Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran member of the Iraqi Kurdish leadership who recently retired from the Iraqi parliament, said there was a misunderstanding as to why Gulf countries paid off IS. It is not only that donors are supporters of IS, but that the movement “gets money from the Arab countries because they are afraid of it”, he says. “Gulf countries give money to Da’esh so that it promises not to carry out operations on their territory.”
... It has drafted a list of draconian punishments for those not willing to fight, starting with 80 lashes and ending with execution.
... Isis has also lowered the conscription age below 18 years of age....
... In the most optimistic scenarios Isis splits or there is a popular uprising against it, but so far there is no sign of this and Isis has proved that it exacts merciless vengeance against any individual or community opposed to it.
Patrick Cockburn also explains how the Shiite Iraqis and the Kurds aren't coordinating/cooperating enough.
Egypt and Jordan have entered the fight. Western nations have been openly discussing entering it too. However, without "boots on the ground" and a sustained strong-armed occupation on the order of post-WWII Germany and Japan, the US plan is extremely weak.
Giving Russia and Syria's Assad a hard time right now only strengthens the Sunni Jihadis (IS). It's way beyond the time for the US to stop bickering with Russia over Ukraine, stop attacking Assad via iffy proxies at best, and stop harassing Iran over a non-existent nuclear-weapons program.
See also: "If They Oust Him, it Will Only Get Worse. "US, Turkey seeking to oust Assad" - YouTube" and "West Asserts IS (ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, Da‘ish) is Heretical, but That's Ignorant, False Propaganda."
Then there's this observation from Joshua Keating:
As political scientist Ora Szekely writes in a new analysis for Reuters, there are signs that the group’s economic model may no longer be sustainable. With no government patrons, ISIS has to raise money itself. It’s done this by selling oil, ransoming hostages, and looting and extorting the people who live in its territory. Oil revenues are believed to have dropped due to the U.S. bombing campaign. As for ransoms, ISIS may have already ransomed or killed off most of its high value prisoners. With Kayla Mueller’s death, ISIS is now believed to be holding only four foreign hostages, down from 23 last August.
ISIS could collect more taxes and property from locals, but that risks driving them to rebel as they did against the group’s predecessor in Anbar during the last U.S. war in Iraq. The caliphate is already facing a looming food shortage, as many farmers haven’t planted their wheat crops due to lack of access to equipment and fertilizer, which could deal a further blow to the group’s legitimacy as a government. Additionally, recent coalition gains in Iraq, though not significant in terms of area, threaten to cut off ISIS’s supply routes.
So, it's a very mixed bag with IS's support rather debatable. Nevertheless, the US certainly dragged its feet. Plus, Turkey has been no help against IS but rather supports Sunni sharia (as opposed to Shiitism) without being very overt about it for fear of becoming more alienated from Europe and others.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)