ISIL restores Caliphate (1 Viewer)

[Selador]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/iraq-crisis-isil-militants-declare-caliphate-20140630-zsqcg.html

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sunni militants fighting across Syria and Iraq – have proclaimed the establishment of a “caliphate” in a move that experts say could signal the birth of a new era of transnational jihadism.

Now calling itself the Islamic State, the group has called on all other related Sunni factions, including al-Qaeda, to pledge their allegiance to the new state, which it says stretches from Aleppo in Syria to Diyala in Iraq.

In a statement distributed online on Sunday – the newly-minted Islamic State declared its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as "the caliph" and "leader for Muslims everywhere". Baghdadi is thought to be the leader and strategic thinker behind ISIL.

Its announcement that it has restored the Caliphate “is likely the most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11,” said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Centre who studies jihadist groups.

“The impact of this announcement will be global as al-Qaeda affiliates and independent jihadist groups must now definitively choose to support and join the Islamic State or to oppose it.”

The group’s statement – translated from Arabic into English, French, Russian and German – made it clear it would perceive any group that failed to pledge allegiance an enemy of Islam,” Mr Lister said.

 

[wannaspoon]

Arming every single Syrian rebel to the teeth + years of neglect by the Western nations + continual mistreatment by Western powers (eg: War in Iraq, Afghanistan; Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem; continual exploitation of Arab nations for oil, etc) = This!

Looks like the US, UK and Australia will be heading back to finish what we started... or, they can always try diplomacy...

the US would rather deliver "freedom"

 

[SylviaB]

only islamophobes would oppose this great news

 

[RenegadeMx]

US freedom sure did wonders for iraq, shame australia has to be dragged due to its constant reliance on the US

 

[nomi]

Oh yes...Iraq. The country we invaded (along with US and UK) by lying - at the cost of thousands of American/Australian/british soldiers' lives, millions of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars. For what? For this? Where the US trained Iraqi army just throws its weapons and runs? Don't tell me Iraq is better now than it was under Saddam - because its not.

George Bush and Tony Blair should be charged for war crimes.

 

[wannaspoon]

only islamophobes would oppose this great news

Bro, have you even seen Lawrence of Arabia...

 

[isildurrrr1]

Oh yes...Iraq. The country we invaded (along with US and UK) by lying - at the cost of thousands of American/Australian/british soldiers' lives, millions of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars. For what? For this? Where the US trained Iraqi army just throws its weapons and runs? Don't tell me Iraq is better now than it was under Saddam - because its not.

George Bush and Tony Blair should be charged for war crimes.

100k iraqi dead over 10 years of conflict, only around 5000 coalition soldiers. That is nothing compared to the lives lost in vietnam or korea.

We did it for very good reasons. Saddam continued to bluff and implied they had WMD's to serve 2 political objectives: 1 to frighten the fuck out of Iran and keep them at bay, 2 to keep his own military afraid of him and cause political infighting. Stupid mistake as we ended up invading him. Iraq did not become a free country, the current president is almost no different than saddam except he's arming shiites instead of suunis.

Invading iraq for oil is the dumbest argument in the world. Did oil have a role to play? Sure but it had nothing to do with the US wanting iraqi oil, rather it was to SECURE the flow of oil to the global markets. US produces enough of their own oil they don't really need iraqi oil.

If the caliphate is actually established, you would see a lot of gulf countries get really fucking nervous really fucking quick. NOBODY wants an islamic caliphate, not even the crazy sharia saudi's would want it.

Iran is already offering aid to the shiite president of iraq to combat ISIS. It's the same sectarian violence but now it's overblown because the Iraqi army is full of cowards. The kurds on the other hand are having a field day with this, taking over certain areas and picking up the slack of the Iraqi army.

 

[wannaspoon]

100k iraqi dead over 10 years of conflict, only around 5000 coalition soldiers. That is nothing compared to the lives lost in vietnam or korea.

