Sunday Middle East Developments

ISIS is back in action. The reporters, analysts and ISIS supporters I read on Twitter and on their websites say ISIS this weekend took Dhuluiya, and Ishaqi and Barwānah. They blew up the bridge from Dhuluiya to Balad. They have the army boxed in at Samarra. They've also been advancing on the 8th Brigade base near Ramadi and Tikrit and made another try for Haditha, although they havent' gotten the dam.

There's an interesting article here on the synergy between the tribes and ISIS that is strengthening their ability to overthrow Malik's government and shi'a rule. If those issues weren't so important, they might not have hooked up to the extent they have, since usually, the tribes would have plenty of differences with ISIS.


Also, it looks like once again, ISIS got blamed/framed for a mass killing it didn't commit. The 30 prostitutes in Baghdad were likely killed by Shi'a militias. They did the same in May, 2013. It is, however, unclear as of now who the gunman were as no one has taken credit. But the media has moved from their initial stories blaming ISIS to saying it's unclear.

Al Hayat Media has some new slick videos up: There's a really pitiful one of little blond kids from Bosnia who moved to Iraq, they hold guns and chant for Allah.

I still believe ISIS is giving no thought to the West -- they are establishing a state in the Middle East for all Muslims. In addition, since this is not an overnight battle, they have a lot of other stuff on their plate: setting up services, police stations, courts, collecting and distributing Zakat (sp), teaching classes on Sharia law and teaching kids to memorize the Quran. They also acquired a lot of military equipment and weapons -- tanks, rockets, missiles, etc-- that they need to store, transport and (probably) learn how to use. They are calling for Western recruits, especially professionals, doctors and engineers. They also are still doing some infighting and putting a lot of time into getting bayah from the tribes. They really don't have time to think about us unless we get in their way.

I think there's no hope for Iraq avoiding a split along sectarian lines. It will happen at some point. After Iraq, ISIS will go to Lebanon and Jordan next. So long as we don't go over there and start killing, it will be years, if ever, before they turn their attention to us. They perceive themselves as a state, not a terror group like al Qaeda.

As for Israel, so long as Hamas keeps firing rockets at them, it will continue to respond. Personally, I have no problem with Israel defending itself. Hamas wants to wipe out Israel while al Qaida (and ultimately every other terror group in that part of the world) wants to wipe out the Jews.

As to why ISIS isn't jumping in to help Gaza, here's one answer by ISIS follower AbuUmar8246 (who appears to be a researcher or religious student or teacher.) Of course no one speaks for ISIS except their official account, so you need to take what their supporters say with a grain of salt.

The ISIS position is that they want to consolidate their positions in Syria and Iraq before they move into Jordan and Lebanon. This is because it is well-known that fighting Israel in a full-scale war with proper weapons of war as ISIS have is not possible if they do not take over Jordan, and possibly Lebanon. This is because they need that land to transport their heavy weaponry such as their tanks, howitzers, hummers, APCs, bomb-making engineering workshops and associated machinery, and of course, their soldiers.

Its well-known however that Jordan and Lebanon are client states of America and that they have secret agreements with Israel to protect Israel from "terrorists", so any full-scale war on ISIS would be hampered by the Jordanian and Lebanese army attacking ISIS from behind. So it makes sense to get rid of those regimes first before fighting Israel face-to-face. And we know this will happen as the ahadith say we will fight the Dajjal in the Israeli city of Lod.

ISIS says it is recruiting foreign Muslims not to bomb, but to do nation-building in the newborn Khilafa. They aren't asking recruits to engage in random destruction or attacks on the West. They say they are different than al Qaeda that way.

It seems to me that so long as the tribes and ISIS work together out of necessity, despite their differences, they could plow through the rest of Iraq (except Baghdad) pretty quickly. I don't think ISIS ever intended to control Baghdad and make it their capital. I think they just want to destroy the Government there, and they will then make their capital elsewhere. At least that's what I read in a few of their missives somewhere.

