ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US raid in Syria near Turkish border - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15046389
ingliz wrote:Why all the fuss?

The US have proclaimed al-Baghdadi dead many times before. His 'death' changed nothing then, why would it change anything now.

They only proclaimed that he might have been killed. This time they know that he set off his suicide vest to kill himself as the military dogs closed in on him. President Trump watched it all happen on a monitor in the Situation Room of the White House. That is why he could state Bagdadi died like a cowardly dog.
#15046392
@Atlantis
Iran's interests is in maintaining its buffer zones, creating a "no man's land" for its enemies all around possible hostile borders; this is why Iran routinely helps the Taliban in Afghanistan even though the Taliban's a radical Sunni group, the Taliban creates that zone on Iran's southern borders, making any potential US or NATO invasion from the south suffer excessive attrition before it even engages the Iranian army.

Likewise is the case for Iraq and Syria as ISIS serves 3 purposes: 1- It creates an attrition zone where any invading army will need to pass through before it engages it (The Iraqi Shia Militias serve the same purpose). 2- It creates an excuse for Iran to further expand its buffer zones in the region and take control over even more resources in the process. And finally, 3- it ensures that both its "allies" remain weak enough to need its help and not be able to challenge its decisions, and its rivals to remain busy with a much more pressing and erratic threat to deal with.


Turkey used the same strategy in northern Syria over the years; And even Israel used the exact same strategy decades ago. Where do you think Hamas came from?



Notes to take into consideration is that Syria is Russia's ally first, yet Syria was forced to let Iran in and establish a full military presence in critical regions of the country because of these Islamists.
The Iraqis were forced into letting Iran entrench in their country and establish dozens of militias taking orders directly from Iran because of the ISIS threat, right when Iraqis were turning against the Iranian government.

And heck, even Lebanese tribes supported and supplied both sides of the Syrian war simply to burn the country to the ground and create a no man's land on the borders, with the onething in common between all parties of the Syrian civil war is that they're all enemies of the Lebanese tribes.
#15046441
anasawad wrote:@Atlantis
Iran's interests is in maintaining its buffer zones, creating a "no man's land" for its enemies all around possible hostile borders; this is why Iran routinely helps the Taliban in Afghanistan even though the Taliban's a radical Sunni group, the Taliban creates that zone on Iran's southern borders, making any potential US or NATO invasion from the south suffer excessive attrition before it even engages the Iranian army.

Likewise is the case for Iraq and Syria as ISIS serves 3 purposes: 1- It creates an attrition zone where any invading army will need to pass through before it engages it (The Iraqi Shia Militias serve the same purpose). 2- It creates an excuse for Iran to further expand its buffer zones in the region and take control over even more resources in the process. And finally, 3- it ensures that both its "allies" remain weak enough to need its help and not be able to challenge its decisions, and its rivals to remain busy with a much more pressing and erratic threat to deal with.


Turkey used the same strategy in northern Syria over the years; And even Israel used the exact same strategy decades ago. Where do you think Hamas came from?



Notes to take into consideration is that Syria is Russia's ally first, yet Syria was forced to let Iran in and establish a full military presence in critical regions of the country because of these Islamists.
The Iraqis were forced into letting Iran entrench in their country and establish dozens of militias taking orders directly from Iran because of the ISIS threat, right when Iraqis were turning against the Iranian government.

And heck, even Lebanese tribes supported and supplied both sides of the Syrian war simply to burn the country to the ground and create a no man's land on the borders, with the onething in common between all parties of the Syrian civil war is that they're all enemies of the Lebanese tribes.


Here are some objections to your argument:

a) Iran wants a sphere of influence and not buffer zones.

b) Terrorists can't stop a regular army from passing through; they just stop a country from being pacified.

c) Even Trump isn't stupid enough to attack Iran. The Iranians know that because they wouldn't have provoked the US by knocking out half of Saudi oil capacity or by capturing tankers in the Strait otherwise.

d) Even if the US were to attack, it would be primarily from the sea and the US has enough bases in the region from which to attack. Even today it can move its troops in Syria with impunity.

e) Iran doesn't have the economic means to continuously sustain foreign wars.

f) Turkey, KSA, Qatar, the US/UK supported the rebellion in Syria. There was no need for Iran to support ISIS in order to destabilize Syria.

g) No country wants wars on its doorstep.

h) Syria needed Iran because the Russians wouldn't have sent enough ground troops

i) Tribal leaders sometimes switch allegiance. That doesn't prove Iranian support for ISIS.

j) You haven't provided a thread of evidence showing that Iran supported ISIS.

k) Iran doesn't need to "weaken its allies" because US/KSA are doing that.

l) Iran is supporting the Houtis in Yemen. That is to create a zone of influence and not a "buffer zone" to deter a US attack.

m) The danger to Iran are popular uprisings at home and in its sphere of influence and not a US invasion. The more it has to spend on foreign wars, the less there is for economic improvements to pacify popular uprisings.

