Iraq blocks access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in an attempt to halt militants

The Iraqi government has been in overdrive since Tuesday, when Islamic militants from ISIS seized the city of Mosul and began a slow march towards Iraq's capital of Baghdad. Traditional methods of halting the terrorist group have failed, as thousands of Iraqi soldiers have deserted when faced with the possibility of fighting ISIS militants -- so Iraq is exploring a new method: Blocking the means for ISIS members to communicate.

Today, the internet exploded with reports that Iraq had blocked access to all major social media sites, including YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, with users posting screenshots of block screens. Although some have been able to bypass the block with proxies or VPNs, social media is down for the majority of Iraq's 32.58 million citizens, as well as foreign and domestic militants.

 

the block is likely an attempt to hinder ISIS, who has seized a number of major Iraqi cities in the past week, including Mosul and Tikrit, and who earlier in the year established partial control in Fallujah and Ramadi. With no immediate assistance on the horizon from other nations, Iraq is exploring drastic possibilities to maintain its governing force. ISIS, like many other Jihadist militants, embrace social media websites; uploading videos of their conquests to YouTube, posting status updates and messages of support on Facebook and Twitter, and even coordinating actions across various social media sites. ISIS also maintains an English-language magazine, which they distribute via their al-Ḥayāt Media Center Twitter account. 

Facebook, Twitter, and Google have all issued statements to Venturebeat on the matter, expressing their concern and noting that they will look into the situation.

We are disturbed by reports of access issues in Iraq and are investigating. Limiting access to Internet services — essential for communication and commerce for millions of people — is a matter of concern for the global community. 

- Facebook response

We’re seeing reports that some users are not able to access YouTube in Iraq. There is no technical issue on our side and we’re looking into the situation.

- Google response

Time will tell whether the social media block is effective; in the short term, though, ISIS doesn't seem to be hindered. The United States recently evacuated "a few hundred" Americans from a major air force base in Iraq over concerns about the militants, and cities are still making major preparations for an impending ISIS attack.

Source: New York TimesImage via @Superammar 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AT&T will be one of the first to offer the Samsung Galaxy Tab S

Next Story

Microsoft to release its first TV series for Xbox on June 15th

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

When a country is in a military emergency (thanks to the US) then trust me twitter and facebook are their last needs.

Riva said,
When a country is in a military emergency (thanks to the US) then trust me twitter and facebook are their last needs.

Right. Never try to fight the phrase "the first casualty in war is the truth". The truth would also not be very convenient for the USA.

History is written by the winners. Did you not pay attention at school?
If you do not trust your government and news sources in your own country then you have a bigger problem than Iraq.

Another phrase you just accept and dont fight. Interesting.
I am starting to understand why history repeats itself all the time... because of people like you.

We dont have bigger issues. We have pretty much the same. Ours are just much better hidden, so that people like you ignore them.

I think a wise move in the very short term and glad it wasn't the whole net, I do hope it's only temporary while the Iraqi security forces regroup over the next couple days. BTW cell service was also killed off temporarily in Baghdad earlier today for the same reasons, it was back on tonight (at least for awhile) though, heard from a contact who lives about 3 blocks from our embassy, he said earlier today this action (blockage of some websites) was announced ahead of time, or so was the word on the street earlier this afternoon when he was out talking to people, he didn't hear\read any announcement himself.

Best wishes for those in Iraq.

NastySasquatch said,
It's terribly funny

And poof the rest of post disappears...

Its terribly funny reading this news cycle n reverse. Usually we've been rooting for the insurgents and decrying the oppressive regime.

What is slightly amusing is you have the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian, Israeli, and US government all agreeing (not necessarily for all the same reasons), for once on who are the bad guys, that doesn't happen that often.

The main problem with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is that there was no way to win the militarily, short of killing many,many more than we did, and we should have learned that lesson about the Afghanistan War from the Soviet occupation there. We could permanently occupy them and keep a peace of sorts, but that's not a military victory and I don't think there's any stomach for such action except from the more extreme neo-cons. And just wiping many tens of millions more lives than we did is even less of a practical reality.