We did it for very good reasons. Saddam continued to bluff and implied they had WMD's to serve 2 political objectives: 1 to frighten the fuck out of Iran and keep them at bay, 2 to keep his own military afraid of him and cause political infighting. Stupid mistake as we ended up invading him. Iraq did not become a free country, the current president is almost no different than saddam except he's arming shiites instead of suunis.

Invading iraq for oil is the dumbest argument in the world. Did oil have a role to play? Sure but it had nothing to do with the US wanting iraqi oil, rather it was to SECURE the flow of oil to the global markets. US produces enough of their own oil they don't really need iraqi oil.

If the caliphate is actually established, you would see a lot of gulf countries get really fucking nervous really fucking quick. NOBODY wants an islamic caliphate, not even the crazy sharia saudi's would want it.

Iran is already offering aid to the shiite president of iraq to combat ISIS. It's the same sectarian violence but now it's overblown because the Iraqi army is full of cowards. The kurds on the other hand are having a field day with this, taking over certain areas and picking up the slack of the Iraqi army.

Firstly, the pretext used to invade Iraq was baseless... everyone in the UN was against it (except for the "Coalition of the Willing")... your argument is quite invalid; because if there was a suitable pretext, there would be a shit load of countries willing to: join the fight and approve of such actions...

The attack of Iraq has clearly not "frightened" Iran, it instead strengthened their resolve during Ahmadinejad's presidency... It also did nothing but further reinforce anti-US rhetoric... Iraq was invaded on the pretext that there was authority to do so from the unanimous UN Security Council approval of the first Gulf War (a dirty and stupid pretext, but, nevertheless, a pretext)... They used the testimony of a snitch that was tortured for weeks for the purposes of providing "credible" information that there were WMD's in Iraq... the witness later came out and said it was a flat out lie so they would stop torturing him (had to be expected when you think about it)... Weapons inspectors also found, lo and behold, nothing before the intervention... rather than listening to the credible staff of the UN who explicitly said there was not WMD's... they chose to take the word of a person who they probably knew was lying through their teeth...

The actual war, was not for oil... It was for Saddam... Saddam Hussain was being belligerent towards the United States... Saddam wanted to cease the use of a US Petro-Dollar in Iraq and convert to a Euro Petro-Dollar (probably explains why most European countries were also against the intervention, eg: France and Germany)... The ramifications towards US currency if this was the case would be massive; it would have got worse over time as other Middle Eastern countries would follow (eg: Saudi Arabia)... The end of the US Petro-Dollar would be the end of US currency... So essentially, no, the war was not about oil, it was about currency...

 

[RenegadeMx]

funny how the US arent doing anything against ISIL as it would contradict them badly in syria

 

[isildurrrr1]

Firstly, the pretext used to invade Iraq was baseless... everyone in the UN was against it (except for the "Coalition of the Willing")... your argument is quite invalid; because if there was a suitable pretext, there would be a shit load of countries willing to: join the fight and approve of such actions...

46 countries is still quite a lot of nations that actively participated in the US led invasion. Nobody gives a shit what the UN wants. Russia proved this by invading fucking georgia and ukraine.

The attack of Iraq has clearly not "frightened" Iran, it instead strengthened their resolve during Ahmadinejad's presidency... It also did nothing but further reinforce anti-US rhetoric... Iraq was invaded on the pretext that there was authority to do so from the unanimous UN Security Council approval of the first Gulf War (a dirty and stupid pretext, but, nevertheless, a pretext)... They used the testimony of a snitch that was tortured for weeks for the purposes of providing "credible" information that there were WMD's in Iraq... the witness later came out and said it was a flat out lie so they would stop torturing him (had to be expected when you think about it)... Weapons inspectors also found, lo and behold, nothing before the intervention... rather than listening to the credible staff of the UN who explicitly said there was not WMD's... they chose to take the word of a person who they probably knew was lying through their teeth...