I can imagine that the ME is a hot house for conspiracy theories. In fact, it's these conspiracy theories that fuel the radicalism which keeps the conflicts from calming down. Why add another one?
#15046450
@Atlantis
a) Iran wants a sphere of influence and not buffer zones.

It already has a sphere of influence, and to maintain that sphere of influence it needs a boogeyman, a local one that everyone can see and feel threatened by.

The Iraqis were silenced by the excuse of fighting terrorism.
Lebanon's Hezbollah and allies are using fighting terrorism as an excuse to stay in power.
Syria is the same.

b) Terrorists can't stop a regular army from passing through; they just stop a country from being pacified.

Insurgencies and militias can inflict attrition using asymmetric warfare and through disrupting supply lines.

c) Even Trump isn't stupid enough to attack Iran. The Iranians know that because they wouldn't have provoked the US by knocking out half of Saudi oil capacity or by capturing tankers in the Strait otherwise.

The US and Iran are already fighting a cold war against each other.
They don't attack each other directly.

d) Even if the US were to attack, it would be primarily from the sea and the US has enough bases in the region from which to attack. Even today it can move its troops in Syria with impunity.

Hardly.
First, it would need to attack through the plains in southern Iraq, it can't deploy sufficiently large army through the sea.
And second, if the US went to war, then its army will be attacked by the dozens of militias on the ground before reaching Iran.

e) Iran doesn't have the economic means to continuously sustain foreign wars.

It doesn't have the economic means to sustain foreign wars and social development and welfare together. It, however, can sacrifice one to sustain the other. Guess which one it's sacrificing?

f) Turkey, KSA, Qatar, the US/UK supported the rebellion in Syria.

True, but Iran is the one doing most of the fighting on the ground, and Iran is the one choosing not to end these groups, rather keep them alive.

There was no need for Iran to support ISIS in order to destabilize Syria.

It didn't have to support it, all it had to do is leave some space open for it to grow and not kill it off right away.

g) No country wants wars on its doorstep.

Yet when war is brought to your doorstep, you have to fight it.

h) Syria needed Iran because the Russians wouldn't have sent enough ground troops

And Syria wouldn't have needed Iran if these Islamists hadn't grown so strong.
The Syrian government actively released Islamists at the early stages of the rebellion in order to divide the rebels and make them fight each other, and when Iran got involved, it actively left space for them to grow and abstained from fighting on several occasions in order to let them expand and give it an excuse to increase its militias' size and its own military deployment.

j) You haven't provided a thread of evidence showing that Iran supported ISIS.

I didn't say that Iran supported ISIS.
I said Iran has an interest in keeping ISIS alive and well and that I wouldn't be surprised if it supported it.
We do however know that Iran does occasionally supply the Taliban, so we do know that it does use this strategy.

k) Iran doesn't need to "weaken its allies" because US/KSA are doing that.

It does, because strong allies at the moment would challenge it and effectively become rivals themselves.

Before the war, Iran had to negotiate with Syria for pipeline and trade deals for example, with gulf states like Qatar competing with Iran in these negotiations; Now, Syria doesn't have that choice and Iran can simply enforce its well.

l) Iran is supporting the Houtis in Yemen. That is to create a zone of influence and not a "buffer zone" to deter a US attack.

The Houthis are in Yemen, they act to surround Saudi Arabia and as a leverage card to shut naval supply lines passing through the red sea.
Any invading army attacking Iran, especially if it's a NATO one, would need to deal with the Houthis in order to secure its supply lines, making Yemen an effective buffer zone.

m) The danger to Iran are popular uprisings at home and in its sphere of influence and not a US invasion. The more it has to spend on foreign wars, the less there is for economic improvements to pacify popular uprisings.

The danger of an American invasion was very real for the past decades.
And now that an American invasion is less likely, Iran needs another, more immediate, foreign threat as an excuse to crack down on any descent and uprising.
ISIS serves that purpose just fine and thus we see that Iran routinely held back in fighting it.

And the main reason for the lack of economic development in Iran is corruption, not lack of resources.

