This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SgtMag1
1
« on: July 01, 2015, 07:05:48 PM »
To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.
It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.
But at any rate, this is dumb.
This is mostly the same logic used with the Confederate flag, too. "It's not the Confederate flag, it's the battle flag of blahblahblah"
That wasn't what I was going for at all. If I had it my way, the fucking Confederate flag would be banned outright.
2
« on: July 01, 2015, 03:22:03 PM »
To be absolutely honest, that's not even an ISIS flag. It's now widely associated with ISIS, but that flag is actually quite old.
It's called the "Seal of Muhammad." In fact, the Ottoman's used something similar and they even used the same exact seal (the Muhammad rasul'allah part in the middle of the flag) as their official government seal.
But at any rate, this is dumb.
3
« on: June 17, 2015, 10:05:22 PM »
The main scientist behind this is from my uni lol
4
« on: June 14, 2015, 06:32:14 PM »
It's the finger of Tawhid. It's referring to the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, or the "oneness" of God.
5
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:09:05 PM »
- Noam Chomsky is a fucking idiot.
- Terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants and subject to the death penalty.
- Government collection of metadata is justified, and doesn't constitute spying.
- Snowden is a traitor, who deserves a hefty sentence.
- Iran is a terrorist state, and America embarrassed themselves during the nuclear negotiations.
- The Iraq War was justified, and will prove beneficial for Iraq in the long-term.
- Obama's foreign policy has been an absolute joke.
- The anti-war and civil liberties lobbies are becoming excessively hysterical.
- A unipolar world where America is at the top is better than a bipolar world.
Yes
6
« on: June 10, 2015, 11:07:23 PM »
Invasion of Iraq was justified
7
« on: June 01, 2015, 07:32:22 PM »
8
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:37:36 PM »
First off, "Muslim chaplain" isn't the correct use of words. There are no clergy in Islam.
Secondly, Islamophobes are some real fucks.
9
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:23:44 PM »
I have no idea
10
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:12:03 PM »
Iraq was fought over oil.
And that's not a bad thing per se, just don't fall for the "liberation" crap.
The only thing with saying that it was fought over oil was that we have yet to receive any oil from Iraq.
11
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:32:11 AM »
Couldn't care less.
12
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:29:43 AM »
I didn't think they'd be able to meet the standards. However, I really hope a woman does some day. I have no problems with it, to be honest. If they can meet the same qualifications as men, why shouldn't they be able to fight?
Also Kurdish chicks in the YPJ kick ass, so...
13
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:25:03 AM »
illegal Yeah, it wasn't illegal.
I'd consider waging war under false pretenses pretty illegal...
What were the false pretenses?
The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction as had been reported.
I mean, not unless you consider chemical weapons to be WMD's...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
In which case, yes, there were WMD's in Iraq. The problem wasn't that they didn't have any WMD's, it was that our intelligence suggested it was an active program. It wasn't, but the fact of the matter is, Iraq had WMD's. More than 17 sites were discovered during the war that acted as storage for Iraq's stockpile of chemical weapons. But, this just isn't coming from The New York Times. So, to reiterate, Iraq had chemical weapons. The bad intel lies in that we thought their program was active; most cases found present the case that they just stockpiled weapons and were not creating any new ones.
A chemical weapons facility was also found in a joint US SOF-Peshmerga raid in northern Iraq against Ansar al Islam in Jan. 2003. To my knowledge, it's still not clear how Ansar al Islam had their hands on chemical weapons. It has been theorized that Saddam transferred some to them as Ansar al Islam was predominately preoccupied with fighting the Kurds and not the Saddam regime.
Do you also think al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq pre-invasion? I could gladly clear that up too.
So you don't consider those to be false pretenses to the war?
How is that a false pretense? One reason for the war was that Iraq was in possession of WMD's, which they were.
14
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:13:23 AM »
illegal Yeah, it wasn't illegal.
I'd consider waging war under false pretenses pretty illegal...
What were the false pretenses?
The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction as had been reported.
I mean, not unless you consider chemical weapons to be WMD's... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0In which case, yes, there were WMD's in Iraq. The problem wasn't that they didn't have any WMD's, it was that our intelligence suggested it was an active program. It wasn't, but the fact of the matter is, Iraq had WMD's. More than 17 sites were discovered during the war that acted as storage for Iraq's stockpile of chemical weapons. But, this just isn't coming from The New York Times. So, to reiterate, Iraq had chemical weapons. The bad intel lies in that we thought their program was active; most cases found present the case that they just stockpiled weapons and were not creating any new ones. A chemical weapons facility was also found in a joint US SOF-Peshmerga raid in northern Iraq against Ansar al Islam in Jan. 2003. To my knowledge, it's still not clear how Ansar al Islam had their hands on chemical weapons. It has been theorized that Saddam transferred some to them as Ansar al Islam was predominately preoccupied with fighting the Kurds and not the Saddam regime. Do you also think al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq pre-invasion? I could gladly clear that up too.
15
« on: May 29, 2015, 07:57:05 PM »
illegal Yeah, it wasn't illegal.
