[Centraal] Irak en IS #122 Mukhtar Army critizes ISF

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 09:21 schreef Peunage het volgende:
Dat van die Iraanse Tanks heb ik maanden geleden al gelezen

Ik wacht nog op een officieel bericht.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 01:43 schreef PizzaMizza het volgende:

[..]

Heb deze vaak langs zien komen afgelopen 2/3uur. En dan durven mensen nog te zeggen dat Iran geen directe invloed heeft op Irak.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:18 schreef Slayage het volgende:

[..]

officieel moet poetin ook nog bevestigen dat ze in oost oekraine aanwezig zijn, daarnaast werd de aanwezigheid op het krim ontkent door de russen tot het moment van annexatie voltooid was, dus tja een "officiele" bericht kunnen we lang op wachten

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:30 schreef Peunage het volgende:

[..]

Goed verhaal. Alleen daar waren gewoon beelden van. En een hele andere situatie.

Ik wacht nog even op de beelden van 60(!!!) Iraanse tanks die van Khanaqin naar Tikrit willen rijden. Wat niet eens bij elkaar in de buurt ligt of zo, 250 Km van elkaar af. Als die ongemerkt in Tikrit aankomen vreet ik mijn schoenen op.

Nogmaals, deze berichten hoor ik regelmatig. Ze worden verspreid door boze soennieten die dan kunnen zeggen "zie je wel, die sjiieten in het zuiden zijn verraders, hurdurdurdurdurdur".

Maak je niet druk, Iran gaat Irak niet annexeren.

quote:

US says Iranian hand in Iraq could turn out well

WASHINGTON / BAGHDAD

Iran’s direct support for an Iraqi push to dislodge the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group from the northern city of Tikrit could turn out to be “a positive thing” if it does not inflame sectarian tensions, the top U.S. general has said.

The statement by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on March 3 reflected the delicate balance Washington is trying to strike between limiting Iranian influence and allowing Iraqi leaders to determine their own path to defeating ISIL.

U.S. officials have said Iraq did not ask the U.S. to provide air support for the Tikrit offensive, even though the U.S.-led military coalition has been conducting airstrikes in much of Iraq since August and has deployed hundreds of U.S. soldiers to try to regenerate an Iraqi army that collapsed last June, The Associated Press reported.

Dempsey said Iran and its proxies have been operating inside Iraq since 2004, but the Tikrit campaign signals a new level of involvement.

“This is the most overt conduct of Iranian support, in the form of artillery and other things,” Dempsey said in response to questions from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Frankly, it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

The Iraqi army said March 4 that its strategy for retaking the jihadist stronghold of Tikrit is to surround the city before launching an assault.

On March 2, the Iraqi security forces and a variety of allied fighting units launched the biggest ground operation yet against the Islamic State group in Iraq.

Backed by jets and helicopters, the 30,000-strong force is moving in from three main directions, their progress slowed by suicide bombers, sniper fire and booby traps.

A senior commander said operations were currently focused on preventing IS from launching more attacks and cutting supply lines to stop reinforcements and weapons from reaching Tikrit.

The next step will be to “surround the towns completely, suffocate them and then pounce on them,” Lieutenant General Abdel Amir al-Zaidi told AFP.

Iraqi forces have yet to retake Ad-Dawr and Al-Alam, towns south and north of Tikrit respectively which command access to the city.

“Our forces are advancing gradually, although slowed by roadside bombs and sniper fire,” another lieutenant general involved in the operation said.

March/04/2015

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:39 schreef Slayage het volgende:

[..]

iraan is al full aanwezig in irak, dus wat zijn 60 tanks nou?

daarnaast wil ook graag beelden zien

quote:

Turkey will help Iraq retake Mosul, Prime Minister Davutoğlu vows

Turkey is willing to support a possible operation to reclaim Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), but it will avoid any direct combat unless it is attacked on its own soil, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said on route to the United States on March 4.

“We would support Mosul, but we will not engage in direct combat. We will only respond if there is a direct attack on Turkey. We possess both the potential and the might for that,” Davutoğlu told reporters, adding that Turkey would “back groups supported by the people” and considered Atheel al-Nujaif to be the legitimate elected governor of Mosul.

