It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al-Qaeda seizes Iraq's third-largest city as terrified residents flee

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Wait, so we took out a nation because they were a threat to us, even though they weren't, yet it then somehow turned into an operation to 'liberate' the people, all the while fighting a global war on terror, and now the group that we were fighting the global war on has just taken over a major city in the nation that was never actually a threat with people who have been liberated from a tyrant straight into the hands of radicals that we have funded in Syria to 'liberate' some other people from another tyrant? Is that about right?

Our foreign policy is such a mess. Can we please just stay out of these conflicts? I don't care if we will be lambasted for it. Our military is not made for occupation. It is made for destruction. Use it that way. If someone attacks us militarily, we destroy them and leave. Other than that, stay the hell out of the rest of the world's affairs.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69


680: Hussein, son of Ali, marches against the superior army of the caliph at Karbala in Iraq. He is defeated, his army massacred, and he is beheaded. The split between Shia and Sunnis deepens. Shia consider Ali as their first Imam, Hussein as the third Imam.

Man those who killed Hussain ibn Ali, They were not Sunnies. They were worse than animal. They were soldiers of corrupted monarchies. They even killed the 6 month infant of Hussain and they enslaved the family of grandson of their prophet. Even nowadays you are witnessing those terrorists. They are still soldiers of corrupted monarchies of middle east. Al-Qaeda, Daesh and all other terrorist groups.
Of course Sunnies respect Hussain ibn Ali.
Not only Sunnies but even Christians respect Hussain in Iraq.
Why !?
Of course John the Baptist said that Jesus would come but this statement of Gospels is about Hussain not Jesus !
Matthew. Chapter 3 and verse 11 Translation :


I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you withc the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

the true translation :


I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes Hussain, whose sandals ...................

You can refer to Aramaic gospels available on net and check it with Syriac alphabet again available on net.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

What happened I thought Dear leader said Al-Qaeda was defeated ?

Do you think dear leader lied to us for political gain? He wouldn't do that would he ?

Yup Iraq was ready to stand on its own.

/ sarcasm off

I use to think Obama was poorly advised I believe what he does is for a reason and not for our benefit.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
They had stability under a dictator, the US removes him and declares FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY ... then leaves and another army moves in. History repeats and now the people will suffer. The US public has no guts to put boots on the ground a 2nd time.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until we started fighting there. Politicians should be held accountable for their actions. This is a huge mess up....



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
This isn't Al Qaeda, it's ISIS.

Al Qaeda cut ties with ISIS in February.

www.washingtonpost.com... 3-98ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Actually I cant believe the US can be that stupid... After all they armed ISIS against Syria. So maybe this is planned as the US isn't having much luck with the Syrian war or Iraq which is aligning with Iran due to them both being Shia. So the ISIS then attack Iraq, over throwing the Iran aligned government and then acts as a FOB for there movement with backing of the US if it tows the US line.

If this is the case then I take it back as its pure genius.

What the US does next will give their position away.

Watch this space



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Skorpy

So because we invaded Iraq, looking for imaginary WMDs, essentially got what we came for. Should we now proceed to do the same to Africa?

What happened America? Time was you used to shoot for the Moon, now you seem happy to rape and destroy the lesser civilisations and all in the name of democracy!


I don't hold with what the Al-Qaeda terrorist scum are attempting nether but come on we need to leave Africa alone!
edit on 12-6-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

According to what is being published right now, they cut themselves from Al Qaeda, not the other way around, and are quickly building recruits out of what had been Al Qaeda in Iraq. (As well as Saudi and Yemen)

It's a distinction without a difference and we're facing the same physical people, whatever they want to call themselves. "We" at least includes the people in the Embassy and still in-country for other things.

This is one hell of a mess. Especially now that they've made their intent to move on Baghdad completely clear and public (announced inside the last couple hours that I've been following)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I felt a distinction had to be made since many here believe that Al Qeada is a manufactured group created by the CIA..



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

True on that, and you have a good point.

The ISIS's thing is about a Transnational Islamic State. Not nice people. Very brutal by reports of those within their control areas. Al Nusra wouldn't work with them in Syria either.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I am thinking all this current mess is the early stages of forming a Iraq-Iran-Syria Axis...with a Caliphate (the 'Transnational State' mentioned in the above post) installed to consolidate a unity of that Axis & to also project influence...

the ultimate goal of this will be to replace the House of Saud
(however Arabia will still remain in the BRICS banking system along with Qatar)
edit on th30140257234612252014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Iran wants nothing to do with ISIS, in fact they're calling for an international response...

www.al-monitor.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Here's a good summary on how the actions of ISIS are affecting different regions and groups:

www.slate.com...

It's a rare occasion where the US, Israel and Iran are on the same page!



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I'm starting to get confused about this ISIS abbreviation.
I'm seeing articles calling this group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan)

I'm not up on my terrorist groups (too many to count) so it is probably just me, or the articles. Always conflicting....
In the end, doesn't really matter what we call this clusterbuck or those involved.....nothing but an absolute clusterbuck.

Like others, I wonder.....at what point do those who constantly flee rather than stand and fight actually stand and fight?
I understand that many factors come into play but in the end, I would like to think that in a situation like that, inferior weaponry or not, I would at least die trying to resist rather than living on the whims and demands of oppressors. Guess that is just me (and others) and that sentiment doesn't flow through all.

I don't know, maybe I'm just judging others based on my own experiences....I will shut up now.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I'm starting to get confused about this ISIS abbreviation.
I'm seeing articles calling this group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan)

I'm not up on my terrorist groups (too many to count) so it is probably just me, or the articles. Always conflicting....
In the end, doesn't really matter what we call this clusterbuck or those involved.....nothing but an absolute clusterbuck.


Same thing.

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (or more accurately al-Sham I think).
edit on k082406bamThu, 12 Jun 2014 08:24:49 -0500 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

Levant is another name for Syria.

Just depends on the translation.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

10/21/2011



In Iraq, where the U.S. force peaked at around 190,000 during the height of President George W. Bush's troop surge in 2007, almost 4,500 U.S. soldiers have died and the war has cost U.S. taxpayers over $700 billion in military spending alone.

Even as leaders of Iraq's fragile democracy seek to distance themselves from Washington, Iraq is only slowly getting to its feet after years of ferocious violence that shattered its society and killed tens of thousands of people.

While Washington has hailed Iraq's halting progress, especially as tumult has swept the Middle East, its political system remains gripped by perennial deadlock on issues dividing a religiously and ethnically fractured country.

Violence there is a far cry from the sectarian slaughter of 2006-07, but Iraq still suffers daily attacks from a stubborn insurgency allied with al-Qaida, and from Shi'ite militiamen.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: shapur

Iran openly supports the Alawite minority regime in Syria, and their brutal assaults on the majority Sunni rebellion... In both Iraq and Syria it is Sunni vs Shiites.

It is a conflict that is very old... The Iranians have been involved covertly and overtly in all of it... Peace in Iraq from and Iranian perspective would be a Shiite dominated Iraq fully allied with iran... For that to happen there will be bloodshed and war.

It's too bad that the Iranians and Saudis fight these proxy wars like this, and don't have the balls to confront each other directly in battle and end it all one way or another... Until they do, there will never be peace in that region.
Iranians support any democratically elected government that officially has the majority vote of their population...Thieves,tugs,paid puppets and international opportunists are not welcomed and will eventually be dealt with (by their own people) in severely unpleasant ways,and Iranians will surely supply the fuel for that.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

Ahha....Thanks for the clarification. (And you as well, khimbar)
You learn something everyday....




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join