Fleetwood, You've got to remember that ISIS is more radical than al-Qaeda. They're spreading chaos now in Lebanon as we speak.
However, there are some people who believe that the Sunnis are just using ISIS as a marriage partner of convenience for the sake of taking control over Iraq as Saddam did in the past. Once the Sunnis are in control, they will throw out ISIS from power. The Kurds would be foolish to be satisfied with just controlling the oil fields in Kirkuk. ISIS is vulnerable now since they're busy attacking Baghdad. If they attack ISIS from the north, I believe ISIS will disintegrate and flee into the wilderness. Similarly, Assad would be wise to attack ISIS from the west for his own survival. So, IMO the militants have put themselves into a corner of destruction and defeat. The virulence of ISIS will eventually bring about its own death just as cancer cells are attacked by antibodies in the human physiology. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : Heard something watching the France24 channel last night - the statement being that ISIS, wanting to establish a true Islamic state, is not interested in taking all of Iraq, content instead to consolidate their current gains. Makes sense - the country was designed by the Brits to always be tearing itself apart, anyway, and ISIS doesn't want the burden of holding all the tribes together. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : I agree somewhat with your assessment about the Syrian rebels. The USA should not aid them since they could be allied with ISIS in the long run. But Obama may be using a CIA assessment about the dynamics in Syria which we are not privy to. Independent of Obama's decision, it's definitely to Assad's advantage to get rid of ISIS now while they're busy attacking Iraq. He could and should attack the supply route in Syria for the ISIS militants in Iraq. Once ISIS is gone, IMO Assad could retain his power. Indirectly, the Iraq government would gain as well. But I don't believe Maliki is competent to run the Iraqi government. In fact, he is the most likely reason why the Sunnis and the Kurds don't want to cooperate with the present Iraqi government. However, I believe the Kurds will attack ISIS eventually from the north for their own preservation. If they let ISIS take over Iraq, the Kurds will eventually be a target for subjugation by an Islamist caliphate if the militants are in control. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 6/27/2014 1:53 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Although not allies in the past, Syria, Iran and the USA appear to have a common cause in the current political upheaval in Iraq. The age-old principle in jyotish seems to apply here which is: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The enemy in this case is ISIS. Any questions? get http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-iraq-producing-bizarre-mideast-dynamic-041505470.html > It looks like Obama wants to help the Syrian rebels who are attempting to overthrow Assad. If the rebels win in Syria, the ISIS will probably take over the entire country and get access to a lot of high-powered weapons. I'm not at all sure sending aid to the Syrian rebels is a good idea - what if it backfires? It's beginning to look like Obama does not know what he is doing. Foreign policy seems to be not his best talent. His entire Middle East plan is in shambles. What else can he do to screw things up? Go figure. WASHINGTON —T he White House on Thursday proposed a major program to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels, in a significant expansion of the U.S. role in a civil war that officials fear is bleeding into Iraq and across the region... 'Obama Proposes $500 Million to Aid Syrian Rebels' The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-500-million-to-aid-syrian-rebels-1403813486 http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-500-million-to-aid-syrian-rebels-1403813486 >
