Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Doc Rikowski 1,355]

And an 8th century mosque has been blown up... That's sad.

http://video.repubblica.it/mondo/iraq-i-miliziani-dell-isis-fanno-esplodere-la-moschea-di-giona/173387/171964

[acmilano 347]

Dont know is this is truth,hopefully not,its too discusting:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-women-girls-fgm-mosul-un

[RoadRunner71 2,940]

Dont know is this is truth,hopefully not,its too discusting:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-women-girls-fgm-mosul-un

f*cking animals, they deserve a slow and painful death.

[Alhalish 53]

You know, it's just sad to think that people all around the world are condemning Israel for killing 800 "Palestinians", most of them are HAMAS operatives, yet I don't see people condemning ISIS actions, no, instead, this is what I see.

 

http://m.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/06/14/with-iraq-gains-isis-finds-traction-with-indonesian-hard-liners.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663447/AllEyesOnIsis-Savvy-Jihadis-set-storm-Twitter-ISIS-propaganda-Q-A-10-30am-morning-Obama-prepares-air-strike-Iraq.html

[Yokelsson 6,558]

You know, it's just sad to think that people all around the world are condemning Israel for killing 800 "Palestinians", most of them are HAMAS operatives

80% of people killed are civilians.

[Alhalish 53]

Let me check again... And yep, I got it wrong.

 

Most of the casualties are civilians, but still, doesn't change the fact that people seem to turn a blind eye on ISIS's actions.

[Eutyphro 3,110]

You don't see people condemning ISIS' actions? Where have you been looking? ISIS is so radical that they even kill moderate Sunni's. They are so radical that other factions of Al Qaeda find them too cruel. Everybody in the world hates them.

Edited July 26, 2014 by gtaxpert

[D- Ice 468]

And an 8th century mosque has been blown up... That's sad.

http://video.repubblica.it/mondo/iraq-i-miliziani-dell-isis-fanno-esplodere-la-moschea-di-giona/173387/171964

Sadly mate, it's far more than just the loss of a historical building for Sunnis in Iraq. That mosque was built to shrine the tomb of the biblical prophet Jonah, and is perhaps the most important Sunni Muslim shrine the whole of Iraq. It is actions like these that will quickly alienate the Islamic State (IS, ISIS' new name) from the Sunnis of Iraq, some of whom turned to the IS for help against the Maliki regime's sectarian and oppressive policies towards them.

 

The exact same happened with the IS' predecessor, the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), during the occupation. ISI were also welcomed by some Sunnis across Iraq, in order to help against Maliki's regime and the Americans. Just as now, ISI started alienating local tribes, as well as local Islamist insurgent factions in the less tribal, and more urban areas. This eventually boiled over into open fighting, which the US utilised at around 2006, by funding some tribes to create the Awakening Councils. Those were instrumental in driving out ISI and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

 

Most tribal militias have now been unified as one large tribal-Ba'athist faction, and the hostility between tribes and local Islamists has also recently died down. However, even their combined forces won't be a match against the far more powerful IS. Those local groups are also far less motivated to fight and die like IS fighters, and people generally in Iraq have had enough of all the fighting and bloodshed.

My prediction is that the population will continue to passively tolerate the IS until the point where they become weak or utterly intolerable.

 

Dont know is this is truth,hopefully not,its too discusting:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-women-girls-fgm-mosul-un

Luckily, that has been debunked as a rumour:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-deny-ordering-fgm-girls-mosul

FGM is actually a common cultural practice amongst the ethnic Kurds of Iraq, though amongst the Arabs it isn't performed. The IS willlose all credibility amongst Islamic scholars if they publicly tolerate it, let alone force it. But then again, that never really stopped the IS going against near-universally accepted Islamic teachings before.

 

Let me check again... And yep, I got it wrong.

 

Most of the casualties are civilians, but still, doesn't change the fact that people seem to turn a blind eye on ISIS's actions.

I am personally highly critical of media coverage bias, and the related mainstream bias, and IMO they represent some of the most insidious types of media bias around. I'm also originally from Iraq and have relatives still there, being affected by the situation.

