IRAQ - Fight on Islamic State: News #1

I read two different versions of the some news...  

Iraq air force already received secondhanded warplanes (thanks to great Russia! few words and lots of facts!) 
bUT what kind of planes and how many of them?

On RT NEWS I read about 10 SUKHOI SU24....

On AL JAZEERA I read about 5 SUKHOI SU25...


and...I'm not an expert of warplanes....in your opinion what is the best between the two kind of planes in order di attack ISIS troops?  

Max Italy wrote:I read two different versions of the some news...  

Iraq air force already received secondhanded warplanes (thanks to great Russia! few words and lots of facts!) 
bUT what kind of planes and how many of them?

On RT NEWS I read about 10 SUKHOI SU24....

On AL JAZEERA I read about 5 SUKHOI SU25...


and...I'm not an expert of warplanes....in your opinion what is the best between the two kind of planes in order di attack ISIS troops?  

The SU-24 is old school plane, currently under replace from fighter bomber planes like the SU-34 or the f35 that americants want to use as the replacement of Tornado which is SU-24's equivalent.
Since ISIS don't have air force and they are basicaly light to middle armed rebels the principal plane in Russia's arsenal against them is currently SU-25 and the very modern SU-34

This Nitwit-Yahoo is some character, he's basically openly calling for the partition and Balkanization of Iraq:

Israeli PM Netanyahu endorses Kurdish independence citing chaos in Iraq



Citing the “collapse” of Iraq amid the ISIS insurgency and sectarian violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the de-facto independence of Iraqi Kurds. Netanyahu has also called to support the “Kurdish aspiration for independence.”

The hawkish Israeli leader said on Sunday that Kurds are “fighting people that has proved its political commitment, political moderation, and deserves political independence,” Reuters reported.

Speaking to Tel Aviv University’s INSS think-tank, Netanyahu described the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general as a “collapse,” due to strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Amid the recent insurgency of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) militants, Kurds have seized the opportunity to bring a long-sought independent state of Kurdistan closer to reality. Kurdish Peshmerga armed forces have been guarding their provincial borders from ISIS, but also seized the contested Iraqi city of Kirkuk, proclaiming it part of their territory.

Now, in an apparent clash against the international community's support of a united Iraq, the Israeli leader has called to back the de-facto independence of Kurds.

“We should...support the Kurdish aspiration for independence,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

http://rt.com/news/169252-netanyahu-kurds-independence-iraq/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

magnumcromagnon wrote:This Nitwit-Yahoo is some character, he's basically openly calling for the partition and Balkanization of Iraq:

Israeli PM Netanyahu endorses Kurdish independence citing chaos in Iraq



Citing the “collapse” of Iraq amid the ISIS insurgency and sectarian violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the de-facto independence of Iraqi Kurds. Netanyahu has also called to support the “Kurdish aspiration for independence.”

The hawkish Israeli leader said on Sunday that Kurds are “fighting people that has proved its political commitment, political moderation, and deserves political independence,” Reuters reported.

Speaking to Tel Aviv University’s INSS think-tank, Netanyahu described the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general as a “collapse,” due to strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Amid the recent insurgency of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) militants, Kurds have seized the opportunity to bring a long-sought independent state of Kurdistan closer to reality. Kurdish Peshmerga armed forces have been guarding their provincial borders from ISIS, but also seized the contested Iraqi city of Kirkuk, proclaiming it part of their territory.

Now, in an apparent clash against the international community's support of a united Iraq, the Israeli leader has called to back the de-facto independence of Kurds.

“We should...support the Kurdish aspiration for independence,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

http://rt.com/news/169252-netanyahu-kurds-independence-iraq/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Like it or not, but this is reality and this is a future of Iraq. Shia have to defend their southern part Simeria, Kurds will form their Kurdistan from their territories in Iraq, Syria,Turkey and Iran and Sunni part of Kaliphat. Syria will also be divided in Kurdistan, Asiria and Sunni Kaliphat and than ISIS will also capture Jordan and most probably throw Saud dynasty in KSA. Anyway, this process will form natural and stable states in ME, because today states in today borders are not natural and are the remain from colonial division.

medo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:This Nitwit-Yahoo is some character, he's basically openly calling for the partition and Balkanization of Iraq:

Israeli PM Netanyahu endorses Kurdish independence citing chaos in Iraq



Citing the “collapse” of Iraq amid the ISIS insurgency and sectarian violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed the de-facto independence of Iraqi Kurds. Netanyahu has also called to support the “Kurdish aspiration for independence.”

