also in the low lands

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/world ... =true&_r=0

The seizure of the three towns in a triangle that stretches north and west from Mosul to the borders of Syria and Turkey allowed the extremists to expand their territory, but the capture of the Mosul Dam would be a bigger prize, and could give the militants the ability to unleash a deadly flood on large populations.

On Sunday afternoon, conflicting reports emerged about who was in control of the dam, with some local news media reporting that ISIS had captured it. But Kurdish officials and an official at the Ministry of Water Resources in Baghdad denied those reports.

Keeping the dam, and other important infrastructure of the Iraqi state, out of militant hands has been a priority of the Iraqi government and the American military advisers who recently rushed back to Iraq. The loss of the dam would be a significant blow to efforts to contain the growing crisis.

Seven years ago, a report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a Pentagon watchdog, highlighted structural problems at the dam, and its warnings about safety hinted at the catastrophic possibilities should the dam fall into the hands of ISIS. The report warned that a failure at the dam could send a 65-foot wave across parts of northern Iraq. “The worst-case scenario would be a significant loss of life and property,” the report said.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mosul ... 6b05?hl=en

[Enki]

Good to know that the supposed manly men of the Republicrat party still favour dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

When it comes to waging war in the 21st century, Republicans are as weak as kittens compared to the Democrats of the 20th century!

Democrats are far more effective at it, but Republicans like it more.