Islamic State talks: Iraq 'regrets' Iran absence

[webfact]

Islamic State talks: Iraq 'regrets' Iran absence

(BBC) -- Iraq's foreign minister has criticised the decision not to invite Iran to an international summit on the threat from Islamic State (IS) militants.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the decision was "regrettable".

Thirty countries pledged to join a US-led coalition against IS in Paris.

Meanwhile the US has said that it carried out airstrikes south-west of Baghdad on Monday in support of Iraqi troops who were being attacked by IS fighters and who requested back-up.

Officials say the strike reflects the recent decision by President Obama to attack IS positions wherever they are.

Earlier US airstrikes in Iraq - conducted since August - were carried out to protect American interests and personnel, help Iraqi refugees and secure infrastructure.

But Monday's strike was carried out directly to support Iraqi forces fighting the militants, officials say.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

-- BBC 2014-09-16

[webfact]

BREAKING: US launches airstrikes against IS militants south of Iraqi capital, Baghdad, and near Mount Sinjar - Central Command /BBC

[coma]

The US sure does love holding a grudge. Leaving the door wide open for further conflict in the region.

[Credo]

The US sure does love holding a grudge. Leaving the door wide open for further conflict in the region.

Iran is already in conflict over a number of issues. Being a part of the coalition would give them access to sensitive information that is probably not in anybody's interest for them to have.

If/when ISIS is gone, the conflict with Iran will remain. It's not about grudges.

I don't think anybody will prevent Iran from fighting ISIS. They simply will be doing it outside the coalition. I am sure there are countries who are more than willing to cooperate with the Iranians on this issue.

As a matter of fact, perhaps Iran could take the lead, develop a coalition and then exclude the US. That would make a lot of people happy, including the US, I would think.

[rhodie]

The West will never learn. While they do a lot of good, they keep arming groups that turn into terrorists and come back to bite them. Their policies in Africa ruined the continent and now they are doing the same thing in the Middle East.

[webfact]

US airstrikes to support Iraqi troops under attack

(BBC) The US has carried out airstrikes in Iraq in support of troops who were being attacked by Islamic State (IS) fighters, the US military has said.

It said that the attacks took place on Sunday and Monday near Mount Sinjar and south-west of Baghdad.

They were the first made as part of expanded efforts outlined by US President Barack Obama last week.

Meanwhile Iraq has criticised the decision not to invite Iran to an international summit on the IS threat.

Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the decision was "regrettable".

Thirty countries pledged to join a US-led coalition against IS in Paris.

The militant group, which originated in Syria, has swept through parts of western and northern Iraq in recent months and now controls large areas of both countries.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

-- BBC 2014-09-16

[Credo]

The West will never learn. While they do a lot of good, they keep arming groups that turn into terrorists and come back to bite them. Their policies in Africa ruined the continent and now they are doing the same thing in the Middle East.

The ME has always been a cauldron of deception, deceit and violence. Alliances shift quicker than the desert sands. They have been screwed up longer than the West has been around.

[ezzra]

The Iraqis "regret" Iran not in? have they forgotten the 1980 war where millions died on

both sides in a war that lasted 10 years? haven't they learned that Iran want to control

the whole region there and if they help against ISIS not because they give a damn about

the Iraqis, it's because ISIS have to eliminated before they can continue with their plans

to expand and rule the whole area there that includes Lebanon, Syria and Iraq..

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US sure does love holding a grudge. Leaving the door wide open for further conflict in the region.

It makes sense to leave Iran out of the International Summit, not only because of the US but also because of the G20 and EU nations against whom Iran has allegedly supported terrorist actions. Iran continues to propogandize its holy war against the Great Satin and the mini-Satin Israel to keep alive ITS grudge against the US.

BUT...there is no reason why Iraq as a sovereign nation cannot itself enter into a separate alliance with Iraq to assist in repelling ISIS. Iran just would not be integrated into the International combat strategic planning and mission support. In fact two battalions of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are reported to be operating in Iraq to combat ISIS against the Iraqi government, particularly in defense of Shiite monuments being destroyed by ISIS.

[mjef]

The Iraqis "regret" Iran not in? have they forgotten the 1980 war where millions died on

both sides in a war that lasted 10 years? haven't they learned that Iran want to control

the whole region there and if they help against ISIS not because they give a damn about

the Iraqis, it's because ISIS have to eliminated before they can continue with their plans

to expand and rule the whole area there that includes Lebanon, Syria and Iraq..

So are you with ISIS on this? If you don't know something it's always safe not to say anything about it. From Wikipedia just FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

"The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980."

"The conflict has been compared to World War I^[38]:171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wirestretched across trenches, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges,human wave attacks across a no-man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Iraqi Kurds."

