Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Well it looks like the US is now considering Air strikes on Islamic State Forces in Syria as well.

Bye bye Islamic State and good riddance!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 7032684862

[Tim Drayton]

It is all speculation on my part, of course, but I agree about the Kurds and wonder if somehow Islamic State went back on the deal and tried to take Kurdistan as well. It is curious that American air strikes only started when they moved into Kurdish territory, even though mass genocide was previously taking place against Shiites. Another totally different interpretation would be they are waiting their time for Islamic State to spread over enough territory for them to stretch their resources and supply routes to the limit before striking. We will see.

It's the Kurds the Americans are trying to protect. There is no doubt in my mind. Maybe the Americans feel obligated to protect them. In my opinion though, the Americans just sat back and let the Islamic State ravage Shiites in Syria. They should have finished them off long ago and not let this get out of hand. 2 million refugees in Syria and counting.

And it is just a coincidence that the largest unexploited proven oil reserves in the world are on their territory? Hmmm.

Tim,

this would make sense to me if the US did not withdraw and stayed which is not the case.

It would also seem suspicious to me if the banter out of Washington was calling for a full scale land invasion which is not the case.

There are 2 options really:
1) do nothing, in which case the Kurds (this explains Turkey's support) and probably the Christians will be slaughtered along with many Shiite Muslims, or
2) an air campaign.

I am strongly in favour of option 2.

And you don't think this withdrawal could be smoke and mirrors, and what is now going on is the next stage of a well orchestrated plan?

[Tim Drayton]

Apart from your two options, what's wrong with my option that I have outlined above of a UN resolution followed by the forming of an 'unholy alliance' of anybody willing to get involved, i.e. the West, Russia, Iran, Assad's Syria, the PKK, for the specific and short-term task of going in and taking them out? It is an option.

[Paphitis]

Apart from your two options, what's wrong with my option that I have outlined above of a UN resolution followed by the forming of an 'unholy alliance' of anybody willing to get involved, i.e. the West, Russia, Iran, Assad's Syria, the PKK, for the specific and short-term task of going in and taking them out? It is an option.

Nothing wrong with it if you can get the UN Security Council to agree on this.

If they don't do we just let the IS have impunity?

[Paphitis]

It is all speculation on my part, of course, but I agree about the Kurds and wonder if somehow Islamic State went back on the deal and tried to take Kurdistan as well. It is curious that American air strikes only started when they moved into Kurdish territory, even though mass genocide was previously taking place against Shiites. Another totally different interpretation would be they are waiting their time for Islamic State to spread over enough territory for them to stretch their resources and supply routes to the limit before striking. We will see.

It's the Kurds the Americans are trying to protect. There is no doubt in my mind. Maybe the Americans feel obligated to protect them. In my opinion though, the Americans just sat back and let the Islamic State ravage Shiites in Syria. They should have finished them off long ago and not let this get out of hand. 2 million refugees in Syria and counting.

And it is just a coincidence that the largest unexploited proven oil reserves in the world are on their territory? Hmmm.

Tim,

this would make sense to me if the US did not withdraw and stayed which is not the case.

It would also seem suspicious to me if the banter out of Washington was calling for a full scale land invasion which is not the case.

There are 2 options really:
1) do nothing, in which case the Kurds (this explains Turkey's support) and probably the Christians will be slaughtered along with many Shiite Muslims, or
2) an air campaign.

I am strongly in favour of option 2.

And you don't think this withdrawal could be smoke and mirrors, and what is now going on is the next stage of a well orchestrated plan?

Not particularly.

What I do believe is that the US should have ended them a long time ago and perhaps give Assad a hand (I know it sounds ridiculous) because it is clear to me that he was keeping them at bay.

Sometimes it is better to have henchmen like Assad in control because the alternative is just incomprehensible.

[Tim Drayton]

The Turkish press is reporting that maniacs from Islamic State have attacked a Sunni mosque packed with worshipers for Friday prayers in a town just north of Baghdad held by the Syrian government. It seems that four of these psychopaths entered the mosque in the middle of Friday prayers, one set off a bomb and the other three opened fire. There are reported to be at least 46 deaths.

http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/duny ... 6_olu.html

[Tim Drayton]

The Guardian is reporting that this was an attack by Shiite militia.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... osque-iraq

[Tim Drayton]

According to yet another source:

“It was not immediately clear if the attack was carried out by Shiite militiamen or the Islamic State extremist group”

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... t-25080803

[repulsewarrior]

“The Iraqi people have gone through almost two weeks of sheer terror most of us will never know nor experience,” said the usual Guy Fawkes-mask wearing graphic in an automated audio voice. “These savages who have no religion or morality are bent on burning everything in their path, killing and pillaging as they go. They must be stopped.”

The video claims suspected IS hackers took control of their @TheAnonMessage Twitter account, tweeting graphic photos of an IS assault near Baghdad. The spokesperson in the video apologizes for the hack and says “steps have been taken” to secure their account from “future attempted hacks.”

Besides alleging that Al-Jazeera is a supporter of IS, claiming the Middle East media outfit tarnished its “reputation by spewing your lies and your treasonous support to ISIS” and who "will not escape us," Anonymous singles out three states for their alleged backing of the Islamic extremist group.

“To the state of Qatar, Turkey, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; you will not escape our wrath. Evidence shows your continued support and supply to ISIS. If this does not promptly stop, we will be forced to unleash our entire legion against your pathetic excuse of a cyber-security,” said the message.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/anonym ... aincanada1

The same source claimed the style of attacks by the hackers responsible for infiltrating the @TheAnonMessage account were very similar to tactics employed by the Syrian Electronic Army—a group responsible for attacking the New York Times, Reuters, and the costly AP tweet claiming Barack Obama was injured by an explosion in the White House. According to Forbes claims by the Anonymous splinter group of a potential link-up between IS and the SEA, is an interesting development in a conflict that could seep into virtual battle spaces.

Hacker warfare...

[Tim Drayton]

Some sources are now putting the death toll at as high as 70.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle ... z3B8cIXI43