It isn't even about Iraq anymore although God bless their innocents and I hope the entire country doesn't fracture. What it is about now is barbaric terrorists, who are stateless and do not recognize states taking control of the ME region and its resources. Not only are they killing indiscriminately but also seizing money from banks and oil reserves which can be used to finance terror operations against the US and our allies. From an article I posted in the WOT thread:
"Based on these threats, the United States cannot afford to withdraw or remain disengaged from key parts of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But [our] research indicates that the struggle is far from over."
We dare not drop our guard. And we must find ways to work even more vigorously with the international community, with our allies, with stable regional governments upon which we can depend and with whom we can collaborate, to do whatever we can to reverse this disturbing recent trend. President Barack Obama's West Point speech -- which suggested that we could now safely start to hand off such issues to partners on the ground -- has, in the case of Pakistan and Iraq, been debunked within the last few days.
We cannot put this effort on autopilot and forget about it. Instead we must develop new strategies and new active and committed alliances -- like finding ways to work more closely with the Chinese, who face a similar threat at home, reinvigorating how the Atlantic Alliance works together on such issues, and working more closely with the more moderate Sunni states in the Middle East. Our new efforts will require more aid (and unlike with some of our Syria promises, aid that is swiftly delivered when it can make a difference). They will mean more technical assistance and training. More shared intelligence. More military support and, yes, action when it is the only and best available option. And above all it will mean instilling the sense of urgency that should be associated with any endeavor, like this one to protect our citizens and interests, in which we are so clearly losing ground."
Sunni Offensive in Iraq a Blow to Iran
Ron Ben-Yishai (Ynet News)
The takeover of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, by Sunni global jihad fighters is a blow to Iran, which backs the Shiite government in Iraq.
ISIS is the bitter enemy of Shiites wherever they are, meaning it is the enemy of Iran.
At the moment, only Arab regimes are on the front line - Assad's regime in Damascus, al-Maliki's regime in Iraq. But later on, Israel might become a main target too.
Ron Ben-Yishai (Ynet News)
The takeover of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, by Sunni global jihad fighters is a blow to Iran, which backs the Shiite government in Iraq.
ISIS is the bitter enemy of Shiites wherever they are, meaning it is the enemy of Iran.
At the moment, only Arab regimes are on the front line - Assad's regime in Damascus, al-Maliki's regime in Iraq. But later on, Israel might become a main target too.
Barack Obama has set the stage for renewed US military action in Iraqafter the authorities in Baghdad proved powerless to stop relentless Islamist insurgents from seizing further swaths of a country in danger of breaking apart.
The US president said his national security chiefs were looking at any and every way they could help the Iraqi authorities take the fight to thousands of Sunni jihadists who have seized three of the country's biggest cities and vowed to march on Baghdad.
"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter," Obama said, adding that there were "short-term, immediate things that will need to be done militarily – and our national security team is looking at all the options".
The US president said his national security chiefs were looking at any and every way they could help the Iraqi authorities take the fight to thousands of Sunni jihadists who have seized three of the country's biggest cities and vowed to march on Baghdad.
"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter," Obama said, adding that there were "short-term, immediate things that will need to be done militarily – and our national security team is looking at all the options".
Barack Obama was under mounting pressure to send military help to Iraq as Iranian forces were reported to have joined Baghdad’s government to quell an al-Qaeda-inspired uprising.
A defensive president, accused by Republicans of squandering the security gains won in Iraq by US forces, insisted that he was looking at “all the options” to prevent the country unravelling.
But even as he spoke, Iran seemed poised to steal the initiative by sending troops to fight what its president, Hassan Rouhani, described as the “terrorist group that is acting savagely” in Iraq.
Reports emerged that two battalions of Iran’s feared Revolutionary Guards were already in the country, where the government’s forces have shown little stomach for combat. Iran’s willingness to put troops on the front line will give it a strategic advantage in Iraq over America, which at most would offer only air strikes. The US State Department last night ruled out “boots on the ground”.