However, even I can't really see your claims that the bloodshed being committed there (by the IS and other factions) is being given significantly less coverage than the situation in Gaza.

Furthermore, in Iraq now, far less than 800 people are being killed in several days. There is just sporadic fighting on the borders of control, air-raids, death-squad killings, and car bomb attacks - all of which very rarely kill more than a two dozen people a day.

Edited July 26, 2014 by D- Ice

[Smith John 4,959]

What defeats me is that when the media here in the UK were covering the recruitment of young British Muslims to join ISIS in committing these barbaric acts, they seemed to be more concerned about telling the country how worried their families back home were rather than discussing the consequences if and when they return to discourage other young Muslims joining.

 

The whole thing felt like a f*cking advertisement if you ask me.

[acmilano 347]

 

And an 8th century mosque has been blown up... That's sad.

http://video.repubblica.it/mondo/iraq-i-miliziani-dell-isis-fanno-esplodere-la-moschea-di-giona/173387/171964

Sadly mate, it's far more than just the loss of a historical building for Sunnis in Iraq. That mosque was built to shrine the tomb of the biblical prophet Jonah, and is perhaps the most important Sunni Muslim shrine the whole of Iraq. It is actions like these that will quickly alienate the Islamic State (IS, ISIS' new name) from the Sunnis of Iraq, some of whom turned to the IS for help against the Maliki regime's sectarian and oppressive policies towards them.

 

The exact same happened with the IS' predecessor, the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), during the occupation. ISI were also welcomed by some Sunnis across Iraq, in order to help against Maliki's regime and the Americans. Just as now, ISI started alienating local tribes, as well as local Islamist insurgent factions in the less tribal, and more urban areas. This eventually boiled over into open fighting, which the US utilised at around 2006, by funding some tribes to create the Awakening Councils. Those were instrumental in driving out ISI and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

 

Most tribal militias have now been unified as one large tribal-Ba'athist faction, and the hostility between tribes and local Islamists has also recently died down. However, even their combined forces won't be a match against the far more powerful IS. Those local groups are also far less motivated to fight and die like IS fighters, and people generally in Iraq have had enough of all the fighting and bloodshed.

My prediction is that the population will continue to passively tolerate the IS until the point where they become weak or utterly intolerable.

 

Dont know is this is truth,hopefully not,its too discusting:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-women-girls-fgm-mosul-un

Luckily, that has been debunked as a rumour:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/isis-deny-ordering-fgm-girls-mosul

FGM is actually a common cultural practice amongst the ethnic Kurds of Iraq, though amongst the Arabs it isn't performed. The IS willlose all credibility amongst Islamic scholars if they publicly tolerate it, let alone force it. But then again, that never really stopped the IS going against near-universally accepted Islamic teachings before.

 

Let me check again... And yep, I got it wrong.

 

Most of the casualties are civilians, but still, doesn't change the fact that people seem to turn a blind eye on ISIS's actions.

I am personally highly critical of media coverage bias, and the related mainstream bias, and IMO they represent some of the most insidious types of media bias around. I'm also originally from Iraq and have relatives still there, being affected by the situation.

However, even I can't really see your claims that the bloodshed being committed there (by the IS and other factions) is being given significantly less coverage than the situation in Gaza.

Furthermore, in Iraq now, far less than 800 people are being killed in several days. There is just sporadic fighting on the borders of control, air-raids, death-squad killings, and car bomb attacks - all of which very rarely kill more than a two dozen people a day.

 

Glad if I was wrong.Hope nobody would force such a practice.

[D- Ice 468]

What defeats me is that when the media here in the UK were covering the recruitment of young British Muslims to join ISIS in committing these barbaric acts, they seemed to be more concerned about telling the country how worried their families back home were rather than discussing the consequences if and when they return to discourage other young Muslims joining.

 

The whole thing felt like a f*cking advertisement if you ask me.

I haven't really seen the media coverage on those stories, however, from what you describe, I actually think British media are doing a good thing.