I can imagine that the ME is a hot house for conspiracy theories.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is a simple analysis of Iran's interests and strategy in the region based on 1- historical precedents, and 2- popular strategies used by various governments in the region.
#15046679
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/1190039664901677057?s=20.

America is in the Middle East as the pathetic cock sucking rent boys of Israel. Trump is repeating this Marxist lie to please our Jewish masters. Any likely oil revenues from Syria might be significant for the Syrian government. They might be significant for ISIS or the Kurds to control, but they are insignificant for the US and Israel. Israel would like those revenues denied to Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. But much more important for Israel is blocking the land route from Tehran to Lebanon, astride which the Syrian oil fields lie.

Our leaders first priority is to Israel's bidding. Their second priority is to appease and grovel before the Muslims, Saudi, Pakistan and Turkey in particular. Foreign policy is very hard work for leaders, because they have to try and appease the competing and often conflicting wants and wishes of Israel, Saudi, Pakistan and Turkey. At the same time they have to sell their foreign policy to their electorates. It has to be sold as economic imperialism and aggressive vengefulness to American nationalists. It has to be sold as all about stability to the "realists" and it has to be sold as robust humanitarianism to the centre and left.

The contradictory narratives that justify western foreign and military policy can often appeal to the same person. So the idea of our Afghanistan intervention in 2001 as righteous wrath and no school girl left behind idealism was very appealing to most people. In reality America's response was weak, cowardly and spineless to the blatant aggression by our supposed allies in Saudi and Pakistan.

Public opinion can be manipulated to a certain degree, but there are limits. It was public opinion that forced leaders to do something about ISIS despite the fact that neither Israel, Turkey, Saudi or Pakistan cared about ISIS.
#15046743
Israel would like those revenues denied to Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. But much more important for Israel is blocking the land route from Tehran to Lebanon, astride which the Syrian oil fields lie.


Correct

Public opinion can be manipulated to a certain degree, but there are limits. It was public opinion that forced leaders to do something about ISIS despite the fact that neither Israel, Turkey, Saudi or Pakistan cared about ISIS.


Yup

ISIS doesn't pose any serious threat except for Syria and the minorities who live there
#15046772
Political Interest wrote:Only solution for Middle East:

1. Support local hardmen to put down stupidity and promote economic development, protection of minorities.

2. No more super power games, we need multilateral cooperation for benefit of region and the world.

3. Americans out.

The third part of your solution can't work because Americans are major players in the world.
#15046779
Political Interest wrote:Only solution for Middle East:

1. Support local hardmen to put down stupidity and promote economic development, protection of minorities.

2. No more super power games, we need multilateral cooperation for benefit of region and the world.

3. Americans out.


No more superpower games?
Tell that to Russia (major power not superpower) and to Turkey and Iran (Wanna be major powers)

Iran needs to get out and stay at its borders they are destibilizing the whole region
there are major protests taking place now in Iraq and Lebanon and its all because of unwanted Iranian presence and influence (In Iraq thats the main issue in Lebanon its part of the issue but they have other problems aswell)
#15046807
@Zionist Nationalist ,

You said about ISIS that:

''ISIS doesn't pose any serious threat except for Syria and the minorities who live there''


Well, I'm here to tell you that ISIS or some iteration or other of Al-Qaida poses the greatest threat to world peace and international security since the Fascists were defeated in 1945. A few years from now, we'll be talking here on PoFo about the latest engulfing of territory by ISIS and the latest attempts to put them down, except each time will be worse and each attempt will be harder to accomplish on the part of ISIS enemies.
#15046858
annatar1914 wrote:Well, I'm here to tell you that ISIS or some iteration or other of Al-Qaida poses the greatest threat to world peace and international security since the Fascists were defeated in 1945. A few years from now, we'll be talking here on PoFo about the latest engulfing of territory by ISIS and the latest attempts to put them down, except each time will be worse and each attempt will be harder to accomplish on the part of ISIS enemies.


I find that really hard to believe.
The way they have reigned over their miserable piece of arid territory, crucifying people, using sex slaves, destroying cultural treasures, and so on and so forth, they are hated by most people on the planet, including (I hope) most people of the Muslim religion.
ISIS can only flourish in failed states and those are mostly sand boxes with some camels and goats on it.
Please indulge me and explain why you think ISIS can re-emerge.
#15046859
annatar1914 wrote:@Zionist Nationalist ,

You said about ISIS that:



Well, I'm here to tell you that ISIS or some iteration or other of Al-Qaida poses the greatest threat to world peace and international security since the Fascists were defeated in 1945. A few years from now, we'll be talking here on PoFo about the latest engulfing of territory by ISIS and the latest attempts to put them down, except each time will be worse and each attempt will be harder to accomplish on the part of ISIS enemies.