The developments of the past 72 hours raises the prospect of two bitter enemies – Iran and America – fighting the same foe, albeit for different goals.
A defensive president, accused by Republicans of squandering the security gains won in Iraq by US forces, insisted that he was looking at “all the options” to prevent the country unravelling.
But even as he spoke, Iran seemed poised to steal the initiative by sending troops to fight what its president, Hassan Rouhani, described as the “terrorist group that is acting savagely” in Iraq.
Reports emerged that two battalions of Iran’s feared Revolutionary Guards were already in the country, where the government’s forces have shown little stomach for combat. Iran’s willingness to put troops on the front line will give it a strategic advantage in Iraq over America, which at most would offer only air strikes. The US State Department last night ruled out “boots on the ground”.
The developments of the past 72 hours raises the prospect of two bitter enemies – Iran and America – fighting the same foe, albeit for different goals.
Scott, I need a little elaboration here
the Shiites are the loud violent minority of the Islam religion, they're the ones that desire Sharia Law. Sunni's are supposed to be a more open sect, they allow the state to govern and not the clergy. Shiites are supposed to demand the clerics rule.
I guess with all the violence in the region, it becomes harder to differentiate between the two. They've all become violent to some extent, and with more failed policies leading to more civilian deaths, more of both sects will hate America. It's obvious many of them hate each other
Willie BOTH desire Sharia Law, They just fight over what that entails and who gets to administer justice. Both sects wield all power at the top and rule oppressively so the people suffer. Must who live in the climate of strict Islam are living for the next world, not this one. I don't think their hatred of America is generated by what we do, but who we are. They are however. masters of using "grievance politics" to foment anger among the populace toward outside entities. It's a good way to deflect from the fact that the rulers are the ones who have destroyed their societies.
What is the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims?
CLASHES between Islam's two big sects, the Sunni and the Shia, take place across the Muslim world. In the Middle East a potent mix of religion and politics has sharpened the divide between Iran’s Shia government and the Gulf states, which have Sunni governments. Last year a report by the Pew Research Centre, a think tank, found 40% of Sunnis do not consider Shia to be proper Muslims. So what exactly divides Sunni and Shia Islam and how deep does the rift go?
The argument dates back to the death in 632 of Islam’s founder, the Prophet Muhammad. Tribal Arabs who followed him were split over who should inherit what was both a political and a religious office. The majority, who would go on to become known as the Sunnis, and today make up 80% of Muslims, backed Abu Bakr, a friend of the Prophet and father of his wife Aisha. Others thought Muhammad’s kin the rightful successors. They claimed the Prophet had anointed Ali, his cousin and son-in-law—they became known as the Shia, a contraction of "shiaat Ali", the partisans of Ali. Abu Bakr’s backers won out, though Ali did briefly rule as the fourth caliph, the title given to Muhammad’s successors. Islam's split was cemented when Ali’s son Hussein was killed in 680 in Karbala (modern Iraq) by the ruling Sunni caliph’s troops. Sunni rulers continued to monopolise political power, while the Shia lived in the shadow of the state, looking instead to their imams, the first twelve of whom were descended directly from Ali, for guidance. As time went on the religious beliefs of the two groups started to diverge.
Today the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims all agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad his messenger. They follow five ritualistic pillars of Islam, including Ramadan, the month of fasting, and share a holy book, the Koran. But while Sunnis rely heavily on the practice of the Prophet and his teachings (the “sunna”), the Shia see their ayatollahs as reflections of God on earth. This has led Sunnis to accuse Shia of heresy, while Shia point out that Sunni dogmatism has led to extremist sects such as the puritanical Wahhabis. Most Shia sects place importance on the belief that the twelfth and final imam is hidden (called "in occultation") and will reappear one day to fulfill divine will. Meanwhile, their sense of marginalisation and oppression has led to mourning ceremonies such as ashura, when followers flagellate themselves to commemorate Hussein’s death at Karbala.
