Iraqis living under IS rule fear liberation means reprisals

ulysses:

" Because one man had a dream about WMDs, the whole of the region has turned into one mass killing field. "

These sort of slogans take the term "simplistic" to a whole new level. I mean really now... is it really so hard to read up a bit on the history and background of the area?

Osama bin Laden wanted the US to over-react, and we fulfilled his dreams perfectly.

So you call 9/11 an overreaction???! I had to just catch myself, otherwise my post was going to get zapped! Let's just say, that comment was beyond NOT well thought out, not to mention dumb.

Today's chaos is a direct result of the total incompetence of George W. Bush and company.

Don't forget to throw Clinton and Obama in as well, for if Clinton would have had the mustard, he could have easily taken him out in 1998, but he didn't give the word, so if you want to go to the beginning before there was a Bush, it was Bill's responsibility and he failed in offing OBL, purposely.

OBL could not have foreseen exactly how the US would react, but creating internecine conflict was his stated goal.

So Bombing the USS Cole, the Kenyan Embassy, the World Trade Center twice ( who was president in 1993? ) was also an overreaction? So in other words, we should have a just let all that slide, ignore them and do nothing, right?

anything the world does will be seen as taking sides.

That's because it's a religious war. And taking sides in a religious war is never a good idea.

This crap is always going to continue as long as the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other. As Bill Maher says, anything the world does will be seen as taking sides.

Nizinjapan:

" Hope that the Irak government will make a good choice about how to treat people after liberation. Otherwise IS number of soldier will increase (again?). "

After being betrayed by Obama, who pulled out the residual US forces and delivered them to tender hands of the Shiite government, how do you expect the Sunnis to trust you again? Once burned, always afraid of fire.

So, they side with ISIS, as much as many dislike ISIS too.

The peace loving man who chose not to stand up to the adversary and rather than help his side to win did nothing and now is alive. So the question remains, whos side is he on? And thus probably repugnant to some but as I say, there are no innocent victims in war, every one has to choose a side.

Osama bin Laden wanted the US to over-react, and we fulfilled his dreams perfectly. Today's chaos is a direct result of the total incompetence of George W. Bush and company. OBL could not have foreseen exactly how the US would react, but creating internecine conflict was his stated goal.

Because one man had a dream about WMDs, the whole of the region has turned into one mass killing field.

Add to that, you have now a president that ignored the advice of his top military commanders to deal with the growing threat of what we now call ISIS and not following up on putting though er sanctions on Iran and now that killing field conflict has outgrown and has reached to becoming the most dangerous conflict in recent memory. And it will only get worse once the president makes this deal that makes absolutely NO sense, a deal that will benefit the Iranians and everyone else gets screwed.

Because one man had a dream about WMDs, the whole of the region has turned into one mass killing field.

Depending on how the Sunni are treated after "liberation", there will be a big impact on the other areas controlled by IS.

The choice for the Sunni in these areas will be simple: 1 "get on IS side even if not agree with their doings but keep my home and land" or 2 "never get on IS side because I do not agree but lose my home and land when liberation happens"

Hope that the Irak government will make a good choice about how to treat people after liberation. Otherwise IS number of soldier will increase (again?).

Got to feel for the civvies in Iraq. Suffered Saddam, put up with western occupation, followed by what was essentially a failed state and now confronted with ISIS. Moreover, "liberation" will involve the settling of old scores. I cannot see things getting much better, more likely to got a lot worse.

scripanthist:

" Will still be worth it to get that ISIS scum cleaned off. "

But who is going to replace ISIS in the Sunni areas? Nobody is telling us. If the "plan" is simply to "get rid of ISIS", it is not a plan.

" AFAIK, the Shiites have not declared war on UNESCO sites. "

But the residents of the area are Sunnis and they don´t want to live under Shiite rule. So what does it matter what Shiites think about UNESCO sites?

Will still be worth it to get that ISIS scum cleaned off. AFAIK, the Shiites have not declared war on UNESCO sites.

Interesting reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-sees-even-bigger-test-for-iraq-and-iran-in-the-aftermath-of-tikrit-battle/2015/03/07/9b82a0f0-c487-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

This is a war without end. Eye for any until no more eyes left. Assuming these states continue to exist within current borders, what they all need is a good old fashioned Arab strongman. And if they split into a number of new de facto states, then they will be at constant war with each other.

As I said.... the concept of having Shiite militias "liberate" the Sunni areas that are now controlled by ISIS is not an "intelligent" solution, as Obama and his followers seem to believe. It is a recipe for another disaster.