The hawkish Israeli leader said on Sunday that Kurds are “fighting people that has proved its political commitment, political moderation, and deserves political independence,” Reuters reported.

Speaking to Tel Aviv University’s INSS think-tank, Netanyahu described the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in general as a “collapse,” due to strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Amid the recent insurgency of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) militants, Kurds have seized the opportunity to bring a long-sought independent state of Kurdistan closer to reality. Kurdish Peshmerga armed forces have been guarding their provincial borders from ISIS, but also seized the contested Iraqi city of Kirkuk, proclaiming it part of their territory.

Now, in an apparent clash against the international community's support of a united Iraq, the Israeli leader has called to back the de-facto independence of Kurds.

“We should...support the Kurdish aspiration for independence,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

http://rt.com/news/169252-netanyahu-kurds-independence-iraq/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Like it or not, but this is reality and this is a future of Iraq. Shia have to defend their southern part Simeria, Kurds will form their Kurdistan from their territories in Iraq, Syria,Turkey and Iran and Sunni part of Kaliphat. Syria will also be divided in Kurdistan, Asiria and Sunni Kaliphat and than ISIS will also capture Jordan and most probably throw Saud dynasty in KSA. Anyway, this process will form natural and stable states in ME, because today states in today borders are not natural and are the remain from colonial division.

...That's a self-fulling prophecy, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are promoting terrorism through out the Middle East, all it would take to stop this madness is to have FOAB's and some Iskanders level the House of Saud to send a message...   

I agree. It is Saud and Qatar with some others that are causing the violence. All are friends of israel.



But this break off scenario isn't going to happen anytime soon and the Kurdish government is pro-Iran. israel has been arming Kurdish militants against their own people for some time now but they have been squashed every time.

arpakola wrote:

so they are SU25! great!   

Hannibal Barca wrote:

Max Italy wrote:I read two different versions of the some news...  

Iraq air force already received secondhanded warplanes (thanks to great Russia! few words and lots of facts!) 
bUT what kind of planes and how many of them?

On RT NEWS I read about 10 SUKHOI SU24....

On AL JAZEERA I read about 5 SUKHOI SU25...


and...I'm not an expert of warplanes....in your opinion what is the best between the two kind of planes in order di attack ISIS troops?  

The SU-24 is old school plane, currently under replace from fighter bomber planes like the SU-34 or the f35 that americants want to use as the replacement of Tornado which is SU-24's equivalent.
Since ISIS don't have air force and they are basicaly light to middle armed rebels the principal plane in Russia's arsenal against them is currently SU-25 and the very modern SU-34

clear and precise, thank you!

As far as arms deliveries go, both Iraq and Syria need tanks...I'm proposing Russia to deliver hundreds of their T-55's/T-64's left in storage modernized with modern thermal sights, modern ERA, modern Soft and Active protection and urban warfare kits, and many could be converted in to the BMPT role...and they should be sold at a affordable price. Direct oil-for-arms deals to make the deals "work". The price for a modernized T-55's should be at $200,000, and a modernized T-64's should be at $250,000, a nice affordable price...A $100 million contract could get either Iraq or Syria 400 modernized T-64's, or 500 modernized T-55's!

To properly form Kurdistan you would need parts of Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Northern Iraq. The parts of Iraq I doubt the US cares about now and they would love to see parts of Syria and Iran be taken from those countries... BTW what happened to boundaries of countries being sacrosanct and unmoving... Georgia and Crimea like...

the US will have to grudgingly care about Turkey however.