There has never been a clash between the Shia and Sunni on the scale of the Thirty Years War, which saw Christian sects fight each other in 17th-century Europe with great loss of life. This is partly because the Shias, ever mindful of their minority status, retreated. The lines that divide Muslims in the Middle East today are being drawn by politics as much as by religion. The "Shia Crescent" that runs from Iran, through Mr Assad’s regime in Damascus to Hizbullah in Lebanon was once praised by Sunni figures. But the revolutions in the region have pitted Shia governments against Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have supported their co-religionists with cash. This is strengthening Sunni assertiveness and making the Shia feel more threatened than usual. In most cases, though, members of the two sects still live harmoniously together.
CLASHES between Islam's two big sects, the Sunni and the Shia, take place across the Muslim world. In the Middle East a potent mix of religion and politics has sharpened the divide between Iran’s Shia government and the Gulf states, which have Sunni governments. Last year a report by the Pew Research Centre, a think tank, found 40% of Sunnis do not consider Shia to be proper Muslims. So what exactly divides Sunni and Shia Islam and how deep does the rift go?
The argument dates back to the death in 632 of Islam’s founder, the Prophet Muhammad. Tribal Arabs who followed him were split over who should inherit what was both a political and a religious office. The majority, who would go on to become known as the Sunnis, and today make up 80% of Muslims, backed Abu Bakr, a friend of the Prophet and father of his wife Aisha. Others thought Muhammad’s kin the rightful successors. They claimed the Prophet had anointed Ali, his cousin and son-in-law—they became known as the Shia, a contraction of "shiaat Ali", the partisans of Ali. Abu Bakr’s backers won out, though Ali did briefly rule as the fourth caliph, the title given to Muhammad’s successors. Islam's split was cemented when Ali’s son Hussein was killed in 680 in Karbala (modern Iraq) by the ruling Sunni caliph’s troops. Sunni rulers continued to monopolise political power, while the Shia lived in the shadow of the state, looking instead to their imams, the first twelve of whom were descended directly from Ali, for guidance. As time went on the religious beliefs of the two groups started to diverge.
Today the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims all agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad his messenger. They follow five ritualistic pillars of Islam, including Ramadan, the month of fasting, and share a holy book, the Koran. But while Sunnis rely heavily on the practice of the Prophet and his teachings (the “sunna”), the Shia see their ayatollahs as reflections of God on earth. This has led Sunnis to accuse Shia of heresy, while Shia point out that Sunni dogmatism has led to extremist sects such as the puritanical Wahhabis. Most Shia sects place importance on the belief that the twelfth and final imam is hidden (called "in occultation") and will reappear one day to fulfill divine will. Meanwhile, their sense of marginalisation and oppression has led to mourning ceremonies such as ashura, when followers flagellate themselves to commemorate Hussein’s death at Karbala.
There has never been a clash between the Shia and Sunni on the scale of the Thirty Years War, which saw Christian sects fight each other in 17th-century Europe with great loss of life. This is partly because the Shias, ever mindful of their minority status, retreated. The lines that divide Muslims in the Middle East today are being drawn by politics as much as by religion. The "Shia Crescent" that runs from Iran, through Mr Assad’s regime in Damascus to Hizbullah in Lebanon was once praised by Sunni figures. But the revolutions in the region have pitted Shia governments against Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have supported their co-religionists with cash. This is strengthening Sunni assertiveness and making the Shia feel more threatened than usual. In most cases, though, members of the two sects still live harmoniously together.
Iraq Crisis: Mosul is just one battle in Islam’s civil war
by Robert Fry / June 12, 2014 /
The struggle against the insurgency has wider consequences for the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam
Everything that I have read so far about the capture of the city of Mosul in northern Iraq by the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Shams (ISIS) has focused on the group’s links to Al Qaeda. This may be true, but it completely misses the point. This is not about Al Qaeda. What we’re seeing is another subset of the civil war within Islam.