One last thing: The news being put out by the Iraqi Special Forces has tended to be far more inaccurate than what ISIS puts outs. And ISIS has the photos and equipment to back up their claims. The worst is the lies by the Iraqis about the killing of prison inmates and claiming ISIS did it. They also exaggerate the number of ISIS attacks they have repelled and minimize ISIS wins. There's lots of independent journalists and analysts on Twitter and in other media who paint a different picture.

< NY Judge Rules Bitcoins Subject to Money Laundering Statutes | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The threat is way overblown (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:32:26 AM EST
    Sure, there are Democrats who will be fooled, just as there were Democrats who supported Bush and Cheney.

    What I wonder (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    is which side would win in a fair fight.

    Saddam certainly had control absent outside forces and it took serious fire power from the US to remove him.

    My understanding  is that a significant part of ISIS leadership is former Baath guys but now instead of a leader like Saddam they have allies that Saddam simply would have crushed.

    There may be more to this than I am understanding but it might be that absent help from the outside Malik would be able to stay in power.  Not saying that would be a good thing, just that outside support for one side or the other is what prevents stability in the region.

    Seems (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    Like this has been planned for a LONG time, and it seems like a solid plan, not one overly risky. Rapidly take territory before opposing forces can react, then consolidate and harden your positions before taking the next area. Its the blitzkrieg strategy without an insane person in charge.

    They need political recognition, and a source of money, a way to sell oil and buy goods. Then its about growing in power and waiting until the time is ripe for taking the next area.

    Training and indoctrination of foreign fighters will build a base of loyal people that after a time will return to many countries and then the real trouble may start. Nothing creates a bond like shared hardship during war.


    We won't be letting them (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    Take over Jordan.  What an ignorant goal to have. Jordan is a rock solid ally.  So that joint special operations unit in Iraq is going to be working overtime.

    What, are you saying religious fanatics (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    are delusional?

    I love their very rational seeming explanation for why they are not yet attempting to do the impossible.


    Correction: their supporter's explanation (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    There are many more US and Western (none / 0) (#3)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    interests and concerns in and with the Middle East, than just a concern that ISIS might want to eventually attack US interests. The US can't and won't allow ISIS to take over Jordan or attack Israel, for example. It's in the interest of the US and the West to try to avoid total instability in the Middle East, due to allies and oil.

    While the choices are tough and limited, allowing ISIS to continue to take more territory and consolidate is a mistake, in my view. It appears more likely that ISIS is going to grow and be successful, than to fall apart, at least in the near future.

    The US and Obama need to figure out what to do and do it. Relative inaction is not going to work.

    Maliki complicates assistance to Iraq. He needs to go. Obama seems to have finally figured that out. The US has supported Maliki too long. Maliki reversed course on many policies as soon as the US left Iraq.

    Possible scenarios (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    Here are a few things that will likely happen
    (1) Iraq will split up. Kurdistan will form with American blessing. They have oil and will be a Western ally.
    (2) ISIS tries to take over Jordan and Lebanon. Israel will not allow that. ISIS has to contend with Israel and will pay a heavy price. We do not have to put our troops in this fight. Intelligence gathering should be enough.
    (3) ISIS will declare that their caliphate is the only true Islamic state and monarchies like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc are illegitimate countries because only the Caliph is Allah's spititial and political representative on earth. Good luck with that! The Saudis and Kuwaities will employ mercenaries to destroy ISIS when that happens before anyone can pronounce Caliphate. There is no reason for our troops to die for the Saudi or Kuwaiti royal family.  
    (4) Iran, Syria, Russia, etc are already fighting ISIS and will keep ISIS busy for a long time.

    ISIS has many enemies, so there is n reason for us to get direcly involved at this time and turn their attention to us.  

    We can organize a peace conference after everyone gets tired of the killing and fighting and earn some goodwill atound the globe. We can just help refugees created out of this middle east instability, in the meantime.


    Kurdistan means Turkey has cow. (none / 0) (#34)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    It will not be a fun time to be US Sec. of State.

    You had to put oil and Israel in there (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    So hopefully the lefties around here show up to attack you, and your wrongful persecution continues :)

    This is a sane site.

    Nobody here wants any further destabilization and sectarian war in the region.  They are open to solutions.  Some probably even realize at some point an acceptance of US Special Forces killing certain individuals will be involved.  And you know this....you know nobody here is stupid.  So you throw the words oil and Israel in there hoping to hop someone up here you sad little troll :)


    MT, I continue to be unable (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    to get my head around why you are so pro ISIS.