I was talking about the relationship of Iraq and Iran, not of USA and Iran. Saddam claiming to have WMD's was to keep Iran at bay. Saddam overplayed his hand about maybe having WMD's. But would the Iraqi WMD be a real threat to anyone? Of course not otherwise you'd see the Saudis and Kuwaitis begging the US to get involved. We've already made a mistake in invading Iraq, but lets not make the mistake of leaving to the fate of radical islamists who want to turn it into a caliphate, that would be the BIGGEST threat to Australian national security as well. We're already seeing radicals in our own country going over there to fight.

The actual war, was not for oil... It was for Saddam... Saddam Hussain was being belligerent towards the United States... Saddam wanted to cease the use of a US Petro-Dollar in Iraq and convert to a Euro Petro-Dollar (probably explains why most European countries were also against the intervention, eg: France and Germany)... The ramifications towards US currency if this was the case would be massive; it would have got worse over time as other Middle Eastern countries would follow (eg: Saudi Arabia)... The end of the US Petro-Dollar would be the end of US currency... So essentially, no, the war was not about oil, it was about currency...

Nothing to do with the US petro-dollar. Nobody really gives a shit about it. I highly doubt the US would invade a country because they would use a different currency to trade oil in. It's a very very baseless theory as well, the role of oil had more to do with securing the flow of global energy than overtake production and what not. There's a reason why MANY countries use the US dollars as base currency: Because it's reliable, it doesn't fluctuate as much as other currencies. It essentially became the de facto world currency.

 

[isildurrrr1]

funny how the US arent doing anything against ISIL as it would contradict them badly in syria

US has already been funding moderate anti-assad forces in Syria to specifically fight ISIS. Not to mention the US funding of Iraqi kurds. They already moved an aircraft carrier in the region to carry out airstrikes if needed. Guess you haven't been really keeping up with the news.

ISIS is so fucking bad Al-Qaeda kicked them out. Think about that for a second.

 

[wannaspoon]

46 countries is still quite a lot of nations that actively participated in the US led invasion. Nobody gives a shit what the UN wants. Russia proved this by invading fucking georgia and ukraine.

I was talking about the relationship of Iraq and Iran, not of USA and Iran. Saddam claiming to have WMD's was to keep Iran at bay. Saddam overplayed his hand about maybe having WMD's. But would the Iraqi WMD be a real threat to anyone? Of course not otherwise you'd see the Saudis and Kuwaitis begging the US to get involved. We've already made a mistake in invading Iraq, but lets not make the mistake of leaving to the fate of radical islamists who want to turn it into a caliphate, that would be the BIGGEST threat to Australian national security as well. We're already seeing radicals in our own country going over there to fight.

Nothing to do with the US petro-dollar. Nobody really gives a shit about it. I highly doubt the US would invade a country because they would use a different currency to trade oil in. It's a very very baseless theory as well, the role of oil had more to do with securing the flow of global energy than overtake production and what not. There's a reason why MANY countries use the US dollars as base currency: Because it's reliable, it doesn't fluctuate as much as other currencies. It essentially became the de facto world currency.

Firstly, there are 193 nations in the UN General Assembly and you are telling me 46 is a lot... that's not even a drop in the ocean when looking at the big picture... Georgia was invaded because they were using prohibited cluster munitions which were provided by Israel on Russian citizens... but that is a different kettle of fish and would send me on a tangent... Besides, a UNGA vote does not matter; what matters is that every permanent nation (except for the US and UK) used their veto power in the UN Security Council... (which is a resounding majority; considering on no vote from a permanent member is enough to stop action)

Secondly, Iraq and Iran hate each other... They always have, they even had a very bloody war over it (where it was even documented that Saddam used nerve gas)... Heck the US was even helping them (both sides)...

Thirdly, it is not just a change of currency... Saddam was doing this because the US sanctions that were imposed from the first Gulf War were sending his country bankrupt... given this volatility, a Euro Petro-Dollar would have shielded Saddam from the volatility of being: a US pawn; from the damaging result of what the sanctions were actually doing to his country, etc... With that said, other countries would choose to follow suit on the simple premise that they disagree with US foreign policy and want to shield themselves from US imposed trade sanctions... a Euro Petro-Dollar would then mean the US cannot play the economic card in their foreign policy... meaning, the US would have few options to provide "security"

 

[isildurrrr1]

Lol yeah right... Russia invaded Georgia because of cluster munitions... yeah same retarded justification as Ukranian crisis. zomg protect ethnic russians!

