The fight for Mossul has begun

[Giancarlo]

perhaps you should get some ointment for that butthurt of yours.

if you knew anything about the subject (the middle east, not butthurt), you would have seen that what i said that the islamic state if likely to do is precisely what it did the last time. it is likely to do this because the factors and circumstances that allowed it to emerge still largely obtain. it is highly unlikely that the iraqi government will become much more competent and much less corrupt; and there is no chance that it will be able to resolve the paradox of having a democracy to which a large part of the demos do not wish to remain part. but since you don't anything about the subject, none of that will have occurred to you.

It is obvious you broke that tablet now completely. I know far more than you ever will. You are an incredibly vapid lazy thinker. You can't even be bothered justifying the incoherent gibberish you post on this site. I never said anything about the future Iraqi government, but keep it up with the assertions, mister crystal ball.

By the way, you may want to proofread your posts a little better. You are missing words and perhaps even whole sentences. Your grammar is utter **** too. Bad grammar, bad logic and a lazy argument

[C0ckney]

keep proving me right, fez.

[Giancarlo]

keep proving me right, fez.

Thanks for proving me right, lazy bar fly.

Lazy. Just lazy. When pressed you resort to one liners... Just like that loser you admire so much. Thank goodness you can't vote.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your ignorance knows no boundaries. It was brewing for years. And Iraq didn't want us in their country. Do you not get that in your thick skull?

Sure. But now all of a sudden Iraq wants them back. Clearly Dubya's position of leaving the troops there has been vindicated by the immediate events after Obama withdrew.

Obama didnt bail. Are you incapable of reading? I just explained to you what happened. Al Maliki wanted us out.

And Obama did bail, by pulling the troops out. Then, not more than 6 months later Iraq is overrun by ISIS. Dubya should have been finger wagging the whole time, after that hot mess blew up in Obama's face. There is a reason the troops were there. And they never should have left. Now, you have the deaths of hundred of thousands of civilians that would otherwise be alive had Obama actually kept the troops in Iraq.

So what were we supposed to do? Just stay without permission or an agreement?

You show leadership and tell al-Maliki that now is not the time and that if they were to go that would cause greater harms than to stay and keep building up Iraq. It's not even been ten years yet, it takes time to set things up well. Ask the British about it.

[Giancarlo]

Sure. But now all of a sudden Iraq wants them back. Clearly Dubya's position of leaving the troops there has been vindicated by the immediate events after Obama withdrew.

Because Al-Maliki quit and was replaced by Al-Abadi who is more friendly with the US. Dubya's position was untenable because the agreement he had was expiring and the troops would have left anyways. You're a dummy.

And Obama did bail, by pulling the troops out. Then, not more than 6 months later Iraq is overrun by ISIS. Dubya should have been finger wagging the whole time, after that hot mess blew up in Obama's face. There is a reason the troops were there. And they never should have left. Now, you have the deaths of hundred of thousands of civilians that would otherwise be alive had Obama actually kept the troops in Iraq.

No he didn't bail. He was told by the Iraqi government to leave. Open your eyes please. And Al-Maliki wasn't even going to let us back in even after Daesh threatened Baghdad. Al-Maliki had to leave power. He was a hindrance. The agreement for troops expired. The government demanded we leave. You have no clue.

You show leadership and tell al-Maliki that now is not the time and that if they were to go that would cause greater harms than to stay and keep building up Iraq. It's not even been ten years yet, it takes time to set things up well. Ask the British about it.

The typical response from the bald assertion man. For one, that isn't leadership. Al-Maliki headed the recognized government and the recognized government asked us to leave, so we had to leave.

Do you even know what happened in that region? At all? Do you even read history?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because Al-Maliki quit and was replaced by Al-Abadi who is more friendly with the US. Dubya's position was untenable because the agreement he had was expiring and the troops would have left anyways. You're a dummy.

LOL the argument against Bush not taking the troops out is that 'the troops would have left anyways.' LOL

Yes, eventually they would have, but Bush was smart enough to keep them there during his term. Obama was not. ISIS is proof that Obama blew it by withdrawing them too soon.

Everybody, pretty much, predicted disaster when they left.