​All the atrocities was done by Saddam (with huge support from the US back then) who fortunately is gone now, not by Iraqi people. In fact it was a war between some western governments led by USA, against Iran in fear of what you said; to expand and rule the whole region!!! Nowadays Iranian-Iraqi relations is more or less stabilized and everyone forgot about the past. Again FYI:

"Iraq's defeats at al-Faw and at Mehran were severe blows to the prestige of the Iraqi regime, and western powers, including the U.S., became more determined to prevent an Iraqi loss."

"However, Western mistrust of Iran and collaboration with Iraq led them to also blame Iran for the attack."

History is your friend! Also is Google! Media isn't though!

[BATHIK]

Iraq-Iran war is irrelevant here, or the conflict with ISIL could even be considered as its continuation because ISIL military is run by ex-Saddam's men, ie Iranian arch-enemies. They were sidelined by post Saddam Shia governments but now they are back.

[dexterm]

The Iraqis "regret" Iran not in? have they forgotten the 1980 war where millions died on

both sides in a war that lasted 10 years? haven't they learned that Iran want to control

the whole region there and if they help against ISIS not because they give a damn about

the Iraqis, it's because ISIS have to eliminated before they can continue with their plans

to expand and rule the whole area there that includes Lebanon, Syria and Iraq..

Saddam was a Sunni; the Iran he fought years ago was Shia. He kept all the religious and tribal factions in check until USA and allies came along and caused the present chaos in Iraq.

The Iraqi army today is different and mainly Shia, natural allies of Iran.

Maybe it’s time simply to rewrite the borders that were unnaturally imposed by UK and France 100 years ago.... Iran swallows up everything south of Baghdad, Kurdistan becomes independent, and IS have the rest. Good fences make good neighbors.

Not that I am approving such a split. I’m just saying that’s what may eventually happen. Personally I’d much rather people of all faiths lived together in peace.

[oneday]

The West will never learn. While they do a lot of good, they keep arming groups that turn into terrorists and come back to bite them. Their policies in Africa ruined the continent and now they are doing the same thing in the Middle East.

And so what is your solution? You would like to see these Islamic terrorist run rampant? Or maybe your country, whatever that may be, can do a much better job because you are so superior, unless of course you sympathize with the terrorists. Please, please I'd love to have someone else jump in and deal with these scum of the earth terrorist, which BTW, are mostly aimed at causing harm to the West and especially America.

There is no perfect solution. There will always be blame to go around, there will always be innocents who are killed that are nearby the terrorists when weapons of war are used, but at least we try to stop whole communities of innocent people from being terrorized and killed by these barbaric and ruthless people. People like you would rather criticize and do NOTHING!

So please give us your wisdom as to what the world should do. Maybe we can learn from you.

[oneday]

Saddam was a Sunni; the Iran he fought years ago was Shia. He kept all the religious and tribal factions in check until USA and allies came along and caused the present chaos in Iraq.

Wow, what a wonderful man Saddam was. I guess we should have left him alone to terrorize, subjugate and torture his people all so the religious and tribal factions could be kept a check. Gee, I never thought of it that way. How stupid we were to remove a wonderful dictator such as Saddam from the world scene. If you could have advised the US and it's allies we certainly would have had a better and more perfect outcome.

[BATHIK]

I'd love to have someone else jump in and deal with these scum of the earth terrorist, which BTW, are mostly aimed at causing harm to the West and especially America.

Actually, unlike Al Qaeda, ISIL does not have global aspirations, they just want the land that they consider historically theirs. They are not seeking to rally all Muslims for their cause either, they want to be monocultural and don't care about interests of other Muslim groups.

Beheadings are done by apparently a Brit, not a local Arab. And ISIL is not a beheading capital of the world, last months Saudis beheaded eight people for non-violent crimes like adultery and sorcery (!):

"According to the experts, so far in 2014, at least 45 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia. Between 4 and 22 August, 22 people were executed, which represents an average of one execution per day. These included at least eight people beheaded for non-violent crimes including drug-smuggling and sorcery. Other offences resulting in beheading have reportedly included adultery and apostasy." UN News Centre

It all makes current outrage against ISIL somewhat hypocritical.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually ISIS DOES have global aspirations. They plan to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia and parts of Europe for starts. After the establishment of their caliphate, the group has changed its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant.

However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries. As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.
Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.
Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html#ixzz3DRt4qy5S

Edited September 16, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Saddam was a Sunni; the Iran he fought years ago was Shia. He kept all the religious and tribal factions in check until USA and allies came along and caused the present chaos in Iraq.

Wow, what a wonderful man Saddam was. I guess we should have left him alone to terrorize, subjugate and torture his people all so the religious and tribal factions could be kept a check. Gee, I never thought of it that way. How stupid we were to remove a wonderful dictator such as Saddam from the world scene. If you could have advised the US and it's allies we certainly would have had a better and more perfect outcome.

