ISIS in Iraq and Syria

New maps, lovely to see the yellow blob of Kobane again. And it will only get bigger. ;)
2000px-syria4.png

2000px-iraq5.png
 
For comparison, this was January 15th!
2000px-syria2.png
 
Vato said:
Not at all, why? I didn't choose a military profession because I like my body without holes in it.
Click to expand...

Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
 
JustAFan said:
Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
Click to expand...
Don't you think the airstrikes in Kobane helped massively though? Saving thousands of lives?
 
JustAFan said:
Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
Click to expand...
So I can only have this opinion if I pick up my own rifle?
 
JustAFan said:
Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
Click to expand...

You do realize the US is emblematic of everything ISIS hates, and if they took Syria and had a stable state, attacks on US soil would inevitably follow?
 
Sweet Square said:
Sending in any Western ground troops would just make the situation million times worst. As this is what ISIS want, they want a war between Islam and the West/rest of the world. Mainly because they think they can win as they have GOD on their side and because they don't fear death(It just another way to get to Paradise). Although on a plus side they are shit scared of getting killed by female soldiers(As getting killed by a female could stop them from getting to Paradise, yes it really is this bat shit crazy)

I do agree that there should more of a effort international(As well as the situation with boko haram in Africa)
Click to expand...
That isn't true :lol:
 
JustAFan said:
Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense. If you cant send soldiers, who have been trained by their own choice to carry out these kinds of missions, across to syria then why would the average civilian, who chose not to defend their government, go? Its their job.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yeah sadly I've tricked by that dam internet. Although I swear I heard that from a real news site.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a common myth, generally used to make the Kurdish women that fight ISIS seem even more intimidating. Although I don't think they need myths to do that anyway. :)
 
Suli said:
Yeah it's a common myth, generally used to make the Kurdish women that fight ISIS seem even more intimidating. Although I don't think they need myths to do that anyway. :)
Click to expand...
Apparently the myth came from a piece in the Wall Street journal quoting a Kurdish female fighters

"The jihadists don't like fighting women, because if they're killed by a female, they think they won't go to heaven.".
 
JustAFan said:
Seems to be a common answer when people are saying send in the troops, you usually find out very few of them are willing to actually back up their talk with their own actions. From the start I have not wanted the US involved in anything in Syria, still feel that way.
Click to expand...

I'm in a non-combat AFSC so I don't have to go/can't go anyhow. I don't think we can afford another massive front overseas. If the GOP win the next POTUS election, I figure we'll return to status quo.
 
NM said:
You do realize the US is emblematic of everything ISIS hates, and if they took Syria and had a stable state, attacks on US soil would inevitably follow?
Click to expand...
I also renember the domino principle in SE Asia. It can also be said our previous involvement in the Middle East has helped make us targets for terror attacks.
 
Relevated said:
This doesn't make sense. If you cant send soldiers, who have been trained by their own choice to carry out these kinds of missions, across to syria then why would the average civilian, who chose not to defend their government, go? Its their job.
Click to expand...
A person who is in favor of sending in the troops to risk their lives ought to be willing to be one of those troops. But I guess it is easy to be in favor of war while sitting safely at home. Guess I am just a bit more caring about when and where my government decides to send its young men and women to fight, kill, and die. For others it seems as long as it ism't themselves doing the fight who cares.
 
MrMarcello said:
I'm in a non-combat AFSC so I don't have to go/can't go anyhow. I don't think we can afford another massive front overseas. If the GOP win the next POTUS election, I figure we'll return to status quo.
Click to expand...
There is the budget issue also the U.S. needs to stop going deeper into debt wasting money on wars.
We can't afford it anymore. We have more pressing needs at home.
 
JustAFan said:
No but if you really find the issue that important you ought to be willing. But much easier to be tough guy on the computer at home I guess.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying no but you mean yes, correct?

I am sorry that I wish these guys should be annihilated as quickly as possible. Let's just sit back and wait for this to blow over, because it will probably solve itself.
 
Airstrikes aren't going to be a sustainable solution to defeat these vermin. Like that German journalist had observed during his time spent with ISIS, they don't exactly cluster together but instead spread themselves out over dense urban populations.

The only way ISIS can be defeated is if the local populations in the regions they occupy turn against them. The trouble is, they enjoy substantial support in ISIS cities like Mosul and Al-Raqqa where they are preferred to the respective countries' current regimes. It would also help if shitc**t regimes like the Saudis and Turks stopped indirectly empowering them to preserve their petty regional goals.

This should also serve as a powerful lesson of the dangers of reckless western intervention. Libya is how it is today thanks to the irresponsible NATO-forced regime change which had freed up a vacuum for the likes of those monsters who had beheaded those poor Copts. Similarly, supporting the largely pro-ISIS FSA to topple the secular Syrian regime would be equally devastating, if it hasn't proved so already. Finally, hit their source of funding - a lot of the West's friends in the Gulf include very powerful financiers who've funneled huge amounts of funds and resources to these animals.

Unfortunately though, none of this is likely to happen anytime soon.
 
Insanity said:
Anyone more knowledgeable on this nonsense -

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/there-a-group-far-more-dangerous-than-isis/20150215.htm
Click to expand...

Their main ideology is a movement to establish a Caliphate. A real one as opposed to a false one like ISIS and al-Baghdadi have done. To say they are worse than ISIS is a gross misrepresentation. They are a politically driven group (borne from religion), who sit on the right wing of Islam. To my knowledge, they have never endorsed, encouraged or actively took part in terrorism, and it is not in their agenda. They are a very outspoken group, (and what they do say can be misconstrued), but I wouldn't say they are as bad as that article makes out.
 