Scare-mongering on the dangers they will pose to the UK when they get back won't really help anyone - in fact that'll just stoke the type of Islamophobia that helps create the type of alienated and angry impressionable young Muslims who sometimes end up joining such groups.

Showing how upset they are making their parents is the best way to discourage them from joining the IS, which is a great thing IMO, and at no cost to British society in terms of divisiveness.

[Smith John 4,959]

I kind of agree with that. But the feeling- that I at least got- was there was no sense of repercussions for those going to fight, and that they'd be welcomed back with open arms to their families; thus, possibly giving the impression that they'd get away with it because they were simply believing they were doing good. It was great to see a lot of coverage of Imams discouraging all of this in their local Mosques, but there has to be a balance between reporting the good with reporting the bad; ie the punishment for committing these acts. And there wasn't very much, if any, of that from what I had seen.

[Alhalish 53]

Well, I've never seen people hashtagging #PrayForIraq, #DestroyISIS, etc.

 

...Okay, it seems that I'm incapable of talking about these animals without making my head filled with rage and contempt, so I'm going to ask a simple question.

 

How come that there is no country which dared to deploy troops in Iraq in order to slaughter all ISIS members and their sympathizers? Where are the UN peacemakers?

[Eutyphro 3,110]

Well, I've never seen people hashtagging #PrayForIraq, #DestroyISIS, etc.

 

...Okay, it seems that I'm incapable of talking about these animals without making my head filled with rage and contempt, so I'm going to ask a simple question.

 

How come that there is no country which dared to deploy troops in Iraq in order to slaughter all ISIS members and their sympathizers? Where are the UN peacemakers?

It is useless to hashtag that, because there is no support from western countries for ISIS, unlike Israel, which is the number one receiver of foreign aid worldwide. Western countries have supported less radical factions of Al-Qaeda to fight Assad, but not ISIS to my knowledge. A big source of aid for ISIS was Saudi-Arabia, but it is likely they are backing out of aiding them because it is probably clear for them that it has gotten far out of hand and is not in their interest anymore, even if they are Sunni's like them.

 

Ask yourself this question, why do you think ISIS has arisen, the most radical and cruel Islamic terrorist organization of all time? Because we haven't used enough force against Iraq? Because over time both the West, and Russia/the Soviet union haven't supported enough dictators to serve their own interests? Foreign intervention is the cause of worldwide jihadism. These countries are a mess because of foreign intervention. They are impoverished and at war with dictatorships. Radical religion is the sole left thing that gives meaning to their life, which gives them the courage to fight dictators. What we should do is gtfo and stop with destroying Islamic countries to serve our fossil fuel interests.

 

Why would UN peace keepers go there. To be beheaded by islamic lunatics..?

Edited July 26, 2014 by gtaxpert

[D- Ice 468]

I kind of agree with that. But the feeling- that I at least got- was there was no sense of repercussions for those going to fight, and that they'd be welcomed back with open arms to their families; thus, possibly giving the impression that they'd get away with it because they were simply believing they were doing good. It was great to see a lot of coverage of Imams discouraging all of this in their local Mosques, but there has to be a balance between reporting the good with reporting the bad; ie the punishment for committing these acts. And there wasn't very much, if any, of that from what I had seen.

Excellent point there, and I agree wiith a lot of what you say.

However, while radicalisation does happen within the UK, most of the practical training happens in terrorist camps in Iraq and Syria. So the sooner they come back, the less dangerous they'll be. So that's a possible reason to try and get IS recruits back into the UK ASAP. In fact I'd guess that even hardened veteran British militants might be less dangerous to UK interests inside the country being closely monitored by internal intelligence apparatus and/or being rehabilitated in prison or community programs than if they are actively partaking in operations with the IS.

Also, rehabilitated militants can also be one of the best weapons against further recruitment IMO. Just imagine what happens when young British men thinking of joining the IS (or any other radical group) are approached by someone who was in their exact same shoes - perhaps even went abroad to fight - who tells them his first-hand experiences about how bad those groups are and how he regrets ever joining them.

