Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Spike
 Share
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Look at their maps. They want all of Northern Africa and the Middle East within five years.

Money and equipment won't help. Even Iraqi commandos gave up and surrendered to execution rather than fight.

There's video on liveleak you don't want to see of a captured Lebanese soldier being killed.

Those in Iraq are no commandos or soldiers even. They are disgrace and should be ashamed to even call themselves men, if they just run and not stand to defend their country and people against such terrorists.

They will not have North Africa and the Middle East. There are some plans currently being discussed by the Algerians, Egyptians and what is left of the Libyan Army. Even Italy is currently involved. Not to mention other African Nations. To my understanding these plans may include military action from Egypt in the east and Algeria in the west. Their time in Libya is short. Hopefully something would be done too to help the Iraqis and the Syrians.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In Australia (I imagine NZ is very similar) taxes pay for medicare, pension, welfare, infrastructure support (roads, bridges) student loans, disability support, residential aged care, university fundi

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriot

He did not know that this gesture was anti-semitic because it is NOT anti-semitic. There's nothing to add — except that you people should start thinking by yourself instead of believing words coming f

Posted Images

Got the same thing on CNN. But this is pathetic. I don't know who they are fooling. We all know that these militias are nothing similar to traditional armies. They have no bases, no distinct troops or anything that resembles an army. They move mainly, in small groups, go for a specific operation to take out there target then run and hide. Only when they have full control of a city or an area would they appear and again, they will be amongst civilians. So I really don't know what airstrikes can accomplish. They have been a total failure against such groups. It is a big mess in Iraq and all people are really suffering especially the minorities like the Yazidis and Christians.

Its also the arrogance of it ! The US with its poodle the UK created a complete fucking dogs dinner in Iraq because they wanted the natural resources, and because Saddam insulted Bush snr. So they bombed it into the stone age and now they say more violence is the answer. The final insult/irony is that the co architect of the original slaughter is now doing precisely fuck all in his role as....wait for it....Middle East Peace envoy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also the arrogance of it ! The US with its poodle the UK created a complete fucking dogs dinner in Iraq because they wanted the natural resources, and because Saddam insulted Bush snr. So they bombed it into the stone age and now they say more violence is the answer. The final insult/irony is that the co architect of the original slaughter is now doing precisely fuck all in his role as....wait for it....Middle East Peace envoy.

You are absolutely right. You know for a fact, during the first Gulf War, the U.S and the Nato could have EASILY captured Saddam. But, in order to suck more out of the Gulf Countries they chose not to. They left Saddam and kept flooding Kuwait and Saudi with weapons and U.S troops in order to "protect themselves" from Saddam. Gulf countries paid a good bill.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been getting some coverage here in Egypt about it. But as you can imagine, it is still very limited. I just wanted to know from a humanitarian point of view, what these people went through recently. As far as ISIS is concerned, I am quiet sure if the Yezides, the Christians or Muslims who don't follow their way will be, killed. They started with the Sunnis when they entered, then the Christians. Now they are going after Yezidis and massacred 100s. Sooner or later they will have ago at the She'as. There presence is now much stronger in Libya. I also got from the news here that they have somewhat a "mild" presence in Lebanon. I am not sure if that is accurate. Sounds possible given the crisis of Syria, but also not a simple thing given that Lebanon is much stronger on the borders now. How accurate is that?

As far as I know, they had a period of peace under Saddam which would make sense because he only cared about power and politics and they never really cared much about either. The difference between the others and the Yazidis is that the Christians were allowed to flee and they and all the others have also fled to other cities while the Yazidis were attack without warning and are now stuck in the mountain desert and dying of thirst and hunger. Their humanitarian situation are very bad.