I dont feel threatened by them. like what can they do beside terror attacks? they are not professionals and lack modern equipment
also as long as they fight shias they can be useful
#15047023
@Ter ;

I find that really hard to believe.


I know, most people agree with you, and while as Aristotle said that 'that which is believed in by all is not entirely wrong''.... This is one reason why they will win.

The way they have reigned over their miserable piece of arid territory, crucifying people, using sex slaves, destroying cultural treasures, and so on and so forth, they are hated by most people on the planet, including (I hope) most people of the Muslim religion.


You unfortunately assume and hope a great deal. The fact that they managed to rule over a territory the size of Great Britain in the Middle East before being forced underground again at tremendous cost, speaks to something that is almost unprecedented. One thing they can-still!-count on after four years of conflict is that their enemies obviously hate and fear each other more than they hate and fear ISIS, and thus allow them the strategic operational space in which to survive despite heavy losses, losses which moreover they are not demoralized by ideologically (because their readings of Islamic Prophesy actually COUNT ON their losing the war initially, and being severely crushed even, before they believe that they will recover and triumph). And no, even if they are not followed by the majority of the Muslim world, many people do admire them.



ISIS can only flourish in failed states and those are mostly sand boxes with some camels and goats on it.



Ah, the pleasant arrogance of those who are doomed, whistling past the graveyard. I don't know if you realize this, but this whole era after 1991 is characterized by ''failed states'', states that are failing and collapsing apart, including the United States. Here's another story from another failed state that is doomed, picked almost at random but showing other factors favor ISIS;

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/04/am ... netanyahu/

Please indulge me and explain why you think ISIS can re-emerge.


I could go back over points I mentioned, but the biggest reason ISIS can re-emerge is Time. They have it, you don't. The second biggest reason is Ideology. And with the Ideology they have they really could conquer the entire Islamic world.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Zionist Nationalist ,

You said;

I dont feel threatened by them.


You should be.


like what can they do beside terror attacks?


They are an Insurgency that engages in Terrorist attacks. Terrorism demoralizes people and causes them over time to both over-react in certain ways and give up apathetically in others.


they are not professionals and lack modern equipment



'Professional' what? They seemed to be professional enough to fight the regular and irregular and special forces of several different countries. Modern equipment can be had, you just have to get it from your enemies is all.

I don't like these people at all, in fact I hate them with a white-hot fury. But i'm objective enough and enough of a student of history that they should be worrying plenty of other people, not just me.
also as long as they fight shias they can be useful
#15047113
President Trump, the Trump of God, is attempting to save the USA from being a failed state.
Praise the Lord.

A Brief History of ISIS

ISIS was originally founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and took the name Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI fought against American forces in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Zarqawi was killed by a United States airstrike in 2006.

In that same year, AQI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), which signaled the group’s intention to focus on conquering territory in Iraq as a means of creating a Sharia state there.

After the death of Zarqawi, ISI was led by Abu Ayyub Al-Masri and then by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. The two were killed by a tank shell in 2010.

After their deaths, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the leader of ISI. He was able to rebuild some of the popular support that had been lost under the previous leaders. The organization built strength while expanding its operations into the Syrian Civil War in 2013. During this time, ISI changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

When ISIS became involved in the Syrian Civil War, it concentrated its efforts more on building an Islamic state than defeating the regime of Bashar al-Assad. On January 3, 2014 ISIS gained control over the city of Fallujah in Iraq and proceeded to declare statehood.

In early June of 2014, ISIS shocked the world by storming across northern Iraq and capturing Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. Then on June 29, 2014 ISIS declared the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, changing its name to Islamic State (IS). Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was declared Caliph and the Islamic State called for all Muslims throughout the world to give loyalty to the new Caliph.

From June 2014 till June 2015, the Islamic State expanded its control to include 75% of Syria and 50% of Iraq, an area larger than all of Great Britain. In 2015, ISIS expanded into a network of affiliates in at least eight other countries. Its branches, supporters, and affiliates increasingly carried out attacks beyond the borders of its so-called caliphate.

Under President Trump, by December 2017, the ISIS caliphate had lost 95 percent of its territory, including its two biggest properties, Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, and the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, its nominal capital.

