Iraqi Sunnis take up arms against ISIL radicals

[kiwiman127]

Iraq was very secular for several decades, they used to exist in harmony. So it would new nothing new for them.
Right now any resistance is from the Shiites within the Iraqi Parliament, who want to continue control of the Iraqi government.

 

[tinydancer]

As long as Shiite Maliki was in power and disfranchising the Sunni, the Sunni were not going to come to help out.
Tiny Dancer discounted the notion that Maliki's actions against the Sunni had anything to do with the Sunni joining ranks with the ISIS. But in fact it had everything to do with the Sunni/ISIS connection.
He's gone and now the Sunni are willing to battle the ISIS. Still there is Shiite resistance to this. I guess the some of Shiite would rather be slaughtered/ lose their country than to work cooperatively with the Sunni for the good of their country. They must of learned that from the US and the deep, deep polarization between the Democrats and Republicans which is seriously hurting the USA.

Liar. I never discounted that the Sunni's in Iraq who did nothing to assist the Iraqi troops or joined ISIS once they invaded didn't have a hard on for Maliki or his ruling party.

I have maintained a consistent position that ISIS and Levant now IS have only one motivation. To form a Caliphate and to seize as much territory as possible.

Their motivations have absolutely nothing to do with the internal conflicts within the Iraqi government.

You are blatantly lying about my position.

So, you never posted this?
From: Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD! Post# 68.
"Oh cut the bloody crap that this is about Sunni disenfranchisement. That's a pantload"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/370341-iraq-told-us-to-leave-their-country-period-5.html

Yes I did in response directly to your claim:

One of the main reasons the ISIS spilled over into Iraq

ISIS didn't spill over the border. It was an invasion. A full blown invasion. ISIS/Levant/IS has nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement. Nothing at all.

And certainly some Sunnis joined in the action. Jihad runs thru their blood. But the tribal elders had made a tenuous agreement with ISIS in both Syria and Iraq that ISIS broke.

Nothing to do with Maliki in Syria either. And their taking up of arms now has to do with blood spilled not politics.

Hard as that might be for an Obamabot to grasp that the whole world doesn't live and breathe Obama's every move and whim and wish; it's only about the broken agreement and spilled blood.

The recent clashes between ISIL gunmen and fighters from the Sunni Shaitat tribe, one of Syria's largest, have destroyed ISIL's aura and broken the barrier of public fear, they said.

Violent clashes broke out at the end of July in rural Deir Ezzor after ISIL detained three tribesmen in a move the Shaitat viewed as violating an agreement which stipulated they would not be attacked.

The incident breached an agreement between ISIL and the Shaitat in which the tribesmen agreed to surrender their weapons and renounce fighting ISIL in exchange for the safety of the local population, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Sunni tribe rises up against ISIL in Syria | Mawtani

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I've never said all Sunnis were ISIL. I am very careful with words.

I never said that Sunnis were not disenfranchised by Maliki.

I said ISIS and their invasion had nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement.

Don't lie and put words up that are not mine. I don't take kindly to it.

I quoted you. You were not careful with words here at all.


On 08-10-2014 at 11:13 AM tinydancer *wrote, "What a fucking pantload. This has nothing at all to do with Sunni disenchantment with a Shia government. ISIS couldn't give a rats ass about who is in power in Baghdad."


You merged the two groups together.


When you say "ISIS and their invasion had nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement" you could not be more wrong or oblivious to reality.

 

[irosie91]

I've never said all Sunnis were ISIL. I am very careful with words.

I never said that Sunnis were not disenfranchised by Maliki.

I said ISIS and their invasion had nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement.

Don't lie and put words up that are not mine. I don't take kindly to it.

I quoted you. You were not careful with words here at all.


On 08-10-2014 at 11:13 AM tinydancer *wrote, "What a fucking pantload. This has nothing at all to do with Sunni disenchantment with a Shia government. ISIS couldn't give a rats ass about who is in power in Baghdad."


You merged the two groups together.

interesting point-------are they MERGING in Iraq? I mean are the shia and the sunnis
singing KUMBAYA in the caliphate? ---------uhm BAGHDADI is a sunni-----right??????
well...is he? will Iran impose a SHIITE CALIPH?-------
I have a feeling that chess is based on the SHIITE CALIPH ----against the SUNNI
CALIPH......... what are the pawns supposed to be?

Now that the world has a CALIPHATE-----is there going to be a caliphate
culture? caliphate art? caliphate music? caliphate cuisine?

caliwood -----like bollywood

 

[tinydancer]

I've never said all Sunnis were ISIL. I am very careful with words.

I never said that Sunnis were not disenfranchised by Maliki.

I said ISIS and their invasion had nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement.

Don't lie and put words up that are not mine. I don't take kindly to it.

I quoted you. You were not careful with words here at all.


On 08-10-2014 at 11:13 AM tinydancer *wrote, "What a fucking pantload. This has nothing at all to do with Sunni disenchantment with a Shia government. ISIS couldn't give a rats ass about who is in power in Baghdad."


You merged the two groups together.


When you say "ISIS and their invasion had nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement" you could not be more wrong or oblivious to reality.