Edited July 26, 2014 by D- Ice

[Smith John 4,959]

Most definitely. I'm personally not so much worried about the threat that these men pose upon their possible return for some of the reasons you listed there, but my gripe was with the media completely avoiding any discussion about the penalties that need to be sanctioned on them when or if they come back. I honestly believe that such an emphasis on the matter would help to discourage other potential recruits from signing up. But again, the whole thing just felt like an advertisement and huge publicity for ISIS.

[Alhalish 53]

Argh, it's true, but to ignore people who are being slaughtered daily by people who believe that they are "God's Messengers", killing and beheading women and children, without any remorse whatsoever, even branding them as "kafirs", "murtads", "laknatullah" before taking their lives, ARGH! F%&*!

 

The Saudis... Those Wahhabi scumbags... Funding global terrorism without fear of repercussions just because they have oil.... Who can bring these hypocritical mongrels to justice?

[RoadRunner71 2,940]

Argh, it's true, but to ignore people who are being slaughtered daily by people who believe that they are "God's Messengers", killing and beheading women and children, without any remorse whatsoever, even branding them as "kafirs", "murtads", "laknatullah" before taking their lives, ARGH! F%&*!

 

The Saudis... Those Wahhabi scumbags... Funding global terrorism without fear of repercussions just because they have oil.... Who can bring these hypocritical mongrels to justice?

 

I'd ask about it to the Nobel Peace Prize winner as well, oh wait!

[D- Ice 468]

Argh, it's true, but to ignore people who are being slaughtered daily by people who believe that they are "God's Messengers", killing and beheading women and children, without any remorse whatsoever, even branding them as "kafirs", "murtads", "laknatullah" before taking their lives, ARGH! F%&*!

 

The Saudis... Those Wahhabi scumbags... Funding global terrorism without fear of repercussions just because they have oil.... Who can bring these hypocritical mongrels to justice?

People have been using religion, and other supposedly noble ideologies, to justify otherwise unacceptable acts perpetrated to persue personal material gain for a very long time. Nothing new here, though I can see your frustration.

 

I am certainly no fan of the Saudi clan, but to be fair to them, they are strongly opposed to both al-Qaeda and the IS, and have been strongly allied with the West in the War on Terror. The only sources I can find for such claims seem to come from unsubstanciated rumours from propoganda channels like RT and Press TV, as well as Russian and Iranian politicians and their puppets - none of whom are reliable IMO. I'd be very interested if you can post any reliable sources for the Saudi government being behind it - something which would have major repercussions to the situation if true.

There areof course some people in Saudi, as well as the other rich Arab Gulf states, who donate to such groups. However, according to seemingly reliable research by the RAND Corporation, such donations only amount to a small minority of the overall funding of such groups. It says that most of their funding now comes from smuggling oil from captured oil fields and what they took from the Mosul central bank. Mafia-like extortion (protection rackets, demanding money from truck drivers passing through controlled territory, and kidnappings for ransom) being major sources of funding in the past.

 

Also, what exactly do you mean by "mongrels"? Isn't that sometimes used as a racist term to describe people of mixed ethnicity/"race"?

 

 

Argh, it's true, but to ignore people who are being slaughtered daily by people who believe that they are "God's Messengers", killing and beheading women and children, without any remorse whatsoever, even branding them as "kafirs", "murtads", "laknatullah" before taking their lives, ARGH! F%&*!

 

The Saudis... Those Wahhabi scumbags... Funding global terrorism without fear of repercussions just because they have oil.... Who can bring these hypocritical mongrels to justice?

 

I'd ask about it to the Nobel Peace Prize winner as well, oh wait!

 

I actually used to really respect the Nobel Peace Prize until they gave one to Obama. I started questioning their judgement, and researching past recipients didn't really improve my confidence in the Norwegian Nobel Comittee's judgement.

[Alhalish 53]

You can tell how much I hate them by calling them "mongrels", and it's not the worst insult that I can come up with.

 

"Reliable sources"? Heh, you know that there is none as long as my only access to information is the mass media... Except Wikileaks, I can trust them.

 

Though I couldn't find anything that can directly tie the Al-Saud with ISIS... Actually, I would like to know why anyone would fund ISIS, an organization so violent and wild that even Al-Qaeda disowns them.