In Lebanon, there are more foreigners than there are Lebanese people in the country! And more than half of them are Syrians. Some parties have been covering for various ant-Assad militias and using Lebanon to provide them with funds and weapons from the start, so, Yes, there is definitely some groups loyal to ISIS and Jabhat Al Nosra, but those are small groups mainly in Tripoli and some Palestinian refugee camps and till last in Arsal. Those groups are for logistics mainly and to perform certain operations. There is no army. If there are fighters, they're in the tens or hundreds, not in the thousands. However there are a few thousand fighters in Kalamoon after the Koseir and Yabrood battles who are trapped between the Syrian army and Hezboullah. They obviously have plans to create a "province" for themselves in the east of the country, but the battle is unwinnable. Hezboullah are just too strong and well equipped for them and they just took a serious hit in Arsal and lost at least a couple of hundred fighters. They made a big mistake in Arsal and it took some internal parties to save their asses. It was a "دعشة ناقصة" :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. You know for a fact, during the first Gulf War, the U.S and the Nato could have EASILY captured Saddam. But, in order to suck more out of the Gulf Countries they chose not to. They left Saddam and kept flooding Kuwait and Saudi with weapons and U.S troops in order to "protect themselves" from Saddam. Gulf countries paid a good bill.

Neat strategy, and a pattern thats becoming all too common.. Devastate the country, set up a puppet govt and tell them you have to pay us to rebuild it but leave it unstable enough that you can intervene again in the future.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama now said they are going to do food drops to the yazides on the mountains, and probable 'strategic strikes' on ISIS according to the BBC.

So the mad scientists is coming back to face the monster it created?

The strikes are just publicity stunts for the Americans because they can't face their public about this any longer. If they want to really get rid of ISIS, how about they arm the Iraqi army of their "ally" Al Maliki or the Lebanese army that they keep saying over and over again that they back yet they wouldn't allow to have a single attack helicopter. Our soldiers had to literally thrown out bombs with their hands out of a helicopter when we were the first to try to combat these Islamic extremists back in 2007.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the mad scientists is coming back to face the monster it created?

The strikes are just publicity stunts for the Americans because they can't face their public about this any longer. If they want to really get rid of ISIS, how about they arm the Iraqi army of their "ally" Al Maliki or the Lebanese army that they keep saying over and over again that they back yet they wouldn't allow to have a single attack helicopter. Our soldiers had to literally thrown out bombs with their hands when we were the first to try to combat these Islamic extremists back in 2007.

Also, lets not forget many of those billionaire republican lobbyists who really run the US, who also happen to be major weapons company shareholders, whitewash their acts, by wearing a fundamental christian badge. Some are jewish, but the christian ones can feel obliged to step in to aid the iraqi christians. All very convenient.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, lets not forget many of those billionaire republican lobbyists who really run the US, who also happen to be major weapons company shareholders, whitewash their acts, by wearing a fundamental christian badge. Some are jewish, but the christian ones can feel obliged to step in to aid the iraqi christians. All very convenient.

I said this to Fernando: The situation with the Christians in Iraq is very suspicious to say the least. Not even the Vatican has said anything. Why this Western silence and lack of action? Even now the spotlight has been put on the country because of the Yazidis and the west wants to look like the rich powerful man who saved an animal of an endangered species on TV! (Sorry, I'm in a cynical mood)

Why is the issue being marginalized? Why was so little made of Ma'loola and other cities of Christian majority in Syria? Do they want a Christian-free middle east? Does the cultural diversity in the region annoy them? Are they trying to erase our culturally rich history because a middle east with a single right-wing Muslim demographic is easier to vilify and justify attacking? Do they want to "abbreviate" the middle east with the likes of ISIS for the same reason Israel calls all the Palestinians "Hamas"?

I realize how much of a conspiracy theory that sounds like, but I feel those are all valid questions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiki leaks show that the US tried to undermine a UN report condemning an Israeli attack on a UN school in Gaza in 2008 and Ban Ki Moon actually complied with Rice's request!

"Ambassador Rice spoke with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon three times on May 4 to discuss concerns over the Board of Inquiry's report on incidents at UN sites in December 2008 and January 2009. Rice called the Secretary-General to register concern about the scope of the report. She cited in particular recommendations 10 and 11, saying it set a bad precedent if the report of a Board of Inquiry expands beyond its terms of reference. Given that those recommendations were outside the scope of the Board's terms of reference, she asked that those two recommendations not be included in the summary of the report that would be transmitted to the membership. The Secretary-General said he was constrained in what he could do since the Board of Inquiry is independent; it was their report and recommendations and he could not alter them, he said.
Ambassador Rice urged the Secretary-General to make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to
the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed. The Secretary-General said his staff was working with an Israeli delegation on the text of the cover letter. Ambassador Rice asked the Secretary-General to be back in touch with her before the letter and summary are released to the Council.
Ambassador Rice spoke with the Secretary-General two additional times. In the second conversation, she underscored the importance of having a strong cover letter that made clear that no further action was needed and would close out this issue. Secretary-General Ban called her after the letter had been finalized to report that he believed they had arrived at a satisfactory cover letter. Rice thanked the Secretary-General for his exceptional efforts on such a sensitive issue.
Rice "
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS beheading pple. Cowards!!