Commenting on preparations to take Iraq’s second largest city back from ISIL, mainly conducted by the Iraqi army, Davutoğlu outlined Turkey’s “four basic policies on Iraq,” with the central government in its southern neighbor being Ankara’s number one priority “for the sake of Iraq’s sustainability.”

The second policy is the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, he said, again highlighting that the Turkish army was continuing to support the Peshmerga, the fighters of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

The third policy is the security of Turkmens in the country, while the fourth is working to avert further Sunni-Shiite clashes in Mosul, Davutoğlu stated.

Throughout all four policies, Turkey prioritizes the sustainability of areas close to its borders, he said.

“For example, if [KRG capital] Arbil fell [to ISIL] this would be problem for us in terms of national security. Places close to the border must not be under the threat of terror,” he said.

The prime minister also warned against Shiite militia replacing ISIL militants in Iraq when the latter are gone, as is also the case in Syria. The U.S.-led coalition does not prioritize such issues, but Turkey should back the coalition in a manner that envisions “one step beyond,” he said.

“The coalition says, let’s clean up DEASH [ISIL] and then we will look at what to do;” he said, using the Arabic abbreviation of the jihadist group.

“This is a wrong strategy. The fire is at our border and it is us that it burns the most,” he said, adding that “some intelligence organizations” wanted the clashes and chaos to continue.

Davutoğlu said Turkey has been insisting on a train-and-equip program for three years, but it has only just been accepted by Western countries for fighting against jihadists.

“The international community now agrees on what we were saying three years ago. Over this three year period, DEASH has become rooted in the region. If the moderate Syrian opposition had been supported three years ago, then DEASH would not have been able to reach such a point,” he said, calling on the international community not to force the Syrian people to make a choice between the “barbarism of the regime and DEASH.”

The Syrian regime is supported by Russia in terms of arms, while ISIL holds U.S. guns seized in Iraq, he observed.

“The moderate opposition has only light weapons. Considering this situation, their struggle seems very successful,” Davutoğlu stated.

Meanwhile, the prime minister also touched on the recent evacuation of Turkey’s military personnel protecting the historic Tomb of S�leyman Şah, as well as the artifacts in the mausoleum in a Feb. 21 overnight operation jointly conducted by the National Intelligence Organization (MİT). He said it “sent a message that Turkey may go 40 kilometers into Syrian soil immediately whenever it wants to.”

He also said Turkey was willing to take on the Syrian military, “if the Syrian regime threaten us, even with only one bullet.”

March/05/2015

quote:

ISIL destroys Islamic civilization, Turkish President Erdoğan says

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is trying to destroy everything in Islamic culture, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said, likening its acts to the burning of 36 libraries in Baghdad during the Abbasid era by the Mongols, and the burning of 1 million Islamic books in Andalusia upon an order by a Spanish cardinal.

“Today, a terrorist organization active in Syria and Iraq is taking the same path, trying to destroy everything in our civilization, culture and roots,” Erdoğan said during the opening of a classical arts exhibition in Istanbul, referring to ISIL.

“A library in Mosul, which was holding 8,000 rare works, was unfortunately set alight by the organization. A similar thing was also practiced in Timbuctoo [in Mali, Western Africa],” he said.

“Our civilization has managed to sustain its existence against all such cultural massacres and attempted genocides. God willing, we will continue to do so,” Erdoğan said.

“Our civilization attaches a great importance to knowledge and learning, books and libraries,” he said, adding that the Prophet Muhammad preached that Muslims must keep learning until the last day of their life.

“Maybe it was the Chinese who discovered paper, but it was our ancestors who used it deservedly and then took it to the West and other places,” he said.

In his speech, Erdoğan thanked Mehmet �ebi, the curator of the exhibition, its sponsor Doğuş Holding, the Mimar Sinan Fine Arts Academy and the Istanbul Art Museum Foundation, for their contributions to the exhibition.

The show was organized by the Islam and Culture Arts platform and includes precious calligraphic works of Quranic verses, in addition to other artifacts.

President Erdoğan also revealed that a large center for Islamic artifacts would be opened on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, alongside the under-construction mosque on �amlıca Hill.