Put down the bong. I've never merged Mohammed six pack Sunni with ISIS and Levant. That's a flat out lie.

And you are completely delusional if you truly believe ISIS invaded Iraq to "make it better for the Sunni population" under the Iraqi government.

Give it up and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In (*) Post 7 on 08-12-2014 at 05:18 PM tinydancer wrote, "And remember now. There is no such thing as a military solution. These are just poor misguided souls who feel disenfranchised. The worst of it all is that the morons in Washington really believe this." See(*)thread: “So Obabble thinks we can negotiate peace”.

Here again TinyDancer has not chosen her words carefully because :

(A) Obama has not claimed there is 'no such thing as a military solution'. The President of the United States has said there is no U.S. military solution. There is a huge difference in meaning when TinyDancer left out a critical part of the White House's statements accidently on purpose.

(B) There is a military solution for the Iraqis and it will involve the Sunnis that we are now seeing taking up arms against ISIS as they did against AQI in 2006.

(C) Non-ISIS Sunnis in Iraq were indeed disenfranchised and that is who the White House and everybody else on the planet has been talking about.

(D) TinyDancer refers to people in Washington to be 'morons' for believing that the Sunnis in Iraq are disenfranchised.

(E) No one has been saying that IS terrorist scum are doing this because they are disenfranchised. Yet TineDancer appears to have twisted US policy statements to make it seem that they did.



Now today at 12:40 PM TinyDancer wrote in Post 4 here, "ISIS/Levant/IS has nothing to do with Sunni disenfranchisement."

This is apparently because she has been forced by events on the ground to change her tune somewhat from what she wrote just four days ago:

"These are just poor misguided souls who feel disenfranchised. The worst of it all is that the morons in Washington really believe this" -tinydancer.

What a fast 'flip-flop' and notice that today Tinydancer at 11:53 AM has started this line of partisan argumentation, "And in Iraq Obamabot wankers the reason is blood as well. Not fucking politics." as she posts the same exact link that I posted yesterday at 09:13 PM.

Proving that TinyDancer is wrong is very simple. The IS caliphate is led by an Iraqi with roots in AQI, Al Qaeda in Iraq which goes back prior to 2008 when political conditions changed the Bush 'political/military policy not to deal or unite with the Sunni Tribal leaders in their fight with AQI.

In fact up until 2006 the US policy in Iraq was to hinder not support the Sunni Tribes trying to resist al Qaeda when the moved in during the mess that Bush created in Iraq with Saddam's removal. That
politic's changed with the Anbar Awakening and Sunnis succeeded in driving AQ out of Anbar and other areas while the US surge was more devoted to driving AQ and Shiite renegade militias out of Baghdad.

So sure there was 'bad blood' back in 2006 between the Sunni Tribes but it was politics which enabled the Sunni Tribes to do something about it.

So it is recently in Iraq. The politics in Bagdad will enable the tribal leaders to called the men to fight knowing perhaps they have the support of the politicians in Baghdad. Otherwise fighting is a death sentence because the IS Terrorists came with heavy weapons this time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Give it up and stop making a fool of yourself.

I have been citing your exact words. I have not made any errors in citing you. On the other hand you are putting things in quotes that I never wrote:

On 08-16-2014 at 03:39 PM tinydancer wrote, "And you are completely delusional if you truly believe ISIS invaded Iraq to "make it better for the Sunni population" under the Iraqi government."

I have never argued that the IS terrorist army invaded Iraq to make it better for the Sunni population. Where on earth did you come up with that?

At least when I say I am quoting you, I am quoting you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Maliki stepped aside because the grand Ayatollah of Iran came out and endorsed publicly the newly appointed Prime Minister.

Just six days ago you were singing a different tune saying that Iran was aiding Maliki:

On 08-10-2014 at 07:04 PM Tinydancer (*) wrote, "Maliki asked for strikes against them a year ago. Assad and Iran and now Russia have come to his aid.

(*)thread: "I blame Bushes for destabilizing Iraq."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 08-16-2014 at 11:19 AM Tinydancer wrote, "I have maintained a consistent position that ISIS and Levant now IS have only one motivation. To form a Caliphate and to seize as much territory as possible. <para> Their motivations have absolutely nothing to do with the internal conflicts within the Iraqi government."

No one including the Obama Administration has argued against or for what the IS killer's motivations are. The Obama Administration has expressed concern about Iraq's political situation hindering the military action it would take to defeat and eliminate the IS threat. That military solution includes the Sunnis, that are not aligned with building the IS caliphate, joining the Iraqi Government's fight .

Below is Tinydancer's deceptive word games as part of the clever distortion and mockery of the Administration's position:

In (*) Post 7 on 08-12-2014 at 05:18 PM tinydancer wrote, "And remember now. There is no such thing as a military solution. These are just poor misguided souls who feel disenfranchised. The worst of it all is that the morons in Washington really believe this." See(*)thread: &#8220;So Obabble thinks we can negotiate peace&#8221;.


Tinydancer claims that on 08-12-2014 at 05:18 PM she is talking about IS terrorists being disenfranchised. But she is mocking and condemning Obama for saying non-IS Iraqi Sunnis are the ones that are disenfranchised.

This is how right-wing anti-Obama propaganda works. All should be aware of it.