We are going to have to find a another way to win or battles other than through the use of raw force. Not that raw force can't be useful, it has proven to be effective in many situations, but the Middle East isn't a an area where raw force works well without permanent occupation at least by an overwhelmingly superior force.

heatlesssun said,
The main problem with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is that there was no way to win the militarily

hey, no problem, let all the Islamists who want out, free entry to the United States, then whatever extremists are left can kill each other off, and Obama will have fulfilled his dream for the United States of Islam.

No Big Deal. Iraq is run by US since 2006...Iraq can ban whole internet, it still shouldn't and wouldn't matter...

who is ISIS? i don't find much info from them in the interwebs...

what i don't understand is how this group as been gaining more members and "conquering" cities.

Praetor said,
who is ISIS? i don't find much info from them in the interwebs...

what i don't understand is how this group as been gaining more members and "conquering" cities.


Quite simple actually: in Iraq you have Shia, Sunni and Curds, three different ethnic groups; the actual government is Shia dominated therefore the Sunni are backing ISIS, at least do now, to counteract the Shia; the Curds on the other hands see this turmoil as an opportunity to create an independent state in the north. Kind the enemy of my enemy is my friend to oversimplify. Of course things are much more complicated because, for example, the creation of an independent Curd state would be the prologue of a further wave on instability in the region caused by the other Curds living in Iran and Turkey.

Praetor said,
thanks for the info; too bad that they don't realize they all are Iraqis and should be more tolerant to each other.

The problem is the Iraq... does not exists: it was one of the many entities artificially created by the winners of I World War and the consequences of that ill planning keep affecting us, former Jugoslavia is a perfect example of it, nowadays. Of course in the Middle East the religious factor greatly worsen the tensions.

Very inaccurate. Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam are different branches of Islam, not ethnic groups. The Kurds are an ethnic group from Iran, with a significant presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. While the Kurds play in tangentially, they're on the whole unrelated to ISIS, which itself is Sunni-based (not just supported by Sunnis) and seeks to overthrow Baghdad partially because the Maliki regime is Shiite, and partially because they seek to establish an independent Islamic state in northern Syria and northern Iraq.

Praetor said,
who is ISIS? i don't find much info from them in the interwebs...

what i don't understand is how this group as been gaining more members and "conquering" cities.

Try ISIL, thats their actual name.

Jett Goldsmith said,
Very inaccurate. Shi'a Islam and Sunni Islam are different branches of Islam, not ethnic groups. The Kurds are an ethnic group from Iran, with a significant presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. While the Kurds play in tangentially, they're on the whole unrelated to ISIS, which itself is Sunni-based (not just supported by Sunnis) and seeks to overthrow Baghdad partially because the Maliki regime is Shiite, and partially because they seek to establish an independent Islamic state in northern Syria and northern Iraq.

Not really: It is indeed true that globally the difference between Sunni and Shia is in the religious beliefs where the latter do not recognize the the first three Caliphs but only the fourth one, Ali who married Fatima the only surviving daughter of the Prophet, etc. etc. in the specific of Iraq such religious differences also differentiate different Tribes. Furthermore, and contrary to the western approach to the matter, the belonging to a certain tribe is considered belonging to a different ethnic group; " The seven pillars of wisdom" is, among many others of course, a very interesting reading to understand from a westerner prospective the role that belonging to a certain tribe rather than another play in the relations among different ones in the region.

Wall-swe said,
How many WMD's have been found? Iraq should bill the USA, when everything stabilizes...

Sure. Then the USA should bill half the other countries out there for ensuring safety in their region and, you know, the fact the world doesnt speak German or Japanese as well.

Scabrat said,

Sure. Then the USA should bill half the other countries out there for ensuring safety in their region

No one asked for this. The only thing they "secured", is the production of oil.
They don't care of Iraqi, and never cared.

bigmehdi said,

No one asked for this. The only thing they "secured", is the production of oil.
They don't care of Iraqi, and never cared.

Really? Cause military accounts from troops on the ground says they care a lot about the people there. In your opinion you think they dont care. Big difference from the truth. Oh, and in case you are wondering, gas prices havent gone down in the USA, but good guess at that theory =).

Scabrat said,

Oh, and in case you are wondering, gas prices havent gone down in the USA, but good guess at that theory =).

Because of Shale Gaz, they need less to import it.