Do bear in mind that “regime change”was never proposed as a goal of the previous US involvement in Iraq. We were all conned into believing that there were WMD that needed dismantling. Maybe we are all being conned again right now into a new mission creep.

4,805 allied soldiers (mainly American) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died for what?...the present chaos.

A crack team of Delta force trained partisans could have taken out Saddam, without any overt foreign involvement at all.

But I wouldn’t be surprised had Saddam survived that he would indeed now be advising US on how to deal with Iran. And the coalition would be hypocritically accepting it.

Geopolitics in the Middle East is a very murky business..not simple black and white.

Edited September 16, 2014 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

A crack team of Delta force trained partisans could have taken out Saddam, without any overt foreign involvement at all.

Do you read this stuff on crazy websites or just make it up?

[vogie]

Saddam was a Sunni; the Iran he fought years ago was Shia. He kept all the religious and tribal factions in check until USA and allies came along and caused the present chaos in Iraq.

Wow, what a wonderful man Saddam was. I guess we should have left him alone to terrorize, subjugate and torture his people all so the religious and tribal factions could be kept a check. Gee, I never thought of it that way. How stupid we were to remove a wonderful dictator such as Saddam from the world scene. If you could have advised the US and it's allies we certainly would have had a better and more perfect outcome.

If my memory serves me well, we went into Iraq to rid the country of WMD, which Bush and Blair blatenty lied about to us all. There was certainly no terroism in Iraq till we went in and destabledised it.

[BATHIK]

Actually ISIS DOES have global aspirations. They plan to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia and parts of Europe for starts. After the establishment of their caliphate, the group has changed its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant.

However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries. As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.

Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.

Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html#ixzz3DRt4qy5S

That map is unattributed, though. They have ideologists and demagogues and surely a large number of starry eyed followers but they have never carried attacks outside their area and their leaders never talked about far away lands like Spain.

Point being - they can be contained to where they are now and left to themselves. I don't know if it would be the best option but it should be at least considered.

There are probably too many of them to be simply killed and at least some of their demands can be accommodated. In exchange zealots and fanatics should be sidelined and local pragmatists put in charge instead - the same strategy as in Libya, Syria, or even Ukraine.

[mumjokmok]

How will Iran be absent? From the nightly news for a convenient six months or so erm.... Their nation will be well f---ed if we compared Pakistan before and after chasing the Talibs across the border. Iran will likely support Muqtada al Sadr as he would be the only thing they would remotely trust in the region. That guy has some fancy enemies that wouldn't mind kicking Iranian testicles..

Iran would never be admitted to the acronym-busters anyway, my feeling is they are about to end up on the receiving end of this mess fairly soon. Putin and Assad cant really help defend them anymore. If you think about where all the Shia will flee, it will be in Iran's direction. The Kurdish bit at the top of Iraq is almost as good as independent, Turkey will the have influence there. IS may be causing worry for some nations in the West but I think Iran fears the lot. Plus they have the only bit of completely unravaged territory left. Hard to see them jump to volunteer themselves, they are just stuck in that 1950's mindset : p

[arjunadawn]

Actually ISIS DOES have global aspirations. They plan to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia and parts of Europe for starts. After the establishment of their caliphate, the group has changed its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant.

However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries. As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.

Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.

Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html#ixzz3DRt4qy5S

That map is unattributed, though. They have ideologists and demagogues and surely a large number of starry eyed followers but they have never carried attacks outside their area and their leaders never talked about far away lands like Spain.

Point being - they can be contained to where they are now and left to themselves. I don't know if it would be the best option but it should be at least considered.

There are probably too many of them to be simply killed and at least some of their demands can be accommodated. In exchange zealots and fanatics should be sidelined and local pragmatists put in charge instead - the same strategy as in Libya, Syria, or even Ukraine.

"[t]he map is unattributed, though." You dont need a map to know jihad's intentions; read the koran or just listen to what they say is the goal. I can scrawl a big circle on a piece of paper with crayon, draw another circle representing... the moon, and I would still be 100% correct that sharia for the entire earth is the goal of islamic jihad. This would be attributed to me and be correct as well.

You mention spain; islamic jihad is now advancing on multiple fronts. If some people have the wherewithal to capture land, tanks, planes, 1/2 billion dollars, and bring the west to their knees in a few months, dont you think that they are aware that "population jihad" is already addressing the "spain" issue? And yes, they have already identified targets outside of this area. They do not see their area is being contained in this place you might call the mideast. Islam is for them global, and this is the single underlying goal and reason for being for islam- jihad!

They cannot be contained where they are now. There has never been a suggestion that this is their goal- indeed, it is not. The threefold goal of jihad is their immediate, regional illegitimate muslim leaders, then the US/West/Israel global challenge. Leaving them there to kill themselves should be considered, accompanying some intelligent plan for containment. But you cannot contain rabid ideology. That boat has long ago sailed.

