mornelithe said:
burning_phoneix said:
mornelithe said:
Yeah, ISIS hasn't gotten anything done in a miraculously short amount of time. You underestimate the force of will they're willing to exhibit to do what they believe is correct, and rightfully their land.
|
It's because you assume that ISIL works alone or has a massive army. The violence in Northern Iraq is not ISIL alone, but an alliance of various Sunni forces such as former Ba'athists with ISIL taking the lead.
It points to Iraq's weakness rather than ISIL's strength. The attack on Mosul involved 1500 ISIL fighters against 30'000 Iraqi soldiers and ISIL won? It just shows how weak the opposition to ISIS is. In addition, they've been beaten back by the Kurds in the North and they don't have the manpower to push south in Shia majority areas.
Syria has them at odds with both the Assad Regime and other rebels, Jordan has a strong professional army to the west and is unlikely to fall. Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states hate ISIL more than they hate Maliki and will probably offer support of some kind.
There will be no Caliphate, ISIL doesn't have the strength to do it.
|
I said nothing of the sort, don't try to put words in my mouth that didn't come out of it. If you're confused as to what I said, feel free to go back and re-read it.
|
You're the one who brought up ISIL, not me. I referred to all the Sunni exteremist groups and that you overestimated their strength and claimed that unless the region did something "a new sharia regime will take over".
You bought brought ISIS SPECIFICALLY and claimed they did a lot in a miraclously short period of time and talked about the group exclusively. I therefore took that you meant ISIS, the group you mentioned exclusively, did these things alone and actually has a chance to assert dominace over the region.
If I made a mistake about your intentions, please elaborate on them because with only two sentences, I need to assume a lot of things to debate.