    If they win everything our military fought and died for is a failure. Surely you don't want our military to have died in van.

    In the meantime, what happened to that ISIS official that we were supposed to have killed and that will end the war?????


    Your logic: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    We have to make sure more American soldiers die in a pointless conflict so that the previous deaths of American soldiers who died in that very same pointless conflict weren't in vain. Unless you think paying marginally less for (already-subsidized) gasoline is worth the death of American soldiers.

    Ignore him (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    We have Teslas and the winds of the Great Plains now.  Solar will be cheaper than your utility company in what? 2016

    Just ignore him and his worship at the alter of Petrol


    LOL - Really?>? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    Telsas cost what? $65K $90K?

    Solar will be cheaper than what by 2016??

    I've done some research.

    You see, I called Austin Energy (AE) and after 6 or 7 transfers got to a guy in the department that handles solar power. He was quite helpful and we discussed the program for residences.

    First, you have to purchase and install the solar power system. That's panels, cables, inverters and associated hardware. He said a typical 5KW system is around $16,000. AE will rebate you about $6000. That's a net $10,000 out of your pocket.

    He had no recommendation as to manufacturer, etc. It's your purchase.

    He said AE will install a meter on the output of your system and pay you 10.7 cents per KW. With a 5KW system that's about $50 a month. Now, here is an important point to understand. The output of your system is going to the electric grid. It is on the power company side of your house meter. Your usage is measured just as it is now. So if your bill is around $250, you get a credit of $50 and you pay $200.

    Another important point. The positioning of the unit for maximum exposure is critical. The sun moves from the south in the summer towards the north in the winter. Your house doesn't move. You can purchase units that automatically follow the sun but the cost would triple and installation would be in the yard, not on the roof. At night there is no output. Cloudy days the output is reduced. As the panels age their output drops. So the $50 is a typical result.

    Here's another important point. If the grid goes down, say a storm blows down lines, etc., your system is automatically disconnected because it can't be allowed to back feed power on the lines that the power company repair men will be working on. So the system is not an emergency generation system as many people claim.

    The "End of Life" for the system is typically 25 years. EOL means that's when you have to replace the unit. He said most companies warrant the units for 20 years. He didn't know if the warranties were 100% repair/replace or a pro rated warranty. i.e. The cost of repairs after 10 years are covered at 50%. He said I should look at several companies.

    So let's look at this. Spend $10,000 net and save $50 a month, $600 a year or $10200 in 17 years. Now if we look at the cost of money and say we invest $10,000 at 4%... at the end of 17 years we have $19479.

    And the savings ASSUME no increases in the power company's prices.

    I didn't ask him who paid for the $6000 rebate but that's obvious. All of AE customers.

    So MT, your enthusiasm is misplaced and your information is incorrect.

    But stick around. I'm sure the fuel of the future will be Unicorn Gaseous Emissions.

    In the meantime, remember TANSTAAFL.

    THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH - Robert Heinlein circa 1952.


    Jeralyn I apologize for (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    going off subject to answer MT's off subject.

    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:38:11 AM EST
    off topic comments and personal insults between commenters will be deleted. Save your work on your computer if you want a copy.

    First off, because you never served during (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    Combat you believe a fallacy about war, that soldiers die for a goal.  When the war is on Jim, my husband will tell you they die for each other.  They are together, bonded more deeply and sometimes sadly, than family.  They can be handed a war of lies, like the Iraq War soldiers were, and they are there for each other.  I know people who didn't have to deploy to Iraq, and who knew it was all lies, take a deployment slot so someone else wouldn't have to go.  I know a soldier with no wife or children and who has deceased parents who deployed as many times as they would allow him so that a father or a mother or a wife or a husband or a son or a daughter wouldn't have to deploy for that bull$hit and be killed....leaving scars all over.  So there is point during war, and it is reached quickly, where the soldiers are there for each other more than anything.

    Second, I am not pro ISIS, but they have gotten this far because of the sectarian strife Maliki enabled.