Kaos said:
Airstrikes aren't going to be a sustainable solution to defeat these vermin. Like that German journalist had observed during his time spent with ISIS, they don't exactly cluster together but instead spread themselves out over dense urban populations.

The only way ISIS can be defeated is if the local populations in the regions they occupy turn against them. The trouble is, they enjoy substantial support in ISIS cities like Mosul and Al-Raqqa where they are preferred to the respective countries' current regimes. It would also help if shitc*nt regimes like the Saudis and Turks stopped indirectly empowering them to preserve their petty regional goals.

This should also serve as a powerful lesson of the dangers of reckless western intervention. Libya is how it is today thanks to the irresponsible NATO-forced regime change which had freed up a vacuum for the likes of those monsters who had beheaded those poor Copts. Similarly, supporting the largely pro-ISIS FSA to topple the secular Syrian regime would be equally devastating, if it hasn't proved so already. Finally, hit their source of funding - a lot of the West's friends in the Gulf include very powerful financiers who've funneled huge amounts of funds and resources to these animals.

Unfortunately though, none of this is likely to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

This probably means substantial civilian casualties from air bombardments. Any half-reliable figures available?
 
holyland red said:
This probably means substantial civilian casualties from air bombardments. Any half-reliable figures available?
Click to expand...

We get it. The media is biased and certain conflicts get played up more than others. Your constant attempt to link things back to the Israel-Palestine conflict is counterproductive past a point imo.
 
Uzz said:
Their main ideology is a movement to establish a Caliphate. A real one as opposed to a false one like ISIS and al-Baghdadi have done. To say they are worse than ISIS is a gross misrepresentation. They are a politically driven group (borne from religion), who sit on the right wing of Islam. To my knowledge, they have never endorsed, encouraged or actively took part in terrorism, and it is not in their agenda. They are a very outspoken group, (and what they do say can be misconstrued), but I wouldn't say they are as bad as that article makes out.
Click to expand...

They filled out the proper registration forms? ;)
 
Kaos said:
Airstrikes aren't going to be a sustainable solution to defeat these vermin. Like that German journalist had observed during his time spent with ISIS, they don't exactly cluster together but instead spread themselves out over dense urban populations.

The only way ISIS can be defeated is if the local populations in the regions they occupy turn against them. The trouble is, they enjoy substantial support in ISIS cities like Mosul and Al-Raqqa where they are preferred to the respective countries' current regimes. It would also help if shitc*nt regimes like the Saudis and Turks stopped indirectly empowering them to preserve their petty regional goals.

This should also serve as a powerful lesson of the dangers of reckless western intervention. Libya is how it is today thanks to the irresponsible NATO-forced regime change which had freed up a vacuum for the likes of those monsters who had beheaded those poor Copts. Similarly, supporting the largely pro-ISIS FSA to topple the secular Syrian regime would be equally devastating, if it hasn't proved so already. Finally, hit their source of funding - a lot of the West's friends in the Gulf include very powerful financiers who've funneled huge amounts of funds and resources to these animals.

Unfortunately though, none of this is likely to happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Damned if you do damned if you don't. If NATO had let the former regime recapture the country from the rebels there would have been a blood bath and that would then have been used to say the west supported the regime by not acting and was responsible for the aftermath. What ever the west does it gets the blame for how terrible things are.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Damned if you do damned if you don't. If NATO had let the former regime recapture the country from the rebels there would have been a blood bath and that would then have been used to say the west supported the regime by not acting and was responsible for the aftermath. What ever the west does it gets the blame for how terrible things are.
Click to expand...

On top of which, there would have been a far bigger slaughter in Benghazi had Qaddafi's henchmen managed to reach it before the campaign thwarted them.
 
Raoul said:
On top of which, there would have been a far bigger slaughter in Benghazi had Qaddafi's henchmen managed to reach it before the campaign thwarted them.
Click to expand...

These are relatively recent events as well, I mean the UK govt was damned for being too cosy with the former regime, its not like the west decided to blow the place up for giggles.
 
holyland red said:
This probably means substantial civilian casualties from air bombardments. Any half-reliable figures available?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my original point - air strikes in urban areas would be largely ineffective and the inevitable 'collateral damage' that would ensue would only strengthen the ISIS cause.

A bit like how the IDF's bombardment of the densely-populated Gaza had killed scores of civilians and strengthened Hamas' support.
 
Last edited:
Don't Kill Bill said:
Damned if you do damned if you don't. If NATO had let the former regime recapture the country from the rebels there would have been a blood bath and that would then have been used to say the west supported the regime by not acting and was responsible for the aftermath. What ever the west does it gets the blame for how terrible things are.
Click to expand...

When there were Islamic extremists involved there was going to be a slaughter either way. The issue is whether you decide to get involved, and if you do whether you side with the less macabre option. NATO did get involved, but it picked the wrong side. Now we're enjoying the fruits of their intervention as Islamists run riot, undoing the country's secular fabric, brutally massacring minority religious groups while reducing the place to an ravaged warzone.
 
Kaos said:
When there were Islamic extremists involved there was going to be a slaughter either way. The issue is whether you decide to get involved, and if you do whether you side with the less macabre option. NATO did get involved, but it picked the wrong side. Now we're enjoying the fruits of their intervention as Islamists run riot, undoing the country's secular fabric, brutally massacring minority religious groups while reducing the place to an ravaged warzone.
Click to expand...

You think NATO should have picked the existing regime in putting down the rebellion ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.