Scabrat said,
Sure. Then the USA should bill half the other countries out there for ensuring safety in their region and, you know, the fact the world doesnt speak German or Japanese as well.

Yeah, because Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya are so stable thanks to US intervention. The US has been destabilising the region for decades.

bigmehdi said,

Because of Shale Gaz, they need less to import it.

The point is, the theory that the US invaded Iraq for oil is ludicrous. And wouldnt you think that if it was for oil then our gas prices would be really low because of shale AND oil from Iraq?

To me, its more telling of how people view America and their motives than it is about why the US went into Iraq.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Yeah, because Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya are so stable thanks to US intervention. The US has been destabilising the region for decades.

So you would rather have evil dictators that kill their own country men then? And kill people who oppose any part of their precious ideology? A valid argument can be made that Iraq was better a year ago than it ever was under dictatorship rule. But, people have their opinions =). Myself included.

Scabrat said,

The point is, the theory that the US invaded Iraq for oil is ludicrous.

Perhaps not just for oil, controlling a region of the world can always interesting (not only economical reasons, but geopolitical ones)
Anyways, this seems less ludicrous, than to pretend US invaded Iraq to help them.

But the profits of some companies, of course the ones with the "right" people seating in their boards, have skyrocketed..... As for people commenting about gas prices still high there is a difference, a big one, between prices for the above mentioned companies and " the people".

bigmehdi said,

Perhaps not just for oil, controlling a region of the world can always interesting (not only economical reasons, but geopolitical ones)
Anyways, this seems less ludicrous, than to pretend US invaded Iraq to help them.

Saddam was an evil tyrant who was killing his own people. And, the US said they had proof there was WMD and they say proof that it may have been transported out of country right before they go to it.

Iraq was also claimed to be a terrorist training bed and the US just got hit by terrorists. I am not saying the decision was right. I am saying it wasnt for oil. They had intelligence and acted. To say they didnt have intel (whether it was right or wrong) or that they went in for oil is only an opinion and usually (though not always) carries with it a bias.

Scabrat said,

Saddam was an evil tyrant who was killing his own people. And, the US said they had proof there was WMD and they say proof that it may have been transported out of country right before they go to it.

Iraq was also claimed to be a terrorist training bed and the US just got hit by terrorists. I am not saying the decision was right. I am saying it wasnt for oil. They had intelligence and acted. To say they didnt have intel (whether it was right or wrong) or that they went in for oil is only an opinion and usually (though not always) carries with it a bias.

Saddam was a tyrant.... and when it was convenient for our interests we had the future secretary of defense acting as a postman and delivering to the "tyrant" satellite images of Iranian troops and let him gasses because it fitted our interests.
As for the so called intelligence we supposedly acted upon you forgot to mention that such intelligence reports were cherry picked and ONLY the ones which were useful to justify what had already been decided were presented, all the rest was disregarded.... because it did not serve the "cause".
Finally, the people who were in charge of the operations were a bunch of incompetents picked just on the base of nepotism and sharing common ideological beliefs; no other explanation for the scene of mechanized columns of the only left World superpower seating for days in the middle of a desert because lacking the logistic to keep running.
Like I or not geopolitics have always, and will always be, dirty business but at less it should be driven by geopolitics reasons not ideologies otherwise disaster is the only outcome.

Cosmocronos said,

Saddam was a tyrant.... and when it was convenient for our interests we had the future secretary of defense acting as a postman and delivering to the "tyrant" satellite images of Iranian troops and let him gasses because it fitted our interests.
As for the so called intelligence we supposedly acted upon you forgot to mention that such intelligence reports were cherry picked and ONLY the ones which were useful to justify what had already been decided were presented, all the rest was disregarded.... because it did not serve the "cause".
Finally, the people who were in charge of the operations were a bunch of incompetents picked just on the base of nepotism and sharing common ideological beliefs; no other explanation for the scene of mechanized columns of the only left World superpower seating for days in the middle of a desert because lacking the logistic to keep running.
Like I or not geopolitics have always, and will always be, dirty business but at less it should be driven by geopolitics reasons not ideologies otherwise disaster is the only outcome.