No he didn't bail. He was told by the Iraqi government to leave.

LOL. Yes, he did bail. Cut and ran the first chance he got. Now he has to put back what he cut back, which is delicious irony.

And Al-Maliki wasn't even going to let us back in even after Daesh threatened Baghdad. Al-Maliki had to leave power. He was a hindrance. The agreement for troops expired. The government demanded we leave. You have no clue.

I do have a clue. The troops were there just fine during the Bush administration. It's only when Obama wanted to leave them to stage his promise of pulling out that they became an issue. You do recall that Obama promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, right?

And, again, delicious irony is him being forced to send them back after ISIS showed him to be a complete and utter fool when it comes to the Mideast. He should stay home and stick to domestic affairs, since it's clear he doesn't understand the middle east.

Bush did. Guess those schools in Texas left him more prepared.

The typical response from the bald assertion man. For one, that isn't leadership. Al-Maliki headed the recognized government and the recognized government asked us to leave, so we had to leave.

Yes, it is leadership. What is Al-Maliki going to do? Kick the Americans out? In any case, the Obama doctrine has been proven to be utter rubbish, and thankfully we've moved on from his disastrous foreign policy.

Do you even read history?

Sure do. And again, it was a mistake from the start to pull them out.

[Proteus_MST]

what is likely to happen at some point, quite soon in iraq, hard to say in syria, is that the islamic state will simply stop trying to control territory and go underground, blending in with the civilian population and carrying out terrorist attacks. they will then look to exploit sunni resentment to emerge again when government sectarianism/corruption/incompetence becomes too much to bear.

Considering that they started as a terrorist organization (and only later declared themselves caliphate) it is very likely that at one point (when the fortunes of war have turned too much agsainst them and they are about toi lose their last territory) they will try to go underground again

Although I think there is hope, that it will be very difficulty for them (most (if not all) of the faces of their leadership are known, so they may be identified and either captured or killed more easily ... also I believe that IS will have less backing by the population now (than before 2014) as not even the Sunni population will want a return of IS dictatorship and brutality .... also I think that only a minority of IS (fighters/leaders) will have knowledge in establishing and leading terrorist cells and networks)

[Proteus_MST]

...

Bush did. Guess those schools in Texas left him more prepared.
...

Obviously not ... else he wouldn't have attacked Iraq (under false pretenses) firstplace, but rather had let Saddam remain in power

[Proteus_MST]

The Anti-IS-Forces already won their first ideological important victory on sunday

The battle for Dabiq

Dabiq is a strategically unimportant town that, however, according to a prophecy strongly supported by IS clerics, was supposed to be the location of an important battle between Crusaders (i.e. the western forces) and the IS forces and was supposed to end with a victory for the IS forces (which then would trigger the apocalypse).
So important was this Dabiq prophecy for the IS propaganda, that they even named their english language propaganda magazine "Dabiq"
Well, obviously IS propagandists already knew very well what the outcome of the real battle would be, because a short time before the actual battle they renamed their propaganda magazine from "Dabiq" to "Rumiyah" (the arabic name for rome, which IS intends to conquer)

Nevertheless the IS military leadership sent 800 additional IS fighters to Dabiq in order to strengthen the defenses.
Well, after preparatory operations in which the Anti-IS-Forces (more exactly, syrian rebels supported by turkish tanks and US airpower) took the villages around Dabiq, thereby almost completely encircling the IS forces in Dabiq, they attacked Dabiq itself ... the battle took place on sunday and was over in less than 24 hours, with barely any IS resistance, after which the syrian rebels seized the town (as well as another neighboring town)

Of course now IS propagandists back away from the prophecy and say that said battle of Dabiq wasn't the battle of the prophecy (and that the "real battle of Daqib" will take place sometime in the future) ... but I am sure the propaganda damage is done and will further erode the will of IS fighters to actually fight (probably also shortening the battle for Mosul)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Dabiq_offensive

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30083303

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-dabiq-loses-apocalyptic-prophesy-town-of-dabiq-to-syria-rebels-short-battle-a7363931.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-dabiq-idUSKBN12G088?il=0

[Meticulous Man]

ISIS is a form of slave revolt

[Giancarlo]

LOL the argument against Bush not taking the troops out is that 'the troops would have left anyways.' LOL

Now you are posting unsupported lies...