[Eutyphro 3,110]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

And Chomsky says so http://world.einnews.com/article/209438046/dv65mL9q-IHp3MnY 'maybe'

 

Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole -- of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable -- have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups. There is support for ISIS in Saudi Arabia, and the group directly targets Saudis with fundraising campaigns, so Riyadh could do much more to limit private funding. U.S. officials have hinted that a combination of politics, logistics, and limited capabilities have impeded more effective Saudi efforts to counter terrorism financing. One particularly difficult problem is how to monitor cash transfers, a method common among Saudi donors.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SAUDI FUNDING

Although Saudi donors and other private contributors were believed to be the most significant funding source for the original forerunner to ISIS, the importance of such donations has been marginalized by the group's independent sources of income. This income, which is now estimated to overwhelmingly exceed private donations, is generated by activities such as smuggling (of oil, weapons, antiquities), extortion (e.g., the group levies around $8 million per month in "taxes" on local businesses), and other crimes (e.g., robberies, counterfeiting). The group's June 11 seizure of Mosul's central bank alone netted tens of millions of dollars (though U.S. officials note that the $400 million figure often cited in connection with the heist is not accurate).

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis

I'd like to point out though, that a website named 'Washington Institute' can not be expected to be objective concerning actions of the state of Saudi Arabia. So if they admit Saudi individuals are behind backing ISIS, then that is very likely to be true, but if they deny proof that the Saudi state is behind it, that doesn't have to be.

Why would anyone support ISIS? Because they are Sunni's and want Shia Islam wiped off the map.

Edited July 27, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem 21,710]

Whist I have a great deal of respect for Dr Chomsky, he is neither a political scientist nor a strategic theorist. He is certainly a skilled orator holding coherent and informed political views, but these views are very much a product of his own political philosophy. He's also got a history of making aggressively critical claims supported only by hearsay, and then refusing to retract them once the reality of the situation renders them invalid, which is poor form IMO.

 

It's worth pointing out that neither of your articles provides any evidence that the Saudi state is directly complicit in the funding of Salafist Jihadi groups. The first discusses the private investment in fighting groups by wealthy Saudi citizens and the lateral funding of Qutbist fighting groups during attempts to arm the Syrian rebel forces. But it also addresses the fear present in the House of Saud that once these groups are done murdering Shia they're going to topple the Saudi monarchy, which leaves me puzzled as to why the commentator responsible for the article appears to suggest that the Saudi state is in fact actually directly and intentionally arming Salafist groups when his own statements suggest they're not (but hey, that's The Independent for you: if they can't turn it into a diatribe on how Western intervention is to blame, as they do with the largely-irrelevant second-half of the article, then they're not really interested. What else would you expect from a paper owned by one of Putin's favourite oligarchs?). We've already seen Salafist groups attacking the Saudi state, it doesn't really stand to reason that they'd voluntarily fund and support what is probably the largest direct threat to their continued existence. It's more a question of unintended consequences and simple arrogance in the Saudi failure to properly foresee the net result of arming groups that had a fairly substantial militant Islamist underbelly. Not dissimilar to the US arming of the Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan- it's simply untrue to say that the US created the Taliban in Afghanistan by doing so but they did, largely inadvertently, supply it with the arms and training which it used to defeat the Islamic State and Hezbi- and Junbish- groups during the 1992-6 civil war.

 

The overwhelming majority of Sunnis, including Wahhabi Sunnis, have no interest in seeing Shia Islam destroyed. The primary contributing factor to aggressive anti-Shia violence by Sunni militants in both Iraq and Syria is the fact that both regimes have effectively discriminated against Sunnis on religious grounds during (relative) peacetime, and militarised against them during times of internal strife.

[Eutyphro 3,110]

I'm not going to discuss what I think about your Chomsky claims, because it is off topic. I do agree with your point about ISIS becoming a danger for Saudi Arabia and thus it being unlikely they are still funding them. It may be true that the Saudi State hasn't supported ISIS at all, but in that case they did fail their role in making sure that their civilians weren't supporting terrorist groups.