I agree with you on a lot there =). Saddam was a tyrant. We did use him for our interests. I am sure much intelligence is cherry picked but sometimes the intelligence is hard to decipher. I am not sure what the phrase "cause" was in this because I dont think we went in for oil. I do think it was terrorist related, though, I dont think the timing was right at all (besides the point).

I also agree people were incompetent as well because they ran out of gas and supplies quite often. We are blessed to have some of the bombs we do otherwise it would have been a huge mess.

I also am not sure I disagree with geopolitics, though, I am still not convinced of the oil thing. I am not sure exactly what you mean by ideologies. Some, I would agree letting go, but others, like genocide for instance, are definitely worth going to war for.

But, at last, these are all my opinions. =)

Scabrat said,

I agree with you on a lot there =). Saddam was a tyrant. We did use him for our interests. I am sure much intelligence is cherry picked but sometimes the intelligence is hard to decipher. I am not sure what the phrase "cause" was in this because I dont think we went in for oil. I do think it was terrorist related, though, I dont think the timing was right at all (besides the point).

I also agree people were incompetent as well because they ran out of gas and supplies quite often. We are blessed to have some of the bombs we do otherwise it would have been a huge mess.

I also am not sure I disagree with geopolitics, though, I am still not convinced of the oil thing. I am not sure exactly what you mean by ideologies. Some, I would agree letting go, but others, like genocide for instance, are definitely worth going to war for.

But, at last, these are all my opinions. =)


If you mean oil benefits for people like us... no, certainly not. Oil as intended the interests of oil companies, the ones that one were called the " Seven sisters", is a completely different universe though: Oil is the World biggest business and if you consider that even one hundred years ago when its relevance was much smaller the interests behind it were already strong enough to exercise a heavy influence on the events going on at the time like the final draft of the Sykes-Picot Declaration which basically the master plan to split the region which at the time was still refer to as Mesopotamia, its original Greek name.

bigmehdi said,

No one asked for this. The only thing they "secured", is the production of oil.
They don't care of Iraqi, and never cared.

We don't care about the Iraqi people? So, I was training with the IP's (Iraqi Police) and IA (Iraqi Army) for 15 months, because we didn't care? I handled out blankets, fans, soccer balls, etc within those 15 months, because we didn't care?

You're right, we don't care.

Dinggus said,

We don't care about the Iraqi people? So, I was training with the IP's (Iraqi Police) and IA (Iraqi Army) for 15 months, because we didn't care? I handled out blankets, fans, soccer balls, etc within those 15 months, because we didn't care?

You're right, we don't care.

Perhaps some soldier wanted genuinely to help .... It doesn't reflect the whole picture, we got from this war. Lies, dissimulation, and scandals .... And the final result: an even more "unstable" region.

Scabrat said,

Sure. Then the USA should bill half the other countries out there for ensuring safety in their region and, you know, the fact the world doesnt speak German or Japanese as well.

You can't claim the WW2. Didn't get involved to help anyone until they bombed you.

Scabrat said,

Sure. Then the USA should bill half the other countries out there for ensuring safety in their region and, you know, the fact the world doesnt speak German or Japanese as well.


I want you to do a little reading about a tiny little country called "Russia", and their involvement in WWII. Like how 3/4 of every German soldier killed was killed on the Eastern front. And how Stalingrad made DDay look like a fart in the wind.

Cosmocronos said,

Saddam was a tyrant.... and when it was convenient for our interests we had the future secretary of defense acting as a postman and delivering to the "tyrant" satellite images of Iranian troops and let him gasses because it fitted our interests.
As for the so called intelligence we supposedly acted upon you forgot to mention that such intelligence reports were cherry picked and ONLY the ones which were useful to justify what had already been decided were presented, all the rest was disregarded.... because it did not serve the "cause".
Finally, the people who were in charge of the operations were a bunch of incompetents picked just on the base of nepotism and sharing common ideological beliefs; no other explanation for the scene of mechanized columns of the only left World superpower seating for days in the middle of a desert because lacking the logistic to keep running.
Like I or not geopolitics have always, and will always be, dirty business but at less it should be driven by geopolitics reasons not ideologies otherwise disaster is the only outcome.