A 5 million-book library will also be opened inside the gargantuan new presidential palace in Ankara, he also stated.

March/04/2015

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:45 schreef Peunage het volgende:

[..]

Ja? Hoeveel duizenden Irani�rs zijn er al?

Dat er een Iraanse generaal en adviseurs zijn is al bekend. Op verzoek van Irak zelf. Zo zijn er ook Westerse militairen, adviseurs, etc. aanwezig.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:52 schreef Slayage het volgende:

[..]

je hebt geen duizenden mensen nodig om een land te runnen gewoon de juiste mensen op de juiste plekken

invloed van iran wordt steeds groter en groter, maar idd ook duitsland heeft wapens gestuurd, dus invloed van duitsland wordt ook steeds groter

net asl syrie zakt irak ook verder weg in het iraanse moeras

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:57 schreef Peunage het volgende:

[..]

Oke man, wat jij wilt. Dan nog liever een Iraans moeras dan een Turks of Wahhabitisch moeras. Er zijn op dit moment miljoenen Irakese vrijwilligers die bereid zijn tegen IS te vechten en hun land en steden te redden. Als jij er beter van slaapt door ze Irani�rs te noemen of te zeggen dat ze door Iran worden gerund, dat is prima

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 10:49 schreef Slayage het volgende:
lijkt alsof erdo de publieke opinie aan het voorbereiden is op mogelijke stappentegen isis

[..]

[..]

twitter:

ValkryV twitterde op donderdag 05-03-2015 om 11:14:07 #Irak'ta �len #İran'lı askerlerin cenazeleri via @IraqSurveys http://t.co/xHnnKW2LYM reageer retweet

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 13:09 schreef Aloulu het volgende:
In Irak hebben ze geen Iraniers nodig. Ze hebben zelf genoeg mankracht om ISIS aan te kunnen, zeker na een fatwa van Sistani. De sjitische milities moeten slechts goed geleidt worden en daar komt Iraanse kennis en hulp (van bovenaf dus ipv onderop oftewel simpele militiaren) bij kijken.
Bashar heeft wel niet-Syrische militiaren hard nodig; oftewel sjitische milities aangestuurd vanuit Iran. Irak met de sjia-milities is dus slechts een opstapje om daarna verder Bashar te gaan helpen. Zodra Irak weer redelijk onder controle is - kwestie van tijd - en ISIS' grote gevaar geweken gaan een deel van die milities middels Iraanse hulp richting Damascus om Assad bij te staan. Het is daarom vanaf het begin al duidelijk voor mij dat ondanks de blitzkrieg van ISIS en inname van Mosul ze op de middellange termijn een verloren oorlog uitvechten en juist zichzelf in de been schieten. Soennieten in Irak zijn maar 20% en zelfs daarvan hebben ze niet alle steun, sjieten zijn er veel meer en zijn stukken georganiseerder zeker wanneer het het gevaar van ISIS betreft. En ze hebben dan nog een regionale grootmacht en buurman die alles kan overnemen en nogal wat kennis en kracht tegenaan kan gooien; Iran.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 15:24 schreef PizzaMizza het volgende:

[..]

Dat klopt toch ook gewoon? Hoezo doen Irakezen daar zo moeilijk over? De sterkste milities worden door Iran bestuurd, ze zijn afhankelijk van Iran.

quote:

Daarnaast co�rdineert ayatollah Sistani van Irak sterk met Iran.

quote:

Je kan niet ontkennen dat Iran een grote invloed in Irak heeft. Nee, ze zijn niet direct de baas zoals het Britse rijk over India was, maar ze hebben wel grote invloed en bepalen ook hoe het Iraakse beleid in elkaar zit, a la Soviet-satellietstaat.

Ik snap niet waar die drang voor nodig is om Irak zo onafhankelijk te laten lijken. Iran is nou eenmaal een buurland van Irak en heeft er duizenden jaren een kijk op. Iran is ook heel lang deel van de Perzische rijken geweest.

quote:

Zelfde met KRG, het is algemeen bekend dat de VS een sterke hand heeft in de KRG. Toch zie ik nooit Koerden dat ontkennen. Hoezo moeten Irakezen dat wel doen bij Iran?