Just dont understand why it's so easy to influence radicals in these areas. Still living life like in the 19th century and probably convincing followers that they go to heaven if they die fighting! Fucking cowards!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS beheading pple. Cowards!!

Just dont understand why it's so easy to influence radicals in these areas. Still living life like in the 19th century and probably convincing followers that they go to heaven if they die fighting! Fucking cowards!!

A friend of mine joked the other night when there were clashes between the two that if an ISIS member killed a Jabhat Al Nosra member, who gets the virgins?!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS beheading pple. Cowards!!

Just dont understand why it's so easy to influence radicals in these areas. Still living life like in the 19th century and probably convincing followers that they go to heaven if they die fighting! Fucking cowards!!

That is exactly what they do. They take advantage of the poverty, lack of education and the desperation for salvation in order to pass on their agenda. Sometimes the circumstances in the region also help them. When Egypt was still a Kingdom and was a colony of Britain, the Muslim brotherhood were created. When you have people who are suffering from poverty and NO RIGHT for an education. Add to that it is colonized by a foreign power. Can you imagine the amount of messages and activities that one ill minded person can do to brainwash these people. Within a decade of their creation, they assassinated a Prime Minister and a Judge and managed to bomb a few places. And that was just the start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. You know for a fact, during the first Gulf War, the U.S and the Nato could have EASILY captured Saddam. But, in order to suck more out of the Gulf Countries they chose not to. They left Saddam and kept flooding Kuwait and Saudi with weapons and U.S troops in order to "protect themselves" from Saddam. Gulf countries paid a good bill.

No. The US didn't take Saddam because they knew what is happening now would be the result.

http://youtu.be/6BEsZMvrq-I

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said this to Fernando: The situation with the Christians in Iraq is very suspicious to say the least. Not even the Vatican has said anything. Why this Western silence and lack of action? Even now the spotlight has been put on the country because of the Yazidis and the west wants to look like the rich powerful man who saved an animal of an endangered species on TV! (Sorry, I'm in a cynical mood)

Why is the issue being marginalized? Why was so little made of Ma'loola and other cities of Christian majority in Syria? Do they want a Christian-free middle east? Does the cultural diversity in the region annoy them? Are they trying to erase our culturally rich history because a middle east with a single right-wing Muslim demographic is easier to vilify and justify attacking? Do they want to "abbreviate" the middle east with the likes of ISIS for the same reason Israel calls all the Palestinians "Hamas"?

I realize how much of a conspiracy theory that sounds like, but I feel those are all valid questions.

Well it doesn't even get much attention in the major news outlet like CNN and such.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The US didn't take Saddam because they knew what is happening now would be the result.

http://youtu.be/6BEsZMvrq-I

LOL, so that is a real joke. So the U.S knew what the risks of taking down Saddam and they did it anyways. Please don't bring up the WMD because we all know that it was one of the biggest lies made to the world and the American public. And don't bring the " installing democracy and freedom" because people don't tend to respond well to that at gun point and under air strikes.

You check the economical effect of the war and leaving Saddam on the U.S. It increased significantly after the first gulf war. Your troops were present in the Gulf, and we all know that this is not a pro bono. Major military arm deals were done in the gulf states. The re construction in Kuwait was done through mainly U.S companies.

Sorry my man, but the U.S left Saddam, because if there was no more threat to the Gulf countries, then no troops or arm deals where going to go down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't even get much attention in the major news outlet like CNN and such.

Oh they will get the focus alright. But only before a few weeks of an attack to give it extra credit and international acceptance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...