I'd consider waging war under false pretenses pretty illegal...
What were the false pretenses?
16
« on: May 28, 2015, 10:11:39 PM »
17
« on: May 28, 2015, 10:10:50 PM »
This is literally the most stupid thing I've seen in awhile.
18
« on: May 28, 2015, 09:38:51 PM »
As far as Yemen is concerned, it's pretty laughable that the country was touted as a successful model that we would pursue for Iraq. If Yemen is a success, I'd hate to see failure. The same can be said for Somalia, which was also touted as a success. Last time I checked, al Qaeda still controls large swaths of rural southern Somalia. Al Qaeda also controls significant amounts of ground in Yemen and this will grow as the chaos continues. And I don't care if Iran denies that they have ever supported the Houthis; they do. There has also been some evidence that some Houthis have been fighting alongside Assad in Syria. And there is only one explanation how they got there. Iran is also recruiting Shia Afghans and Pakistani's to fight for Assad. Hell, a good portion of Assad's forces are now direct Iranian proxies or actual Iranian troops.
Switching over to North Africa, more specifically Libya, we abandoned this country after 2012. We have done the occasional SOF raid in country, but only to capture AQ guys. The chaos in Libya has direct repercussions for the fight in Mali, which is now re-surging, for Tunisia and AQ's group there, as well as in Egypt. AQ is still growing and Islamic State forces just captured an airbase outside of Sirte today. The chaos in Libya, while it is a direct result of NATO's intervention, it wasn't because we intervened. It was because we left the Libyans to their own devices in creating a state after Qaddafi was toppled. We assumed they could handle it so our political support was minimal at best. What we didn't realize was that under Qaddafi, political institutions were not allowed. So how can we expect people to create a state when they've never had any political institutions? We can't. So they failed and lacked the strength to curb rivaling militias and various extremist groups. Many of which are now either with AQ or IS.
And just to hit Tunisia a little bit, I expect more attacks here. With what's happening in Libya, I expect AQ's group, Katibat Uqba bin Nafi, to step up their game on the weak Tunisian military. I could also see IS sympathizers doing something there too, as IS has been calling for it. We really need to start beefing up the Tunisian military. I just want to emphasize how weak they are. They are one of the few Middle Eastern/North African states where the military never really had a large public role.
And let's be honest about AfPak. Taliban are already recapturing ground in northern A-stan with their ongoing Azm offensive. Their still doing their thing in Pak and will so long as Pak supports them. When we leave A-stan--which we shouldn't, but I digress--expect a similar situation like Iraq.
And about the Iranian deal....I oppose any deal with that lying, terrorism-supporting, domestically-repressive, ideological radical country. I don't trust any Iranian official. I'm a little biased here, but with their track record, what they have been doing in the region for years, what they did to us during the Iraq War, what they do to their own people, and what they do to our allies, fuck 'em.
What needs to happen is stronger US leadership. The region actually wants this, at least the Gulf states, Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt--which are really the countries that matter politically. Most states are afraid of a stronger Iran, as they rightfully should. More needs to be done in Iraq, we need an actual strategy for Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, and we need to reengage in Libya. But we won't until after 2016.
19
« on: May 28, 2015, 07:57:31 PM »
The article is pretty correct.
One of the reasons the why the Middle East is so fucked up right now is because of poor US leadership in the region. This is a direct result of the current administration's foreign policy and, honestly, miscalculations from our intel community.
We had opportunities to intervene in Syria a long time ago, way before any extremist group had a significant foothold in the country. We could have started arming the rebels or provided more direct support for the opposition from the early days of the revolt. But we didn't. This was partly due to our miscalculations that "Since everywhere else transitioned quickly, surely Assad will too." We should have realized that was wrong when Assad started sending tanks into opposition rallies. Then, with the whole "red line" dilemma, Obama blinked. This greatly hurt our credibility with our Sunni allies and is in part a reason as to why Saudi and Qatar increased support for more questionable groups.
The Iraqi withdrawal was also handled poorly. Full disclosure, I don't think we should have ever withdrew. A permanent military base would have been best. That being said, a new SOFA agreement should have been more seriously sought after. Yes, Bush did sign a SOFA agreement in 2008 that outlined our withdrawal, but that could have been negotiated on to extend. And I will concede that this would have been difficult with Maliki who definitely pursued more sectarian means after we left.
But regardless, our withdrawal, and our lack of influence or sway in Iraq definitely assisted in the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq. Maliki, with Iran at the helms, was more freely able to pursue sectarian policies that further alienated the Sunni populations in Ninewa, Salahadin, and Anbar (and somewhat Kirkuk, i.e the Hawija massacre.) It should be noted that the Syrian Civil War also played a large role into why al Qaeda in Iraq was able to come back in a big way and eventually become the Islamic State. This whole notion of telling Jeb Bush his brother "created ISIS" is complete bullshit and an oversimplification of the the multitude of crises in Iraq since 2003.