Wow I can't believe, People actually are aware of things and know many things that western media doesn't want them to know.
the fact that my uncle died by the blast of a heavy tank frustrates me, And if you think that Iraqis built that tank and its shells themselves, you're entirely off-course.
But still cheers to those soldiers who went to Iraq and spent a lot of time there away from their home.

The US invaded Iraq because George W Bush had a personal vendetta with Saddam.
Bush was president, he didn't like a certain someone, and so he sent the US army after him :)
It wasn't about oil, or spreading democracy or anything remotely related :)

Scabrat said,
So you would rather have evil dictators that kill their own country men then? And kill people who oppose any part of their precious ideology? A valid argument can be made that Iraq was better a year ago than it ever was under dictatorship rule.

To suggest that Iraq is better off that it was under Hussein is patently absurd and outright offensive. More than 180,000 have died (the majority of which are civilians), sectarianist violence has increased to unprecedented levels, cities are being captured by ISIS, more than half a million people have been displaced in the past month and the Iraqi government is on the verge of collapse, all of which is a direct result of US intervention.

The US has plunged Iraq into a bitter civil war that recent predictions suggest could last another 30 years. Hussein held the country together and kept it secure (though that's not to excuse his war crimes).

The only winner from the Iraq War is the US Military Industrial Complex™.

Scabrat said,

Saddam was an evil tyrant who was killing his own people. And, the US said they had proof there was WMD and they say proof that it may have been transported out of country right before they go to it.

Iraq was also claimed to be a terrorist training bed and the US just got hit by terrorists. I am not saying the decision was right. I am saying it wasnt for oil. They had intelligence and acted. To say they didnt have intel (whether it was right or wrong) or that they went in for oil is only an opinion and usually (though not always) carries with it a bias.

There was no evidence of WMDs or links with al'qaeda then and there isn't now.

What we have, though, is evidence of WMDs in North Korea, where it's own "evil tyrant" is also oppressing and "killing his own people", and throwing international threats.

But it had to be Iraq, and it surely had absolutely nothing to do with the US having economic interests in Iraq but not in NK.

theyarecomingforyou, that hardly matters. They only went there because bush thought "I iz president now. I send army to kill people I don't like".
If the US really cared about fixing political problems elsewhere and tyranny, why not interfere in Syria for example? That is a place where the US really needs to interfere.
But do you know why they won't interfere there? Because they can't do any anything in terms of military power against a Syria|Iran|Russia coalition.
I don't buy the "I want to spread democracy ######" when someone's clearly has ulterior motives.

Hussam Al-tayeb said,
If the US really cared about fixing political problems elsewhere and tyranny, why not interfere in Syria for example? That is a place where the US really needs to interfere.
The trouble is that the US has already interfered in Syria, with the CIA funnelling weapons to the rebels. Further, the last thing Syria needs is US military intervention - what is needed is UN peacekeepers to protect the population, with those responsible for war crimes being brought before the ICC. Unfortunately the US was talking about regime change, as always.

bigmehdi said,
Perhaps some soldier wanted genuinely to help .... It doesn't reflect the whole picture, we got from this war. Lies, dissimulation, and scandals .... And the final result: an even more "unstable" region.

It's unstable because we're not there. Do I agree we should help every country that is unstable, no. But, due to us helping and trying to get their government up and running, training the IPs and the IA to stand-up for themselves and fight for their country, it has obviously got them put on the hit list in the above video.

You know how many young adults and children I have interacted with that wanted us there? Alot, every day. I even had one Iraqi tell me Merry Christmas, so I stopped him and had a conversation with him. He was from Detroit, a doctor, visiting family. Children there were learning English, one of the kids even asked if I would do his homework for him.

As someone who went over there, had my vehicle blown up a few times, interactived with the Iraqi population, trained IPs and the IA, I loved it. Knowing you are part of something like that, and made a difference in the small amount of 15 months, there is absolutely nothing like it.

If a soldier didn't want to go, they could have easily went AWOL or done something to get kicked out. Now days a general discharge is still better than a dishonorable discharge.

Dinggus said,

It's unstable because we're not there. Do I agree we should help every country that is unstable, no. But, due to us helping and trying to get their government up and running, training the IPs and the IA to stand-up for themselves and fight for their country, it has obviously got them put on the hit list in the above video.