Wannaspoon i don't think you know how the UNSC works. A no vote is the same as a veto vote in the security council. P5 members vote no = full veto. They can choose to abstain if they wish. Sure the UNSC may not have supported it, the US only looked to the UN for legitimacy via international law. In reality, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Also if other countries wanted to trade with Iraq during the sanction period, it's not just US sanctions, it's UN MANDATED which means every country violates international law (like australia lawl) if they elected to choose to trade with Iraq without UN approval. You're putting way too much emphasis on the petro-dollar/euro thing. In reality people can trade whatever commodity in whatever currency they want. There's a reason why the Euro would never replace the USD as de facto international currency.

Trade sanctions are only effective if your country is actively trading with the other side. sanctions on NK and Burma don't do shit because they don't really trade with anyone in the first place.

Irregardless of the actions that led us to Iraq, we need to solve the goddamn problem of ISIS going around executing people. I wouldn't be the surprised if the Saudi's and Jordanians attempt to put a stop to them.

 

[wannaspoon]

Lol yeah right... Russia invaded Georgia because of cluster munitions... yeah same retarded justification as Ukranian crisis. zomg protect ethnic russians!

Wannaspoon i don't think you know how the UNSC works. A no vote is the same as a veto vote in the security council. P5 members vote no = full veto. They can choose to abstain if they wish. Sure the UNSC may not have supported it, the US only looked to the UN for legitimacy via international law. In reality, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Also if other countries wanted to trade with Iraq during the sanction period, it's not just US sanctions, it's UN MANDATED which means every country violates international law (like australia lawl) if they elected to choose to trade with Iraq without UN approval. You're putting way too much emphasis on the petro-dollar/euro thing. In reality people can trade whatever commodity in whatever currency they want. There's a reason why the Euro would never replace the USD as de facto international currency.

Trade sanctions are only effective if your country is actively trading with the other side. sanctions on NK and Burma don't do shit because they don't really trade with anyone in the first place.

Irregardless of the actions that led us to Iraq, we need to solve the goddamn problem of ISIS going around executing people. I wouldn't be the surprised if the Saudi's and Jordanians attempt to put a stop to them.

At your first point, (Russia v Georgia): the use of cluster munitions during that conflict is clearly well documented by Human Rights Watch; if you bothered to do an ounce of research (a quick google search) you would clearly see that... (Yes, Russia did use them as well... But to their defence, Georgia was the first to fire them into North Ossetia; not that it is much of a defence... However, the UN Charter does mandate the use of "self defence")

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/14/russiageorgia-cluster-bombs-harm-shows-need-join-ban

On your second point, yes, I know how the UNSC works... What I meant is a no vote in terms of voting against a motion in the UNSC, not an abstention... There hasn't been an abstention by permanent members of the UNSC since the former USSR abstained from voting on intervention in Korea... What came of that is the Korean War... However, that is not to say that an abstention in the UNSC warrants those actions... The UN Charter is after all silent in relation to that issue...

On your third point, you are quite literally reciting what I am saying... the US Dollar is the de facto world currency... In itself, this would obviously hand the US a lot of power in relation to dictating foreign policy... stepping away from that would mean the US is losing that avenue as a means of control (which would obviously force them to act)...

Forth point, every country trades with another country (yes, even NK, regardless of what you may believe; in fact, some have said the famines in North Korea were single handedly caused by the sanctions on NK)... any dent to trade has an effect on any country regardless of how much they may or may not trade with others...

And yes, I do support some form of military intervention on ISIL; certainly more than what is happening at the moment... But, the US has really dug their grave with this one... it is going to be hard to weasel their way out of this one...