    Third, Obama is not like George "I am the dumbest ass in the room" Bush.  He rotated civilians out of the embassy but that embassy is intel gathering now and so is that joint special operations unit.  If and when our President decides to hit ISIS it's going to look like the ending of a Godfather flick :). In the meantime, he is free to apply pressure to Maliki or whatever the Shia agree to be their representation, on seating the Sunni at the table.  Because that is the only thing that will truly unseat ISIS.

    Your comprehension of strategy remains dismal.


    MT, I have never said where I served (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    And the "When the war is on Jim, my husband will tell you they die for each other" is a truism that has been around for years. It also applies to flight crews, sub crews, etc., all groups that demand complete dependence on each other to complete the mission and survive.

    As for your "If and when our President decides to hit ISIS" I think we both know that there is no IF. He will not act, although I truly hope that I am wrong and that he does so before it is too late.

    And ISIS has gotten this far because Obama didn't complete the SOF and pulled all the troops.


    Obama DID complete the SOFA ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:17:58 AM EST
    .... that was negotiated and signed by GWB, which called for the complete withdrawal of troops:

    All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

    Wrong, and in The Won's own words (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    "With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That's not true," Obama interjected. "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."




    It's ENTIRELY true (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    Not wanting to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq is not the same as withdrawing all troops, for the reading-comprehension impaired.  Obama may well have wanted out of Iraq, but it was your boy GW Bush that negotiated the SOFA that set the schedule for withdrawal.  

    Reality is hard to deal with sometimes, huh, Jim?


    What a wacky claim (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:10:41 AM EST
    Everyone on the left seems happy enough with the destabilization and sectarian war so far, as the mess increases so will the excuses.

    We are talking about control of areas with billions of dollars in oil revenue per year, and ISIS looks like one of the tightest ships in the terrorist business, they will use the money to its fullest advantage.

    What the west WON'T do is act quickly, and as has been repeatedly demonstrated in the last few months, a change in ownership can happen over a vast area in days.


    I know I'm not... (none / 0) (#33)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    ...a right-winger and never have been, but by your standard I'm apparently not on the left, either, as there's nothing about what's going on right now in the Middle East that's making me particularly happy--far from it.

    (of course I am in no way accepting the right's proposition that Obama, or anyone else, should have been able to make everything perfect over there by now)

    But let's say ISIS takes over some oil fields that most of the rest of the world do not recognize as being their legitimate property.

    How are they going to get that oil to market?

    Do they have a fleet of aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, and battleships with which to protect their tankers?

    Do they even have tankers?

    If they try to use a pipeline, how can they prevent someone down the line from shutting it off?

    If they try to refine it for internal use, well they probably don't have missile and drone-proof storage tanks.

    Or an air force to oppose those things.

    If the world doesn't want them in the oil business, there are lots of ways to make it not happen.


    Iraqis live in poverty surrounded by all (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    That oil.  Until that wealth is shared, the country will remain balanced on a knife's edge.  Every wingnut who wants to believe Iraq can make oil cheaper is HIGH from glue fumes they inhale while putting together their model tank.

    Second, not the United States, not anyone, should look to strip the members of any nation impoverished bare for corporate big oil profits.  It is going to be tried though of course, but there will not be one day of peace until that insanity ends.  That's another fact my husband will gladly share with you after living in Iraq...maybe trying to live is a better way of putting that.

    I really don't care how expensive petrol gets, I am willing to make the needed life changes.  Jim and friends will not until they are bleeding from their eyeballs....and the sooner that happens the better.


    Turning Iraq over to ISIS will (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    not do one thing to help the common Iraqi.

    And yes, bleeding from the eyes is what will happen to many Americans when an ISIS bomb goes off near them.


    Who exactly is it,... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:57:44 AM EST
    ...among everyone who reads and posts here, that you seriously think is in favor of turning Iraq (or anywhere else) over to ISIS?

    It's just that some of us, apparently more than you, don't think that ISIS gaining some ground in the short run there is so likely to bring about the immediate end of the world that we should nuke the entire country into a sea of glass as cauterization.