To be honest I think most of ISIS's gains in Iraq are because they are in such a poor state after the US went in and smashed everything and then left. Syria has been broken over a long period of time but I suspect their invasion of Iraq was because of the weakness there... Kurds controlled most of the north for most of this century anyway with no fly zones intended to stop saddam from crushing their independence.

In other words they have taken up land occupied by Iraqi Kurds as an external base for fighting in Syria... the US is doing little but Russia seems to be filling the void and equipping the Iraqis to assert their authority.

My worries are not for ISIS, but for the Kurds... who again have thrown in with the wrong lot... the last time round it was al quada.

The funniest discussion I had with an expert from acig was his evidence of links between al quada and Saddam... well it turns out he had not read his own article properly and the links were between al quada and the Kurds and Saddam was being prevented from attacking them by the no fly zone. Shut him up for a bit but didn't change his position on Saddam, the Kurds, or Al quada.

Russia should certainly get together with the Iraqi and Iranian and Syrian Armies respectively and go through the things they could use like tanks and other vehicles and equipment that is in storage or about to be scrapped and see if they can put it to use. Wont be charity, but it also wont be worn out crap that is useless either.

Due to Russia & Iran offering help ( quick Su-25's )

The US got forced to react.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/211108-pentagon-sends-attack-helicopters-to-iraq
The United States has sent Apache attack helicopters to Iraq as part of the buildup in U.S. military personnel, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Reports that supporters of radical shia cleric Sayyid Sarkhi Hasani are fighting ISF in Karbala.

So it's also shia vs shia now.

Apparently the Iranian Su-25K and Su-25UBK aircraft are being deployed to Iraq also.

http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/iranian-su-25-iraq/

GarryB wrote:To properly form Kurdistan you would need parts of Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Northern Iraq. The parts of Iraq I doubt the US cares about now and they would love to see parts of Syria and Iran be taken from those countries... BTW what happened to boundaries of countries being sacrosanct and unmoving... Georgia and Crimea like...

the US will have to grudgingly care about Turkey however.

To be honest I think most of ISIS's gains in Iraq are because they are in such a poor state after the US went in and smashed everything and then left. Syria has been broken over a long period of time but I suspect their invasion of Iraq was because of the weakness there... Kurds controlled most of the north for most of this century anyway with no fly zones intended to stop saddam from crushing their independence.

In other words they have taken up land occupied by Iraqi Kurds as an external base for fighting in Syria... the US is doing little but Russia seems to be filling the void and equipping the Iraqis to assert their authority.

My worries are not for ISIS, but for the Kurds... who again have thrown in with the wrong lot... the last time round it was al quada.

The funniest discussion I had with an expert from acig was his evidence of links between al quada and Saddam... well it turns out he had not read his own article properly and the links were between al quada and the Kurds and Saddam was being prevented from attacking them by the no fly zone. Shut him up for a bit but didn't change his position on Saddam, the Kurds, or Al quada.

Russia should certainly get together with the Iraqi and Iranian and Syrian Armies respectively and go through the things they could use like tanks and other vehicles and equipment that is in storage or about to be scrapped and see if they can put it to use. Wont be charity, but it also wont be worn out crap that is useless either.

I agree with everything here.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Reports that supporters of radical shia cleric Sayyid Sarkhi Hasani are fighting ISF in Karbala.

So it's also shia vs shia now.

Be careful taking what western "experts" claim as there are very, very few actual western experts on the middle east.



Both answer to Sistani and Sadr. They are far more powerful than the government of Iraq itself.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Reports that supporters of radical shia cleric Sayyid Sarkhi Hasani are fighting ISF in Karbala.

So it's also shia vs shia now.

Shia vs Shia? Highly unlikely, unlike Sunni Wahhabi Salafist Islamists who regularly fight and kill among themselves like animals, Shia militants on the other hand usually stick together through thick-and-thin and usually put their differneces aside for greater goals such as the case of Iran and Syria, where Iran is a Shia Islamist state and Syria is a Shia led secular state, and despite differences in how much of a role religion should play in their respective govts., they've allied with each other to fight the Sunni Wahhabi Salafist barbaric hordes.