You know how many young adults and children I have interacted with that wanted us there? Alot, every day. I even had one Iraqi tell me Merry Christmas, so I stopped him and had a conversation with him. He was from Detroit, a doctor, visiting family. Children there were learning English, one of the kids even asked if I would do his homework for him.

As someone who went over there, had my vehicle blown up a few times, interactived with the Iraqi population, trained IPs and the IA, I loved it. Knowing you are part of something like that, and made a difference in the small amount of 15 months, there is absolutely nothing like it.

If a soldier didn't want to go, they could have easily went AWOL or done something to get kicked out. Now days a general discharge is still better than a dishonorable discharge.

Thank you for sharing and thank you for your service! =)

theyarecomingforyou said,

To suggest that Iraq is better off that it was under Hussein is patently absurd and outright offensive. More than 180,000 have died (the majority of which are civilians), sectarianist violence has increased to unprecedented levels, cities are being captured by ISIS, more than half a million people have been displaced in the past month and the Iraqi government is on the verge of collapse, all of which is a direct result of US intervention.

The US has plunged Iraq into a bitter civil war that recent predictions suggest could last another 30 years. Hussein held the country together and kept it secure (though that's not to excuse his war crimes).

The only winner from the Iraq War is the US Military Industrial Complex™.

Absurd? Really? Tell that to the families of the people Hussein murdered. By most accounts in the hundreds of thousands.

The US relieved a country of an evil tyrant then set up a better system of government and trained up people to help defend it. Hussein didnt hold the country together, he murdered anyone who didnt agree with him and threatened everyone who could possibly make things difficult... You know, kinda like an evil tyrant would. That is holding a country hostage not together.

The Iraqi people had a major victory. And, if they can hold on again, the will have another one.

This is really AMAZING.. Some brain dead ignorant people actually believe that Iraq is better off today and that this illegal little war that was waged on that poor defenseless country resulting directly and indirectly in the death of MILLIONS.. is Actually for the good of the Iraqis ..
Let me tell you something.. Women cannot walk in the street in Iraq today, you cannot work, study or get healthcare.. and the country is falling in the hands of Al-Qaida.. (also it is ludicrous to believe that we are defending Saddam)..

Scabrat said,
Absurd? Really? Tell that to the families of the people Hussein murdered. By most accounts in the hundreds of thousands.
Iraq was a stable country under Hussein. Most of the atrocities occurred more than a decade earlier, when Iraq invaded Iran and with the Kurdish uprising. At the time of the US invasion Iraq was a dramatically better country than it ever has been since.

Nobody is claiming that Hussein was a good leader but he was infinitely preferable to the chaos now engulfing the country as a direct result of the US-led invasion. The US tried to impose democracy through military force on a country that didn't want it. It overthrew the established government of Iraq without any plans for what would happen afterwards. To suggest that the Iraq War was anything other than an unmitigated disaster is outright offensive.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Nobody is claiming that Hussein was a good leader but he was infinitely preferable to the chaos now engulfing the country as a direct result of the US-led invasion.

Infinitely preferable? To suggest a tyrant is preferred is an extreme exaggeration. A group might preferred it but to suggest the country did is definitely an exaggeration. Also, this event isn't a direct result of US-led invasion. Its sad that people just want to blame the US for a bunch of people who want to kill other people and have the power. Isnt that the problem here? People.

To suggest that the Iraq War was anything other than an unmitigated disaster is outright offensive.

I guess the only way you can think this is if you ignore the stories that came out of Iraq. A few posts up there is a poster who explained some really good things to come out of it. There were places who finally had power and water and whatever else we take for granted. Its not offensive to say it wasn't a disaster. What is offensive is to think everything that happened was in my opinion.

But, you know, this is just my opinion. It wont change what is happening over there. Its sad to see it and I hope the whole region can stabilize without tyrants ruling over everything. Again, my opinion.

Scabrat said,
Infinitely preferable? To suggest a tyrant is preferred is an extreme exaggeration. A group might preferred it but to suggest the country did is definitely an exaggeration. Also, this event isn't a direct result of US-led invasion.
Of course it is. Iraq was stripped of its government, the military and police disbanded, its population thrown into a sectarian conflict and billions of dollars was given to corrupt the political process. The US supported Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who ordered the arrest of his Sunni Deputy Prime Minister upon the US withdrawal.