[sivispacem 21,710]

They have failed in their role of preventing citizens from funding militant groups, but there's always been a culture in Saudi Arabia where wealthy Wahhabi can do whatever they want with relative impunity. The degree to which the state and the muttawa interfere in the lives of Saudi citizens is inversely proportional to how much money they have.

[Mr. House 4,186]

Most definitely. I'm personally not so much worried about the threat that these men pose upon their possible return for some of the reasons you listed there, but my gripe was with the media completely avoiding any discussion about the penalties that need to be sanctioned on them when or if they come back. I honestly believe that such an emphasis on the matter would help to discourage other potential recruits from signing up. But again, the whole thing just felt like an advertisement and huge publicity for ISIS.

I turned on the BBC for five minutes three weeks ago and there was a discussion with the interviewer and a bunch of other white people talking about how fighting in foreign wars was illegal. Besides that, there were various statements by Theresa May about passport revocation and potential imprisonment of ISIS fighters (or any brown person visiting the area) all of which was immediately covered by the BBC and ITN so either I'm very lucky with ny extremely rare TV viewing or you are yet again on a daily mail-esque 'BBC so bad' tangent.

 

Two other points:

 

Firstly, ANY reporting of ISIS is advertising so the point is irrelevant anyway, but secondly maybe you should consider that a bunch of teenagers willing to kill others and likely die to fight thousands of miles away probably don't give a f*ck about imprisonment, but maybe other potential recruits seeing the damage it would cause to their family might make them reconsider?

 

Even beyond that, the media has no responsibility to remark on the possible punishments handed out unless it is relevant as a news story I.E. The home secretary announcing it. No media company is a governmental propaganda arm.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Myron

[D- Ice 468]

Whist I have a great deal of respect for Dr Chomsky, he is neither a political scientist nor a strategic theorist. He is certainly a skilled orator holding coherent and informed political views, but these views are very much a product of his own political philosophy. He's also got a history of making aggressively critical claims supported only by hearsay, and then refusing to retract them once the reality of the situation renders them invalid, which is poor form IMO.

 

It's worth pointing out that neither of your articles provides any evidence that the Saudi state is directly complicit in the funding of Salafist Jihadi groups. The first discusses the private investment in fighting groups by wealthy Saudi citizens and the lateral funding of Qutbist fighting groups during attempts to arm the Syrian rebel forces. But it also addresses the fear present in the House of Saud that once these groups are done murdering Shia they're going to topple the Saudi monarchy, which leaves me puzzled as to why the commentator responsible for the article appears to suggest that the Saudi state is in fact actually directly and intentionally arming Salafist groups when his own statements suggest they're not (but hey, that's The Independent for you: if they can't turn it into a diatribe on how Western intervention is to blame, as they do with the largely-irrelevant second-half of the article, then they're not really interested. What else would you expect from a paper owned by one of Putin's favourite oligarchs?). We've already seen Salafist groups attacking the Saudi state, it doesn't really stand to reason that they'd voluntarily fund and support what is probably the largest direct threat to their continued existence. It's more a question of unintended consequences and simple arrogance in the Saudi failure to properly foresee the net result of arming groups that had a fairly substantial militant Islamist underbelly. Not dissimilar to the US arming of the Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan- it's simply untrue to say that the US created the Taliban in Afghanistan by doing so but they did, largely inadvertently, supply it with the arms and training which it used to defeat the Islamic State and Hezbi- and Junbish- groups during the 1992-6 civil war.

 

The overwhelming majority of Sunnis, including Wahhabi Sunnis, have no interest in seeing Shia Islam destroyed. The primary contributing factor to aggressive anti-Shia violence by Sunni militants in both Iraq and Syria is the fact that both regimes have effectively discriminated against Sunnis on religious grounds during (relative) peacetime, and militarised against them during times of internal strife.

QFT, and excellently put mate.