There are rifts between Shia clerics and the Iraqi government... They existed since the US invasion and earlier they resulted in an open ended war between Muqtada Al Sadr and Iraqi authorities.
The guy whom I was talking about is ayatollah Mahmud Hasani Al Sarkhi... In 2006 his followers attacked an Iranian consulate and took down it's flag and in 2012 they clashed with the supporters of Sistani. HE is not a major figure but still. Recent clashes reportedly resulted in 45 dead. How many are ISF personel is unclear. There is relatively greater unity among shias because there is just a single shia-majority country in the world while at the same time you have several sunni countries fighting for influence, and in some of them (Gulf countries) there are dozens of rival factions within the country itself... so the result is a mess of epic scale.

BTW - shias are no less barbaric than sunnis.. Imam Ali whom they venerate so much was the most ruthless butcher in the history of their religion, with his cruelty rivaled by no one among early muslims (read the books of Khomeini)  The only reason why they may look more moderate is because they are a minority so they can win more by playing the victim card (better PR). And of course Iraqi governemnt is nnot vehemently sectarial though it may change in the future (Maliki probably won't stay for much longer given his failures.)

As Sa'iqa wrote:There are rifts between Shia clerics and the Iraqi government... They existed since the US invasion and earlier they resulted in an open ended war between Muqtada Al Sadr and Iraqi authorities.
The guy whom I was talking about is ayatollah Mahmud Hasani Al Sarkhi... In 2006 his followers attacked an Iranian consulate and took down it's flag and in 2012 they clashed with the supporters of Sistani. HE is not a major figure but still. Recent clashes reportedly resulted in 45 dead. How many are ISF personel is unclear. There is relatively greater unity among shias because there is just a single shia-majority country in the world while at the same time you have several sunni countries fighting for influence, and in some of them (Gulf countries) there are dozens of rival factions within the country itself... so the result is a mess of epic scale.

BTW - shias are no less barbaric than sunnis.. Imam Ali whom they venerate so much was the most ruthless butcher in the history of their religion, with his cruelty rivaled by no one among early muslims (read the books of Khomeini)  The only reason why they may look more moderate is because they are a minority so they can win more by playing the victim card (better PR). And of course Iraqi governemnt is nnot vehemently sectarial though it may change in the future (Maliki probably won't stay for much longer given his failures.)

Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are all Shia majority. In Iran, violence is very rare. Also, Khomeini never wrote a violent thing in his life. There are a few fake books written by Jews, but Khomeini clearly never wrote them. Also, Al Sarkhi is officially not a Shia and holds no power.


These are Khomeinis actual writings.

http://www.imam-khomeini.com/web1/english/showitem.aspx?cid=1662&h=13&f=14&pid=1794

Lebanon is not Shia majority. Their influence is leveraged by the influence of Sunnis and Christians.

Ad Khomeini - note that his retorics from before the revolution was different than after revolution. Still he wrote a great deal of asininity regarding the role of Islamic state (vilayat faqih) and other things (among them sex with children). Unfortunately that fool Pahlavi banned his books, robbing the Iranians of a chance to examine them for themselves. Had they known his natura, they would have never elected that madman as their leader.

There is still hope for these people though. Most Iranians seem to dislike the regime and I hope they will overtheown the regime and elect a secular ruler. I wish the same to all theocracies in the region, regardless of hich superpower they will support afterwards.

For you, there is one quote from Kashf Al Asrar by Khomeini. I failed to see how it differs from Sunni rhetorics.

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.
But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Islam says: kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?

Islam say: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?

Islam says: kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy?

Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!

There are hundreds of other ayat [Qur'anic verses] and ahadith urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

What I would like to see is a Vietnam-like war in Iraq, exhaustive for the Iranian army. Once they send their forces, it will be hard for them to secure a victory. The Guardians of the revolutions will bleed themselves out, weakening the entire system. At best the entire mess should end with the collapse of both ISIS and Iranian regime. It would be bloody but it would be a just price for freedom.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Lebanon is not Shia majority. Their influence is leveraged by the influence of Sunnis and Christians.