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 16:35 schreef PizzaMizza het volgende:
Natuurlijk gaan ze dat niet direct toegeven, maar ze accepteren meer autoriteit van Iran dan Irak.

Dat ligt totaal anders. De shiitische milities doen niets waar Iran tegen is. Maar bijv. de KRG doet wel dingen waar Turkije tegen is. Iran bestuurt de shiitische milities direct, zonder eerst via Baghdad te onderhandelen.

quote:

Ik heb overigens niet gezegd dat Iran, Irak heeft gekoloniseerd. Ik zeg echter dat Irak een soort van satellietstaat is geworden van Iran.

quote:

Het verschil is echter dat de Peshmerga voor het overgrote deel niet militair wordt gebacked door Turkije. Bovendien heeft de KRG een semi-zelfstandig beleid, ze doen hun eigen dingen zonder eerst Turkije van alles in te lichten. Ik geloof trouwens niet dat Turkije en KRG een sterke band hebben. Het is voornamelijk economisch, toen Erbil bedreigd werd, liet Turkije de KRG keihard vallen. Iets wat Iran niet zou doen bij Irak.

quote:

De door Iran gesponsorde shiitische milities echter niet. Ze lopen rond met vlaggen van Khamenei, zweren trouw aan Iran, ed ed. Een goed voorbeeld hiervan is het niet inlichten van de VS voor de slag om Tikrit.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 15:31 schreef PizzaMizza het volgende:
Irak heeft die ook. De grootste en sterkste Iraakse militie, de Badr organisatie, wordt sterk bestuurd door Iran. Je ziet het zelfs als ze vechten, ze lopen met Iraanse vlaggen en zweren Khamenei trouw.[/quote[

Dat ontken ik toch ook nergens? Alleen de mensen in deze militie die een wapen dragen zijn gewoon Irakezen. Het is dus een Iraakse militie, die zwaar naar Iran hangt.

[quote]
Nee, zeer zeker niet. De Badr organisatie is bijvoorbeeld al jaren actief in Irak, het is niet alsof die pas uit de grond komt schieten sinds ISIS. Natuurlijk, er zullen sjiitische milities Syrie gaan helpen(zoals ze daarvoor ook al deden), maar het meeste blijft in Irak.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 15:49 schreef PizzaMizza het volgende:
Nog meer tekenen dat ISIS aan het verliezen is.

[..]

http://in.reuters.com/art(...)dINKBN0M110720150305

quote:

It has been 24-years to the month since the March 1991 revolt against the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is important to remember and reevaluate this important moment in Iraq’s modern history.

One sometimes wonders what would have happened had that intifada succeeded. After Iraq’s military had suffered a decimating defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led multinational military coalition large swaths of the country’s Shia Arab and Kurdish communities rose up against the tyrant in Baghdad, President Saddam Hussein after U.S. President George H.W. Bush suggested they do so.


Put another way, here was an army which was pounded by a much more technological advanced coalition of nations and saw its country’s infrastructure pulverized by multiple air and missile attacks. And what did they do? Blamed their dictator and, recognizing that he had led them straight into that utter mess and ruin, accordingly sought to remove him and in doing so determine the course their country took themselves. A spontaneous action on the part of those two communities who had long been subjugated, oppressed and even, in the case of the Kurds just three years beforehand, subjected to a genocidal campaign by Saddam Hussein’s brutal and ruthless regime. All done mere days after the U.S. and the Iraqis agreed to a ceasefire which left the dictator entrenched in power. Hussein consequently turned his attention inward and focused on consolidating his complete control over the country. Estimates of how many people were killed in that month vary from between 80,000 to 230,000. Which is possibly, we may never know, more people than have perished to date in the horrible war in Syria!

After overseeing the terms of the ceasefire between Iraq and the coalition on the 28th February 1991 U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf, gave the Iraqis permission to use armed helicopters under the pretext that they were being used to ship necessities across the country in the wake of the U.S. bombing of Iraq’s roads and general infrastructure. It is hard, even with 24-years of retrospect, to comprehend how he possibly thought they would have been used for anything else when one considers the regime he was dealing with.