Switching to Iran, they essentially control the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and to an extent Yemen via the Houthis. Iraq is such an Iranian proxy state it's not even funny. The Iraqi Security Forces are second best to the Hashd Sha'abi forces that Iran set up. All the major groups in the Hashd are direct Iranian proxies, Asaib al Haq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Kata'ib Saeed al Shuhada, Kata'ib Imam Ali, Harakat al Nujaba, Badr, et al. This provides Iran with just insane amount of leverage in Iraq. To make matters worse, many of these groups have been reciepents of US air support. This is entirely saddening when you understand that Asaib al Haq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, and the Badr Brigades are responsible for the deaths of more than a thousand US troops.
Will come back and do more later. For now, discuss what I have so far. I still haven't touched Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, AfPak, and the Iranian nuclear deal...
20
« on: May 28, 2015, 07:31:19 PM »
Give me a few hours and I can give a proper response. Gotta finish up a few projects.
21
« on: May 27, 2015, 11:23:47 AM »
Yeah, it's pretty fucking crazy.
22
« on: May 25, 2015, 10:02:31 AM »
The thing with going to the east and mounting an offensive in Aleppo is that it runs the risk of prompting an IS offensive on them (Jaish al Fatah). I don't think they want that.
Plus, with Latakia, there is definitely room to where they could take several cities and towns in northern Latakia. The towns and cities they lost since the spring 2014 offensive. Also, several foreign jihadi groups involved in Jaish al Fatah or in the Battle of Victory coalition are based in Latakia. I would assume that also plays a role.
But I just don't see a large scale offensive in Aleppo, especially given the proximity of Jisr al Shughur to Latakia. But anything is possible. Predicting where the conflict will be in six months from now is difficult, let a lone 3-4 weeks. So who knows.
23
« on: May 25, 2015, 01:38:47 AM »
So with the current advance in Idlib, how long do you think until we'll see another Latakia offensive?
I don't think we're too far off from that. Once AQ and Co take Ariha and the rest of the regimes towns, Latakia is the next logical advance.
24
« on: May 25, 2015, 01:21:37 AM »
I say we should hire willing Mercenaries to do the work
You do realize that the US hired a lot of mercenaries during the Iraqi War, and they performed miserably. It's a strategy that's not gonna work.
Alright. Then lets send our troops over even though many are unwilling to fight a fight we shouldn't be fighting. Nothing is more honorable than risking and possibly dying for someone else's nation.
When foreign adversaries like these can greatly affect the American homeland when left unchecked, yes, it's absolutely honorable to die in a preemptive action. These extremist Islamist groups aren't just the middle east's problem, they're our problem and our enemy too.
And who do you think originally created that threat? Who caused the Middle East to destabilize? Who trained Osama Bin Laden back in the Cold War era to help fight off the Soviet hold up in Afghanistan? Which nation creates as many problems as it tries to solve? Merica
Yeah. No.
1. Problems stem from colonialism.
2. CIA never touched UBL during Op. Cyclone. Didn't need to.
3. No.
He's a little bit of a tinfoil hatter. <.<
Yeah, he was the same way on Bnet.
25
« on: May 25, 2015, 01:18:41 AM »
Arabic and English, yo.
26
« on: May 25, 2015, 01:16:18 AM »
I say we should hire willing Mercenaries to do the work
You do realize that the US hired a lot of mercenaries during the Iraqi War, and they performed miserably. It's a strategy that's not gonna work.
Alright. Then lets send our troops over even though many are unwilling to fight a fight we shouldn't be fighting. Nothing is more honorable than risking and possibly dying for someone else's nation.
When foreign adversaries like these can greatly affect the American homeland when left unchecked, yes, it's absolutely honorable to die in a preemptive action. These extremist Islamist groups aren't just the middle east's problem, they're our problem and our enemy too.
And who do you think originally created that threat? Who caused the Middle East to destabilize? Who trained Osama Bin Laden back in the Cold War era to help fight off the Soviet hold up in Afghanistan? Which nation creates as many problems as it tries to solve? Merica
Yeah. No. 1. Problems stem from colonialism. 2. CIA never touched UBL during Op. Cyclone. Didn't need to. 3. No.
27
« on: May 24, 2015, 02:15:28 PM »
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
الله اكبر و الحمد الله.
انا ليس مسلم ولكن احب الاسلام.
How well can you speak Arabic? Must have been a total bitch to learn saying that it's among the hardest languages to learn from English.
Read and write it better than I can speak or listen to it. Arabic is notorious for being one of the harder languages to do the latter two things. Let's put it this way, I've been learning for a little over two years now. I still suck at a lot of things. It's incredibly difficult, but I like the challenge. Plus, I need Arabic for my job so...
28
« on: May 24, 2015, 01:29:25 AM »
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
الله اكبر و الحمد الله. انا ليس مسلم ولكن احب الاسلام.
29
« on: May 23, 2015, 05:47:59 PM »
Iraq still controls the Iraqi side of Al Waleed, so there's that.
That gives them like 1-2% control over their border with Syria. >___>
This is unfortunately true.
30
« on: May 23, 2015, 05:42:00 PM »
Iraq still controls the Iraqi side of Al Waleed, so there's that.
|
Show Posts