I ask this question: if the worst among them cannot be rehabilitated, and they cannot be, as a terrorist is he a candidate for removal from earth- death. If the answer is yes, why does that moral imperative waiver when there are two, or ten, or a hundred jihadis? Why can't all of them be wiped out when they have a declared and demonstrated existential threat to civilization? Why do sheer numbers make values null? What are you willing to do to preserve your civilization? The question, in response to your point, needs to be asked.

The idea that they can be sidelined and local pragmatists elevated instead is N. Chamberlain-like. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Islam. The reason there are so many muslims silent is because IS does in fact represent islam. http://awdnews.com/top-news/9774-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/isis-videos-excite-groups-supporters-david-haines-syria

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/185073

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/13/ISIS-signs-non-aggression-pact-with-Syrian-group.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/denmark-no-imams-want-to-join-anti-islamic-state-demonstration

http://mobile.news.com.au/world/europe/primary-schoolchildren-in-london-being-trained-for-jihad/story-fnh81p7g-1227057716735

There are no pragmatists; it is an invention of the west to find in another like-minded men. There are not like-minded men in this area, having no devolution from enlightened consideration- only the rule of sharia, a 7th century desert nomad device of control. You mentioned three areas, where presumably, pragmatists can be appealed to:

Libya- Wrong. Libya is run by militias and islamists. The AQ flag was flying over Benghazi while US bombs were still dropping. Next

Syria- Wrong. Really? One point only: all the trucks that IS convoyed into Iraq in- the iconic photos of the long line of toyotas- these were purchased by the US for "pragmatic" Syrian rebels. Next

Ukraine-Wrong- the west unseated a democratically elected president by funding and motivated neo nazi movements (Jews are fleeing Ukraine) because the president didn't want closer connections to Europe and instead wished to move into the Russian orbit. Ukraine will be regarded in history as evidence of the West's betrayal of democratic values. The west actually organized a coup de etat and forced the Russian hand in a bid to rally Ukraine's resources and leverage Russia in Syria.

Edited September 16, 2014 by arjunadawn

[BATHIK]

I ask this question: if the worst among them cannot be rehabilitated, and they cannot be, as a terrorist is he a candidate for removal from earth- death. If the answer is yes, why does that moral imperative waiver when there are two, or ten, or a hundred jihadis? Why can't all of them be wiped out when they have a declared and demonstrated existential threat to civilization? Why do sheer numbers make values null? What are you willing to do to preserve your civilization? The question, in response to your point, needs to be asked.

Well, that's certainly one way to move forward - exterminate them all and everyone who steps in to replace them. Genocidal much?

IS does in fact represent islam

Saudi Arabia represents Islam, too, and a bunch of Gulf states, and so does Iran, and Syria, and Turkey, and Egypt, and Malaysia, and Indonesia - there are countless Muslim nation states that stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. I suggest states like that would be a preferable outcome for former Iraq. Let Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias have sovereign control over the land they consider as their own.

This is exactly what is going on there - a civil war where old adversaries are settling their scores. It has noting to do with the West.

It's not the first time Muslims have a go at each other for one reason or another, historically it always ended in peace, and if some animosity persists, like between Sunnis and Shias - let them fight each other, what do you care? It doesn't threaten the West in any way.

Elevating this conflict into a global jihad, however, attracts exactly the kind of element flocking to the region you don't want to be there. When French, British, Arab etc jihadists arrive their aspirations needs to be accommodated, radical leaders naturally get promoted, ideology takes over nationalism and a pragmatic fight for resources.

Fact is that ISIL never attacked anyone outside their borders, they are not promoting global terrorism, they just want their country back. US took it from them and so some resentment is there but ISIL's main enemies and targets were Shia Iraqis, not westerners.

If they ever want to expand their caliphate beyond their historically defined borders they'll run into problem with Muslim neighbors, not the West. let Turks, Iranians, Saudis, and Syrians contain them, it's not the western problem.

As for supporting moderates and sidelining radicals - that's the only strategy the US has, whether it works or not is secondary. In Syria they still have the opportunity to backpedal and let Assad keep warring Muslim factions together. With Libya and Iraq it's too late but the US still has no other options. Same with Ukraine - what's done is done, foresight was not a luxury Americans could afford, now they have no choice but try to keep radicals out of parliament and force Poroshenko to be a moderate and negotiate when military option doesn't work.

What is their proposal for IS problem now? Fight them through their proxies in the region? To what end? What would the victory look like? Turkish and Saudi troops occupying northern Iraq instead of American ones? I seriously doubt any country in the region would commit itself to such an invasion. Syrian moderates just signed a peace pact with ISIL, now they are told to fight them instead of Assad?

What if Turkey gets its ass whipped? Will NATO be forced to intervene?