    Yes, since when does championing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:42:12 AM EST
    A full and lasting peace for Iraq and the life for all Iraqis that they deserve equal ISIS wins?

    Ha ha ha ha ha! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:09:53 AM EST
    And when ISIS is put down via a United States assist you will be screaming that Obama overstepped his authority to use military force without Congressional approval.  You are just soooo damned funny, all of nutlicious wingers.

    And if President Obama does help broker a peace in Iraq, you will freak completely out and make videos about how Seal Team Six got ISIS and the President...that self congratulatory bastard....had nothing to do with any of it.  And he didn't press for peace oriented representation in Iraq....the people did.  Obama takes credit for everything that everyone else does :)


    You assume that Europe, India, China and Japan (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    will act in their self interest and endure a huge, perhaps lethal, hit to their economy and life style. (America get's only about 13% of its oil from the Gulf area and we have huge reserves that can be tapped.)

    I don't think they will. And if they do then the loss of those trading partners will destroy ours.

    No, they will feed the monster and gradually become use to being part of the caliphate and the loss of freedom that brings.

    Will bwe join them?? Sadly, based on what I see from the PC police in America we won't join them. We'll dive in head first claiming it is necessary for diversity's sake.


    "Israel defending itself" = (none / 0) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    bombing disabled centers. The Israeli government and Hamas represent the worst aspects of modern humanity. Semantically, the difference between the two is that one is a terrorist group and the other is an internationally-recognized sovereign nation. In practice there is no difference.

    So all the rockets raining down on (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:20:47 PM EST
    Israel are programmed to never hit civilians?


    Do you think we could buy this software??


    Yes, all 680 rockets fired at (none / 0) (#23)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    Israel must have this software you refer to. It must still have some bugs because Israeli civilians are being hit.

    The Holy One of Israel (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    isn't shielding them? Why is that? He must be mad again.

    When I think of you, Jondee (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    the word "bigot"  comes to mind.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    because I'm the one who posts pictures of Obama with a bone in his nose.

    Putz. Schmendrick.


    US Intelligence estimates (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    that ISIS has about 10,000 fighters--7,000 in Syria and 3,000 in Iraq.  The effectiveness of the ISIS insurgency in Mosul and,  subsequently, through northern Iraq was achieved with the support of thousands of other Sunni militants in the fighting and in the next task, of controlling and occupying the territorial gains.

    This coalition of the willful consists of disparate Sunni groups, such as Baathists, Sunni nationalists, and Sunni jihadists. They all have most in common, the downfall of Maliki and his Shia regime.  Once Maliki is sent off to Switzerland (or even much farther away) and prospects for some semblance of power-sharing appear on the horizon, the Sunni insurgency's coalition will be in jeopardy.  The marriage of convenience will be headed for a divorce, and not necessarily, an amicable one (indeed, the assassination of an ISIS emir is suspected of being Naqshbandia, Baathist loyalists).  

    The most promising tactic for us, in my view, is to facilitate an environment for the Sunni coalition to become at odds with one another--the departure of Maliki, more inclusive government, and capitalize on the ISIS caliphate's imposition of its unpalatable brand of governance on the whole of the Iraqi Sunnis.   No bombings or drones, that will only diminish, through error, disintegration of the basically untenable Sunni alliance.

    Anybody Know? (none / 0) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    1. Where is the financial backing of ISIS coming from?
    2. Are they threating to shut off oil exports to anybody?

    ISIS robbed the banks in Mosul (none / 0) (#22)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    and other cities in Iraq, in the last month or so. The reports of how much they got vary considerably.  There were reports of about $425 million being stolen from the central bank, but also reports saying the amount was not that high.

    I haven't noticed ISIS threats of shutting off oil exports. The majority (maybe about 2/3) of Iraq's oil is not in the north (it's in the south, I think), and the Kurds have been taking control of more oil in the north area.

    There is press indicating that ISIS may want to take control of a big dam: Haditha, a big earth-filled dam. One of the largest suppliers of electricity in Iraq.


    ISIS funding (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    is reported to initially, at least, come from Qatar and Saudi Arabian sources.  

    Anyone concerned that ISIS is meeting (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    with the Yemeni terrorist bomb makers, who have traveled to Syria?

