0_equals_true wrote:
Both of you are correct they are the number 1 threat, but also their success always finding some local support too. The idea that is all outsiders really doesn't add up, there is local support and that is a big factor (it also laughable this idea that is comes from all ex-Ba'athist it come from Sunni tribes, Baathism has little to do with it in reality, baathism is a brutal yet secular movement, ISIS isa brutal but very much religiously driven movement, their relationship in reality was fleeting.)
I understand fully that is not what you stand for but you can't deny that ISIS is able to appeal to some of the Sunnis. You aren't Sunni, you are also clearly middle class, and educated, you come come country with vulnerable, but nevertheless sort of balance of power across multiple groups.
Also many Gulf states, really have let everyone down, they don't really deserve much sympathy. Even those that didn't fund them directly they did contribute to heir growth. King Abdullah of SA recently made a very patronizing speech about the threat of ISIS, considering he is a large part responsible for their growth this really beggars belief. Not so long ago, he was going on about arming various groups. He is clearly very sectarian.
I think people are really getting a be fed up of the Western this and Western that. Part of the problem is not only the sectarian issue, but the constant appeal to western power about how x group is hard done by. FFS take these group need to take some responsibility themselves. They both blame the west and expect them to mediate issues.
I'm sorry is but the gulf state really are poor allies. Maybe you can't lump all of them together but certainly SA, Qatar and perhaps most surprisingly Kuwait we know for sure they have been involved in ISIS success. People are rightly angry about this.
Considering that many lost their lives to defend Kuwait, it really is massive f**k you.
Man, what you are saying is also kinda lumping-all logic as well and prejudicing.
Ok, let's consider ISIS has 10,000 fighters, or let's even make it 1,000 000 fighters!! Let make them 2 Millions! Even larger than the North korean army! How much that represents the Sunni Iraqi and Syrian population combined? They're about 34 Millions.
Fact is, any wealthy and armed to teeth force + even with very tiny to zero local support + with virtually no armed resistance capable to face it in some land = a group capable to control the whole land and very quickly as well.
They couldn't take the whole Kurdistan because the Kurdi forces are well armed, if Kurdistan fell easily to ISIS I am sure you would have came here saying "They certainly have a lot of local support in Kurdistan, this why they could eat the whole land" since most Kurds are sunnis too.
When early Israelis did advances in the Palestinian lands, who were less in numbers than Arabs, does that mean they had much support from the locals (Palestinians)? Or even when Mohamad and his caliphates conquered the middle east? And even Genghis khan? All that thanks to hordes of locals?
This is a false logic.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 02 Sep 2014, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
31 Aug 2014, 2:25 pm