Yes, eventually they would have, but Bush was smart enough to keep them there during his term. Obama was not. ISIS is proof that Obama blew it by withdrawing them too soon.

This isn't what happened. The Iraqi government demanded we leave. They are the recognized government. When the recognized government asks you to leave you have no choice in the matter. Obama did blow anything. He wasn't going to negotiate by Al-Malikis term. And Al-Maliki was the one that enraged Sunnis. He was the key problem. And who was the one that helped him take power? Your favorite President Dubya.

I can't honestly believe you are this ignorant on this subject too.

Everybody, pretty much, predicted disaster when they left.

This is called a phony narrative.

LOL. Yes, he did bail. Cut and ran the first chance he got. Now he has to put back what he cut back, which is delicious irony.

Liar liar pants on fire. Just like Trump. He didn't bail at first opportunity. There was an attempt at negotiations and the Iraqi government refused any sort of compromise. Keep being a historical revisionist, Benny.

I do have a clue. The troops were there just fine during the Bush administration. It's only when Obama wanted to leave them to stage his promise of pulling out that they became an issue. You do recall that Obama promised to pull the troops out of Iraq, right?

No. You are clueless and you don't know what you are talking about. We had no business being in Iraq in the first place. The troops there were just fine during the Bush administration? Tell that to the families of the thousands of US soldiers that died. Easy for a chickenhawk like you to make such claims. 4,000 dead and tens of thousands injured. Nothing was "just fine".

And, again, delicious irony is him being forced to send them back after ISIS showed him to be a complete and utter fool when it comes to the Mideast. He should stay home and stick to domestic affairs, since it's clear he doesn't understand the middle east.

Look at this know it all fool type. Obama has done just fine. If the Iraqi government refused any sort of compromise, of course we had to withdraw. If you would use your little brain, you would realize Shiite militia men were killing US troops too. Remember Al-Sadr? But of course a lying dingbat, like you, always knows better. You know what is ironic? You discussing this subject as if you know anything at all. The only fool here is you.

Bush did. Guess those schools in Texas left him more prepared.

The claim of a deranged idiot. Texas schools are the worst ranked in the country.

Yes, it is leadership. What is Al-Maliki going to do? Kick the Americans out? In any case, the Obama doctrine has been proven to be utter rubbish, and thankfully we've moved on from his disastrous foreign policy.

Moronic claim. The recognized government asked us to leave and refused to negotiate. Militiamen allied with the government were attacking US forces if you can remember (unless your dementia is acting up). By the way, any presence of US troops in Iraq right now is minimal.

The fight of Mosul involves mainly Kurdish fighters and Iraqi army troops. Not even ****te militiamen.

Your argument is utter rubbish and total garbage.

Sure do. And again, it was a mistake from the start to pull them out.

No. Actually it was the right move. By now, we would be looking at 10,000-15,000 dead. But you would think it would be just fine. Keep drinking your koolaid. You are nothing more than an armchair neoconservative fool.

[Bereta_Eder]

ISIS is a form of slave revolt

Agreed, it has all of the characteristics - some very despicable.


Such revolts are not crushed as long as their underlining reasons to exit persist.

They perish only when such underlining reasons ceaze to exist.

[Sava]

isis is many things

one thing for sure, the leadership has never known bondage

someone who has been kept down only commits those kinds of evils against the perpetrators

not children

so **** off with that nonsense

[giblets]

The Iraqi government under Al Maliki did not want the US there any longer and refused to sign an agreement. By the way, Bush's actions did lead to the creation of Daesh. Stop trying to illogically pin this on Obama.

Must you always post stupidity, Ben?

I guess the right wing wanted us to say "tough ****, we're staying in 'your' country forever."

[Giancarlo]

Daesh (I do not call them ISIS) fed off a political vacuum and sectarian violence propelled by Al-Maliki. They may have promised the Sunnis one thing, but they resorted to brutality thus losing support of Sunnis. There are even squads of enraged locals in Mosul launching attacks against Daesh decimating their leadership.