Hundreds-of-thousands of Kurds once again fled in terror fearful that the helicopters bombing their homes would unleash poison gas on their communities yet again. Their hopes of being once again able to defend themselves and their homeland and stand up to the murderous regime in Baghdad were dashed. Had the safe zones not stopped the regimes onslaughts a few weeks after they began tens-of-thousands more Kurds would doubtlessly have been butchered.

In the Shia south Saddam’s forces were completely ruthless. After attacking Karbala they even used their helicopters to set fire to refugees, whom they had first drenched with kerosene, who were fleeing the fighting in that city. And, in ways the notorious Islamic State can thankfully only dream of doing today, they purposely destroyed or defaced many sites of great importance and value to Shia Muslims in that Shi’a Islamic shrine city. They also showed no compunction when it came to tying civilians to their tanks and using them as human shields. Some tanks also displayed banners with sectarian slogans which pronounced “No Shi’ites after today”. Retrospectively such cruel subjugation of the Shia on the part of the Baath make the flirtations and collusion’s between the remnants of that regime and Islamist terrorists like Islamic State not so surprising and also hard to attribute simply and solely to resentful “grievances” over their removal from power in 2003.

But for the month of March 1991 the Iraqi regime was able to crush an enormous revolt that would more likely than not have been a success if the Americans had given it decisive support. Alas they did not. American pilots witnessed the carnage when flying over Saddam’s killing fields they were not permitted to defend the masses of populations Saddam was once again sending his forces out to slaughter, or at the very least use their advanced warplanes to shoot down the helicopters which were spearheading those attacks. One American F-15 fighter pilot interviewed in a superb 1996 PBS documentary aptly summed up the direness of the situation when he recalled how;

“We saw helicopters chasing a lot of people down a road, and we saw the [Republican Guard helicopter] gunships shooting at them [the Kurds], you could see the smoke coming out of the gunship, and occasionally see flashes of the tracers even though the sun had just started coming up. We felt frustrated by the fact we couldn’t help the uprising that was going on the ground for whatever political reasons that were above our rank. The best we could do was report what we saw and eventually hope it was taken care of.”

Most witnesses of this carnage did report the despair and horrors they witnessed, and even, for a brief few minutes due to security concerns, the U.S. Secretary of State himself went to see the displaced Kurds firsthand and subsequently informed the administration of the pressing political, not to mention moral, necessity of shielding those people against the murderous rampages of the very tyrant they had spent the previous months vehemently condemning, quite rightfully, for his heinous crimes against humanity.

Subsequently the U.S. was forced to act, so it enforced the no-fly zones above the south and north of Iraq, which remained in place until they dismantled the Iraqi regime in 2003. Something which was certainly a whole lot better than nothing. But something which, alas, came after the massacres Saddam’s forces carried out in March 1991 in order to retain their (remember Saddam’s Republican Guard had a highly vested interest in the preservation of a status quo that saw them occupy an extremely privileged position in society, especially economically) hold on the reigns of absolute state power.

Had the administration supported those uprising Iraqis across the country the last 24-years would doubtlessly have been radically different. It’s hard to determine what would have happened, even if a post-Saddam Iraq had been brought about shortly after the Gulf War there is no way to say it would have been in anyway pleasant and could very well have seen sectarian fissures badly ravage the society as did happen after 2003. However since that time tens-of-thousands of Iraqis were killed, the population was very badly impoverished for years as a result of the international sanctions (which, it’s important to remember, eroded away institutions in Iraq which are of pivotal importance when it comes to sustaining the fundamental foundations of any civil society) and suffered as a result of the war and strife which ensued after the 2003 regime change. It is worth taking into account that the adverse affects on society of that strife and conflict was most likely worsened as a result of those 12 ruinous years between 1991 and 2003.

In light of these salient facts it’s a bit difficult to imagine that Iraq and Iraqis would be much worse off if Saddam’s regime was toppled by those war weary revolting masses back in those fateful days of 1991.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 maart 2015 19:44 schreef reza1 het volgende:
Reassessing the 1991 Iraqi Intifada 24 Years On
[ afbeelding ]

[..]