In 2018, the focus of the campaign against ISIS shifted to eastern Syria, where a U.S.-backed coalition of Syrian Kurds and Arabs known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) gradually captured key ISIS positions. The SDF briefly suspended its offensive in November 2018 after Turkish attacks on Kurdish positions diverted its attention. On December 14, the SDF captured the town of Hajin. Hajin’s fall reduced ISIS territory to a few villages along the Euphrates River near the Iraqi border.

On December 19, 2018, President Donald Trump declared that ISIS was defeated and signaled his intention to withdraw all 2,000 U.S. troops supporting the SDF in Syria. But the SDF continued its offensive and in February 2019 launched the final siege on ISIS forces in Baghouz, the last holdout. Baghouz fell on March 23, 2019, formally ending the caliphate’s claim to any territory. The mass surrender of ISIS fighters and their families illustrated the lingering challenge: how to deal with jihadists to forestall its transformation into an insurgency in Iraq and Syria. The Baghdadi era of ISIS ended on October 26, 2019, when the leader was killed in a U.S. raid in northern Syria.

HalleluYah
#15047123
The problem with you god botherers, and when I say god botherers I don't care of your colour creed or religion. If you're thick enough to belive in some super god like entity as brainwashed Islamic dickheads do, then you're just as bad. You are just as radicalised and brainwashed as some ignorant kid from a Madrassa in Pakistan. The koran and the bible are fairy tales, grow the fuck up
#15047134
annatar1914 wrote:Ah, the pleasant arrogance of those who are doomed, whistling past the graveyard.

:lol: that was funny, thank you !

annatar1914 wrote:I don't know if you realize this, but this whole era after 1991 is characterized by ''failed states'', states that are failing and collapsing apart, including the United States.

I agree calling Syria, Iraq, Libya and Somalia failed states but tell us why you include the US.
#15047138
:lol: that was funny, thank you !


My wit is somewhat mordant and sometimes florid, but I'm not without a sense of humor, like Fate itself. ;)

I agree calling Syria, Iraq, Libya and Somalia failed states but tell us why you include the US.


Because the whole Nation-State concept as expressed post-Peace of Westphalia is collapsing, and the US is not immune to these trends. I actually write about this a lot.
#15047169
Political Interest wrote:Only solution for Middle East:

1. Support local hardmen to put down stupidity and promote economic development, protection of minorities.

2. No more super power games, we need multilateral cooperation for benefit of region and the world.

3. Americans out.

Some what ironic that you talk about putting down stupidity, when there appears to be abundant stupidity within the so called realist foreign policy school. I'm sorry but this verges on narcissism, feeling we are entitled to have hardmen who put down stupidity and protect minorities. Maybe Pinochet fulfilled the first two, but the situation of Chile in 1973 was totally different to Syria, Egypt, Iraq or Yemen in 2019.

Please don't don't take this personally because some of what you seem to be saying now seems to pass for consensus in western discussion. In this pathetic fantasy world, Saddam Hussein is seen as some of pillar of Middle East stability. Saddam spent nearly his whole time as supreme leader up until 1991 at war. The only reason he didn't start any more wars between 1991 and 2003. was that he was very strictly contained. A framework of containment that was already starting to come undone and was completely unsustainable in the long term.

As soon as he was out of his box, Saddam would have upped his aggression. This wouldn't have been stupidity on Saddam's part. Saddam's crusade / jihad against the West, against Israel, against Kurdish nationalism and against the Shia was vital to give his regime a raison d'etre. The regimes of demented aggressors like North Korea, and bullying expansionist nationalist China survive because they have purpose, they have a reason to inspire loyalty, even devotion. Sensible, reasonable, economic reformist regimes like Michael Gorbachev's collapse.

At least in the Middle East. Franco may have been able to potter along in his final years, devoid of any real ideological mission, but that's very dangerous for the regimes of the Muslim world. Part of the problem for both Gadaffi and Assad was that their regimes had lost their revolutionary zeal. What purpose did they serve? what about them would inspire loyalty and devotion from the ordinary citizens? Dictatorial regimes need to create instability in their environment in order to create stability for the regime.

However a mission is not enough. The strongman must also turn the country into one giant pyramid scheme of corruption. The strongman must run the country like a Mafia boss building concentric circles of loyalty and investment in the regime. No economic development is the last thing on the successful dictators mind. Its not even just the economy that gets sacrificed for the needs of loyalty. The dictators number one priority from his military / security apparatus is not winning wars with foreign powers, but guarding against internal coups.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

99% of communist "thought" is slander[…]

Jacinda vs ScoMo

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/fe[…]

Yes @BeesKnee5 and they are getting ripped apart[…]

Cousin to chaos

We're working on this unfortunate oversight, Comr[…]