    Holder says this partnership gives the US "extreme extreme concern".

    Bombs are small enough to go in cell phones and laptops. This is why the TSA announced recently that it will require that cell phone and other electronic devices being turned up before boarding flights to US from certain cities in Europe. Some stories are saying the bombs are virtually undetectable.

    About 7,000 people with US or European passports have joined up with ISIS. The concern is that this will lead to terrorism in the West. ISIS now has lots of money to spend on things like this. Don't think

    I'm not concerned at all about that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:20:16 PM EST
    as I written many times. Only Republicans and those who are in favor of war or increased security measures against certain groups seem to be concerned about that.

    Eric Holder is concerned about it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:23:57 AM EST
    , i.e. the "partnership" and the almost undetectable bombs. He's certainly not a Republican.

    The former US ambassador to Iraq has concerns. From his NY Times op-ed piece dated 7/13/14"

    "Absent the formation of a unity government, Iraq's civil war will continue unabated. Sectarian conflict, and chaos in the Sunnis areas, will grow -- and so will ISIS. Shiites will become more reliant on sectarian militias, and on Iran.

    This trajectory threatens America's security."

    Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007.


    New Technological Threats (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    will not go away even if ISIS is demolished.  I fail to see the argument that going back militarily into Iraq will make the US more secure.  I am unfamiliar with any Muslim attack on the US, since the Barbary Pirates, that wasn't a result of US meddling.

    True, this threat will not necessarily go away (none / 0) (#42)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    if ISIS goes away, but the threat would be diminished at this time. Note that ISIS apparently now has a large amount of funding. Why would Holder say this if he wasn't very concerned? "In some ways, it's [the Yemeni bomb-makers/ISIS partnership] more frightening than anything I think I've seen as attorney general." Holder seems to be making the connection between the "partnership" and possible future attacks on US interests, including jetliners going to the US.

    I don't think that putting US troops back in Iraq is being viewed now as the way to combat ISIS.

    Not sure what your Muslim attack comment related to. Terrorists from the Middle East have certainly attacked US interests and installations, as well as the World Trade Center, in the past 15 years.


    C'mon, You Know What I Mean (none / 0) (#43)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    Haven't you looked into the reasons the 9/11 19 and their bosses as well as other people who have attacked the US like Faisal Shazad, or the Tsarnaev brothers have given for their actions?  The main ones are never because the US is an infidel country or it persecutes US Muslims.  I also doubt that we agree on what are necessary US interests and installations in the Middle East and other Muslim areas.  I have no desire to argue the latter issues here with you. John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky are among the many people who share my views.

    Sorry, but I truly didn't and don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    understand most of what you were talking about. I wasn't trying to argue with you. Just trying to determine what your points were. No big deal.

    ... the fact that the Iraqi government is presently relying on some pretty sketchy characters as its firewall against the self-declared Islamic Caliphate in Mosul (Warning: The article linked below has a graphic photo):

    The Daily Beast | July 15, 2014
    Who's Murdering Baghdad's Prostitutes? - "If the gunmen who carried out a mass killing Saturday night escape punishment it will be not only because the victims were prostitutes, all too often friendless and forgotten, but also because the government needs to keep the murderers on its side. Officially, Iraq's Ministry of the Interior is still investigating the crime, but many Iraqis believe it's clear who is responsible. They say the killing was carried out by members of a local Shia militia, religious extremists whose armed members both cooperate and compete with the government for control of the area where the killing occurred. Twenty-nine women, reported to be prostitutes, were executed inside the apartment where they worked in the Zayouna neighborhood on Baghdad's east side. Two men also were found dead inside, one of them the reported pimp. Many of those killed had gunshot wounds to the head. Police found one woman's body inside a cupboard where she had tried to hide. Photographs of the gruesome spectacle have circulated widely on the Internet. Written on the door of the building was the warning: 'This is the fate of any prostitution.'"

    Donald Rumsfeld was at least partly right. Democracy in Iraq has certainly been messy, and that's due to the Bush administration's spectacular failure to plan adequately for invasion's aftermath. Because thanks to that dereliction of duty, we are now left with no good choices here -- literally between Iraq and a hard place.