Through the British and American mission in Iraq, we released forces that we could neither comprehend nor control. We went in to Iraq with the belief that the process of democracy cures all ills. What we did not understand is that by knocking Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime out of power, we replaced one form of autocracy with another. In moving the country to the appearance of democracy, we automatically created a Shia state, because about 60 per cent of the population is Shia. It is no surprise that the Sunnis, who had reigned over the country in one form or another since the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Ages, should try to regain that power.
It is essential that the Shia Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki scrapes together the political will and military power to take back Mosul. You can’t have your country dismembered around you and claim to be exercising political power. It is still possible for him to take back the city—it is unclear how coherent the military force occupying Mosul is and if they could withstand a determined, conventional attack. If the prime minister can turn this around, it will consolidate his position. But, if Maliki fails, then we are at a significant point in a process that Prospect has already referred to as a “new cold war” between Sunni and Shia forces in the Middle East.
The training of insurgents in, and supply of weapons from, Syria has had an impact, but one must not underestimate the influence of external powers on the situation. The myriad terrorist opposition groups in Syria will be supported by Sunni money while the state terrorism of the Assad regime is propped up by Shi’ite Iran. Hezbollah I see as, to some extent, an Iranian proxy: Iran supplies them with money, training and weapons. ISIS, the militant Al Qaeda offshoot which seeks to establish an independent Sunni state across the Iraqi-Syrian border, has reportedly benefited from Qatari and Saudi money.
I don’t see a role for the west in this. History tells us that religious wars are usually measured in decades, not years or months. Unless the west was willing to take part in this conflict until the end, whatever the cost, then it’s better not to intervene at all. These divisions go back to the seventh Century AD: you can’t just put an Elastoplast over them. Any peace process has to happen within the Islamic community.
We’re not going to have anything that looks like a peace process until either side makes significant gains. This battle has a long way to run before either of them can say that. But the worry is that one day, this war might not be fought between proxies and surrogates. It might be fought between nation states.
by Robert Fry / June 12, 2014 /
The struggle against the insurgency has wider consequences for the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam
Everything that I have read so far about the capture of the city of Mosul in northern Iraq by the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Shams (ISIS) has focused on the group’s links to Al Qaeda. This may be true, but it completely misses the point. This is not about Al Qaeda. What we’re seeing is another subset of the civil war within Islam.
Through the British and American mission in Iraq, we released forces that we could neither comprehend nor control. We went in to Iraq with the belief that the process of democracy cures all ills. What we did not understand is that by knocking Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime out of power, we replaced one form of autocracy with another. In moving the country to the appearance of democracy, we automatically created a Shia state, because about 60 per cent of the population is Shia. It is no surprise that the Sunnis, who had reigned over the country in one form or another since the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Ages, should try to regain that power.
It is essential that the Shia Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki scrapes together the political will and military power to take back Mosul. You can’t have your country dismembered around you and claim to be exercising political power. It is still possible for him to take back the city—it is unclear how coherent the military force occupying Mosul is and if they could withstand a determined, conventional attack. If the prime minister can turn this around, it will consolidate his position. But, if Maliki fails, then we are at a significant point in a process that Prospect has already referred to as a “new cold war” between Sunni and Shia forces in the Middle East.
The training of insurgents in, and supply of weapons from, Syria has had an impact, but one must not underestimate the influence of external powers on the situation. The myriad terrorist opposition groups in Syria will be supported by Sunni money while the state terrorism of the Assad regime is propped up by Shi’ite Iran. Hezbollah I see as, to some extent, an Iranian proxy: Iran supplies them with money, training and weapons. ISIS, the militant Al Qaeda offshoot which seeks to establish an independent Sunni state across the Iraqi-Syrian border, has reportedly benefited from Qatari and Saudi money.
I don’t see a role for the west in this. History tells us that religious wars are usually measured in decades, not years or months. Unless the west was willing to take part in this conflict until the end, whatever the cost, then it’s better not to intervene at all. These divisions go back to the seventh Century AD: you can’t just put an Elastoplast over them. Any peace process has to happen within the Islamic community.