The Saudi state, as well as some other Arab Gulf and Western states, only officially sponsored and supported the non-religious FSA and the Wahhabi Islamic Front. However a lot of arms did fall into IS hands once they forcefully captured FSA and IF bases. There have also been reports that many FSA and IF recipients were in fact secret IS agents, who'd quckly give the weapons ad fundng to the IS. Neither of those reasons equated to direct funding to the IS.

 

I also completely agree with your point regarding the Sunni-Shia split. It only really started when the initial non-sectarian governments in Iraq installed by the Coalition were voted out and replaced by pro-Iranian Shia Islamists in the form of Maliki's Dawa party. Paramilitary death squads started to indescriminately target Sunnis as Ba'athists. This lead to increased support for Wahhabis and Baa'thists amongst the Sunnis, who would indescriminately target Shia with car bombs. The spiralling violence only served to solidify the previously weaker sectarian identities in Iraq and drive the two factions against one another.

A similar picture was seen in Lebanon after Shia Islamist Hezbollah gained control of the ministery of interior troops, who they replaced with their own militants. Sunni Islamist and Wahhabi factions started flourishing in an otherwise previously very liberal and Westernised Lebanon.

 

They have failed in their role of preventing citizens from funding militant groups, but there's always been a culture in Saudi Arabia where wealthy Wahhabi can do whatever they want with relative impunity. The degree to which the state and the muttawa interfere in the lives of Saudi citizens is inversely proportional to how much money they have.

I've only ever found out about that a couple of years ago, and by chance - it seems you certainly know a lot about the inner workings of Middle-East.

Here's a video about the immensely rich Prince Waleed bin Tallal's lifestyle, and how he blatantly ignores all Wahhabi laws in the country with complete impunity.

 

 

There is another video I saw on YouTube where he talks about only hiring women for his staff, and forcing them not to wear Western clothing and no Islamic head-coverings, which constitutes the polar opposite form of extremism to Wahhabism. Oddly, none of his large female staff knew what their jobs were when asked, with the manager answering for them.

Sorry I can't find the video now, I'll post it here if I could find it.

 

So, I believe you're absolutely spot on - the Wahhabi religious police only force their highly unpopular laws on those too weak to resist.

Edited July 27, 2014 by D- Ice

[ddyoung 580]

You don't see people condemning ISIS' actions? Where have you been looking? ISIS is so radical that they even kill moderate Sunni's. They are so radical that other factions of Al Qaeda find them too cruel. Everybody in the world hates them.

But are there UN investigations of their alleged "war crimes"? Sorry for the off topic post.

[Eutyphro 3,110]

 

You don't see people condemning ISIS' actions? Where have you been looking? ISIS is so radical that they even kill moderate Sunni's. They are so radical that other factions of Al Qaeda find them too cruel. Everybody in the world hates them.

But are there UN investigations of their alleged "war crimes"? Sorry for the off topic post.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28498661

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/07/un-israel-assault-gaza-may-be-war-crime-201472394058635836.html

[ddyoung 580]

 

 

You don't see people condemning ISIS' actions? Where have you been looking? ISIS is so radical that they even kill moderate Sunni's. They are so radical that other factions of Al Qaeda find them too cruel. Everybody in the world hates them.

But are there UN investigations of their alleged "war crimes"? Sorry for the off topic post.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28498661

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/07/un-israel-assault-gaza-may-be-war-crime-201472394058635836.html

 

Well played, you win. But in all honesty, what does that do? If ISIS wants to get funding or weapons, they'll buy them from the black-market with money gained from extortion and ransom.

[Spaghetti Cat 3,282]

... Actually, I would like to know why anyone would fund ISIS, an organization so violent and wild that even Al-Qaeda disowns them.

 

I just wanted to comment on this, only because I see it bantered around a lot. AQ didn't abandon anyone and certainly not ISIS (or IS whatever...) for being too violent. Remember we're talking about an organization that brought down the twin towers. There is an argument about who is the 'official' branch in Syria. AQ HQ says it's al Nusura, ISIS disagrees and claims they have control over both Iraq and Syria, that would be the Shaham or Levant. ISIS has fought with al Nusura in Syria, not because they disagree over violent tactics, but over power and territory.

 

Sorry about any misspellings, not up to date on my arabic