Not only that but the US has been supporting the rebels in Syria through the CIA for years and most of the cash and weapons have ended up in the hands of ISIS. The entire mess in the Middle East is a direct result of US interference.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Of course it is. Iraq was stripped of its government, the military and police disbanded, its population thrown into a sectarian conflict and billions of dollars was given to corrupt the political process. The US supported Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who ordered the arrest of his Sunni Deputy Prime Minister upon the US withdrawal.

Not only that but the US has been supporting the rebels in Syria through the CIA for years and most of the cash and weapons have ended up in the hands of ISIS. The entire mess in the Middle East is a direct result of US interference.

Oh yeah. That is true. There was no war or unrest in the middle east pre USA, I forgot that. ;)

Scabrat said,
Oh yeah. That is true. There was no war or unrest in the middle east pre USA, I forgot that. ;)

That doesn't address the fact that the US is responsible for most of the instability in the region. You can deflect all you want but you haven't done anything to refute the points I raised.

theyarecomingforyou said,

That doesn't address the fact that the US is responsible for most of the instability in the region. You can deflect all you want but you haven't done anything to refute the points I raised.

Are you in the CIA? If you are, you might be in big trouble for telling us the truth on the intertec.

theyarecomingforyou said,

That doesn't address the fact that the US is responsible for most of the instability in the region. You can deflect all you want but you haven't done anything to refute the points I raised.

One, this is the worst place to try to refute points. Two, I dont care enough about changing your mind to do so, and three, if there is a bias its extremely hard to change that bias online.

It would look like a novel if we started into "refuting" each other. And its clear you think that the US is to blame for everything in the middle east and dont think the US has done anything right or well or cared about anyone in this process.

I just think its an easy, small pictured, incomplete argument to say the US did everything and is at fault for everything. It doesnt solve anything, nor is it true. And it leaves out a historical pattern of instability in the region.

But again, none of this matters. This wont stop the violence or instability in the middle east. So, farewell and I am sure I will see you all on another thread =).

This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He's most likely never been to Iraq. When I was there, everyone I talked to was glad we were there. The Iraqi's that I worked with were one of the friendliest people I've ever met. Whatever they had; cigarette, tea, food, etc they offered to us. They wanted to learn and be brave.

A war isn't going on in Iraq, it's a mass murder of those who were on our side wanting freedom to do whatever they wanted without having to worry about having their hands tied behind their backs, forced to lay down and get a fully loaded magazine clip of 7.62 rounds into their defenseless bodies.

Dinggus said,
This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He's most likely never been to Iraq. When I was there, everyone I talked to was glad we were there. The Iraqi's that I worked with were one of the friendliest people I've ever met. Whatever they had; cigarette, tea, food, etc they offered to us. They wanted to learn and be brave.

A war isn't going on in Iraq, it's a mass murder of those who were on our side wanting freedom to do whatever they wanted without having to worry about having their hands tied behind their backs, forced to lay down and get a fully loaded magazine clip of 7.62 rounds into their defenseless bodies.

That is what I have heard from every soldier I have talked to about Iraq. The things I have heard from first hand accounts, read, saw, have mainly pointed to what you have said.

The work you guys did over there was fantastic. I pray they can hold onto the freedom they had a taste of and wanted.

Dinggus said,
This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He's most likely never been to Iraq. When I was there, everyone I talked to was glad we were there. The Iraqi's that I worked with were one of the friendliest people I've ever met. Whatever they had; cigarette, tea, food, etc they offered to us. They wanted to learn and be brave.
Yeah, no US soldiers ever died there and the country is a now a paradise. :rolleyes:

Nobody is disputing that there are elements within Iraq who welcome foreign intervention but that has no bearing on the discussion here. The issue is whether Iraq is better or worse as a result of the US-led invasion and all the evidence shows that it is worse. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Nobody is disputing that there are elements within Iraq who welcome foreign intervention but that has no bearing on the discussion here. The issue is whether Iraq is better or worse as a result of the US-led invasion and all the evidence shows that it is worse. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

I'm going to disagree with your statement.