We’re not going to have anything that looks like a peace process until either side makes significant gains. This battle has a long way to run before either of them can say that. But the worry is that one day, this war might not be fought between proxies and surrogates. It might be fought between nation states.
I have a few Lebanese clients, they're Sunnis and they talk about their desire for a more westernized civilization with bars and cigars and female skin and democracy. One of them does a lot of traveling to both Egypt and Lebanon. Maybe that's the sect they're involved in, maybe that reflects the attitudes of Lebanese Muslims. I know we all have inherent biases.
But if the Sunni sect is actually more open and lets government govern instead of the cleric, that would suggest they're less likely to practice Sharia Law, at least the most extreme versions of it.
Then again, at the end of the day, theory is not often what's practiced. Just look at DC for that, where conservatives don't govern like the conservatives they campaigned as
- SHARE PICTURE
+31
Shocking: Footage reportedly taken by ISIS militants shows Islamist fighters randomly shooting pedestrians and motorists as they take over towns and cities in Iraq
+31
Indiscriminate: A car flies off the road after the driver is shot dead by gunmen in video purportedly posted online by ISIS militants
+31
Sickening: The gunmen film themselves shooting cars off the road then move in to video close-ups of the victims' blood-stained bodies slumped in the seats
+31
Brutal: The footage, which cannot be independently verified, contains the same logo used in video posted earlier this week showing a businessman being shot in the head
[h=3]BRITONS ARE JOINING ISIS 'IN THEIR HUNDREDS'[/h]Security services are 'monitoring very closely' concerns that hundreds of British Muslims have signed up with extreme jihadist group ISIS and gone to fight in Iraq.
The Government believes more than 500 British citizens have left the UK to join rebel fighters in Syria, with many of them feared to have crossed the border to join the uprising in Iraq.
The ruthless ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) extremists control large areas of land in Syria and are now turning their attention to Iraq and particularly Baghdad, having already taken the cities of Mosul and Tikrit.
Meanwhile, British security experts are also looking at the possibility that home-grown extremists trained by the ultra-violent group may bring terror back to the UK.
One terror expert told MailOnline today: 'There is a fairly high chance that someone will attempt it.'
More than 500 British Muslims are believed to have already travelled to Syria to fight against President Assad, and it is feared many more will join them.
Many of them are now feared to have crossed the barely-existent border into Iraq with the ultra-violent ISIS militia.
The Government believes more than 500 British citizens have left the UK to join rebel fighters in Syria, with many of them feared to have crossed the border to join the uprising in Iraq.
The ruthless ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) extremists control large areas of land in Syria and are now turning their attention to Iraq and particularly Baghdad, having already taken the cities of Mosul and Tikrit.
Meanwhile, British security experts are also looking at the possibility that home-grown extremists trained by the ultra-violent group may bring terror back to the UK.
One terror expert told MailOnline today: 'There is a fairly high chance that someone will attempt it.'
More than 500 British Muslims are believed to have already travelled to Syria to fight against President Assad, and it is feared many more will join them.
Many of them are now feared to have crossed the barely-existent border into Iraq with the ultra-violent ISIS militia.
- SHARE PICTURE
+31
Drive-by looting: Despite vastly outnumbering the jihadists, government troops have melted away in the face of the insurgents
+31
Jubilant: ISIS fighters who do not recognise the region's modern frontiers have seized Mosul and Tikrit, Saddam's home town, and other towns north of Baghdad
+31
Sabre-rattling: An Islamic militant issues a call to arms, saying: 'Declare Allah the Greatest! Allah is the Greatest!' in a video released by ISIS
+31
Trail of destruction: Militants of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant damage a patrol car of Iraq army in the city of Mosul
+31
On the warpath to Baghdad: A graphic showing the town and cities captured by ISIS over the last few days
- SHARE PICTURE
+31
Armed and dangerous: This video reportedly shows dozens of vehicles including several Police SUVs, large military trucks and at least two artillery weapons
+31
Bringing out the big guns: The insurgents have apparently seized this long-range American artillery canon which they are towing towards Baghdad