Ad Khomeini - note that his retorics from before the revolution was different than after revolution. Still he wrote a great deal of asininity regarding the role of Islamic state (vilayat faqih) and other things (among them sex with children). Unfortunately that fool Pahlavi banned his books, robbing the Iranians of a chance to examine them for themselves. Had they known his natura, they would have never elected that madman as their leader.

There is still hope for these people though. Most Iranians seem to dislike the regime and I hope they will overtheown the regime and elect a secular ruler. I wish the same to all theocracies in the region, regardless of hich superpower they will support afterwards.

For you, there is one quote from Kashf Al Asrar by Khomeini. I failed to see how it differs from Sunni rhetorics.

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.
But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Islam says: kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?

Islam say: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?

Islam says: kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy?

Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors!

There are hundreds of other ayat [Qur'anic verses] and ahadith urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

What I would like to see is a Vietnam-like war in Iraq, exhaustive for the Iranian army. Once they send their forces, it will be hard for them to secure a victory. The Guardians of the revolutions will bleed themselves out, weakening the entire system. At best the entire mess should end with the collapse of both ISIS and Iranian regime. It would be bloody but it would be a just price for freedom.

What Jew did you get that from?

Internet. There are lots of sites with quotes of Khomeini + plenty of his books have been translated into English, many of which are available online. You should also remember his hateful fatwa against Salman Rushdie which was supported by the majority of Muslims, noth Sunni and Shia.

Ok, back to Iraq. There are some interesting things going on. Speicher AB (where Iraqi Mi-35s are based) is under attack. Moreover, Maliki fired the commander of the ground forces Ali Ghaidan and the chief of staff Faruq Aeraji, replacing him with own son, Ahmed Al Maliki. Cryonism at it's best. It probably won't improve army's performance.

I think there are two scenerios for shia part of Iraq. Either a military style dictatorship of Maliki or, if he proves too weak, a coup and de facto rule of the country by Iran via shia militias (Badr, Asaib Ahl Al Haqq etc.). Scenerio 1 would be better secularism-wise.

As Sa'iqa wrote:BTW - shias are no less barbaric than sunnis..

Most middle eastern Muslims regardless of whether they are Shias or Sunnis have profound hatred for Muslims of dark skin despite the fact that they make these dark skinned Muslims do all the donkey work .

A former co worker of mine who is an African American Muslim told me once that the Saudis have separate queues for dark skin Muslims even during Haj . So these dark skinned Muslims from Africa , South & South East Asia are allowed entry only after Arabs and others are done offering prayers .

So your description is not quite accurate coz there is discrimination within Muslims themselves.

I heard news that ISIL leader has been seriously injured... truth or fake?   

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/urgent-al-baghdadi-escapes-syria-serious-injury/

http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/34996/

As Sa'iqa wrote:Internet. There are lots of sites with quotes of Khomeini + plenty of his books have been translated into English, many of which are available online. You should also remember his hateful fatwa against Salman Rushdie which was supported by the majority of Muslims, noth Sunni and Shia.

Yes, but most are fake including what you posted. Books written in English but never Persian. Khomeini didn't know English.


Lots of fake stuff about Putin too.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Ok, back to Iraq. There are some interesting things going on. Speicher AB (where Iraqi Mi-35s are based) is under attack. Moreover, Maliki fired the commander of the ground forces Ali Ghaidan and the chief of staff Faruq Aeraji, replacing him with own son, Ahmed Al Maliki. Cryonism at it's best. It probably won't improve army's performance.

He didn't trust him and I don't blame him.

As Sa'iqa wrote:I think there are two scenerios for shia part of Iraq. Either a military style dictatorship of Maliki or, if he proves too weak, a coup and de facto rule of the country by Iran via shia militias (Badr, Asaib Ahl Al Haqq etc.). Scenerio 1 would be better secularism-wise.

Maliki is a figure head. Sistani/Sadr run Iraq. He can be replaced and no change will come.