ISIS in Iraq and Syria

[JustAFan]

let's go destroy ISIS as long as it is someone else who puts their life on the line and I get to stay safely home safe and sound while talking tough on the Internet!

 

[Kaos]

You think NATO should have picked the existing regime in putting down the rebellion ?

I don't think they should have got involved at all.

Sanctions and offering humanitarian aid are fine, but arming Islamists while offering them air support? That was just about the worst way they could have responded. Not to mention how the 'no fly zone' resolution was sneakily used as a carte blanche for regime change.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I don't think they should have got involved at all.

Sanctions and offering humanitarian aid are fine, but arming Islamists while offering them air support? That was just about the worst way they could have responded. Not to mention how the 'no fly zone' resolution was sneakily used a carte blanche for regime change.

Why should we do any of that if it is wrong to get involved, which is your argument isn't it, don't get involved step back and let things rip.

 

[Kaos]

Why should we do any of that if it is wrong to get involved, which is your argument isn't it, don't get involved step back and let things rip.

There are obviously varying levels of involvement. My opposition was to the method that had directly empowered the Islamists who are in power today, and those that could be in power in Syria tomorrow.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

There are obviously varying levels of involvement. My opposition was to method that had directly empowered the Islamists who are in power today, and those that could be in power in Syria tomorrow.

There are varying levels of involvement but you either believe that the West should get involved or not in principle. Your solution to the events as they unfolded leaves how many dead, would you estimate in the regime crack down following its total military victory over the rebels?

 

[holyland red]

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.

Are you from the internet police?

I asked if anyone knew how significant was the collateral damage in places like Kobane. If you don't know you have the option to shut the feck up. You and the others whom you refer to collectively as "we".

 

[holyland red]

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.

But do you have actual figures?

I'll settle for the "a bit like" thingy you put in there as a testimony that bot of us are aware of the significant difference between the two scenarios. This would help in keeping the discussion on topic.

 

[LeChuck]

But do you have actual figures?

I'll settle for the "a bit like" thingy you put in there as a testimony that bot of us are aware of the significant difference between the two scenarios. This would help in keeping the discussion on topic.

500+ children.
14 journalists.
2000+ civilians.

@Kaos makes a valid point.

 

[Relevated]

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.

I agree with you in a way. If its not your war then why should you fight it?

 

[holyland red]

500+ children.
14 journalists.
2000+ civilians.

@Kaos makes a valid point.

Are those the journalists who lost their heads?

 

[Cheesy]

I agree with you in a way. If its not your war then why should you fight it?

Personally I think the main issue with outright war is that you're going to end up with a shitload of civilian casualties. And then you end up with survivors of those attacks becoming disillusioned, and becoming affiliated and brainwashed by extremist groups since, even if we largely cull ISIS, it's going to be impossible to get completely rid of all extremist ideology in the Middle East. It's simply not going to happen.

In principle, we'd want to get rid of ISIS as soon as possible, but the last invasion of Iraq already showed that it's not as simple as that.

 

[Relevated]

The only way you can get rid of the likes of ISIS is to get rid of their faith and religion, and that won't be happening any time soon. Now mujahideen have gotten rid of the mental block of a caliphate, so when ISIS falls then whats stopping another 'caliphate' from forming to organize the mujahideen into one body? I don't see this war ending without one party being completely decimated. Until then, there will always be instability and thats the truth.

 

[LeChuck]

Are those the journalists who lost their heads?

The journalists that Netanyuhu killed. As always, you ask a question, get the truth, ignore it and go on spouting some other nonsense.

 

[holyland red]

The journalists that Netanyuhu killed. As always, you ask a question, get the truth, ignore it and go on spouting some other nonsense.

I asked Kaos a question and you replied with an irrelevant answer.

Incidently, i hope this journalist is safe.

 

[Suli]

I don't think the hundreds of airstrikes in Kobane caused any civilian casualties, at all. All 300 of the surrounding villages were evacuated, nearly all of the civilians fled the border and those that chose to stay were far away from the frontlines.

The frontlines themselves were very distinct and clear, as US pilots have pointed out when discussing their role in Kobane. All of their targets were ISIS fighters and I saw no reports of civilian casualties in the many months of fighting.

Also I think it is worth pointing out that the decision to intervene in Kobane was an excellent one where there is little way of arguing for the other side.

@holyland red

 

[Kaos]

I don't think the hundreds of airstrikes in Kobane caused any civilian casualties, at all. All 300 of the surrounding villages were evacuated, nearly all of the civilians fled the border and those that chose to stay were far away from the frontlines.

The frontlines themselves were very distinct and clear, as US pilots have pointed out when discussing their role in Kobane. All of their targets were ISIS fighters and I saw no reports of civilian casualties in the many months of fighting.

Also I think it is worth pointing out that the decision to intervene in Kobane was an excellent one where there is little way of arguing for the other side.

@holyland red

Kobane is a rare example where air strikes can actually turn the tide and work effectively while boasting few civilian casualties. But as you mention, it was heavily dependent on key factors such as civilian evacuations and the easy positioning of ISIS combatants. There's also the key difference of Kobane being under siege making it easier for air support to identify friend from foe.

Unfortunately however, Mosul and Al-Raqqa are not Kobane. They are not evacuated, entrenched zones under siege but rather fully populated cities with ISIS fully embedded within the population. In these scenarios an airstrike would not only be ineffective, but also counter-productive as you'll probably kill heaps of civilians. The only way ISIS can be removed from such cities is by the locals weeding them out.

 

[holyland red]

Cheers @Suli.

Actually my question was
meant to be more general, i.e. not referring to Kobane alone but the overall effect of airstrikes on civilians, including places like a Raqqa which probably took massive blows.

 

[Sultan]

@Suli

What are ISIS actually trying to achieve? Do they have an end goal besides a supposed Caliphate?

At present they just seem to have some brain-dead, dysfunctional, radicalised youths for support. Even their Sunni Muslim neighbours are wanting them to meet their creator in a hurry, and are helping speed the process through military action.

Even if by some miracle they do achieve their goal how will they live, trade with, and what plans do they have in place regards state building?

 

[Suli]

Cheers @Suli.

Actually my question was
meant to be more general, i.e. not referring to Kobane alone but the overall effect of airstrikes on civilians, including places like a Raqqa which probably took massive blows.

As Kaos said, hitting their big cities like Mosul and Raqqa will inevitably lead to civilian casualties. They have done so already. The better thing to do is use the local population to fight ISIS, as bombing them from the air isn't going to solve anything.

@Suli

What are ISIS actually trying to achieve? Do they have an end goal besides a supposed Caliphate?

At present they just seem to have some brain-dead, dysfunctional, radicalised youths for support. Even their Sunni Muslim neighbours are wanting them to meet their creator in a hurry, and are helping speed the process through military action.

Even if by some miracle they do achieve their goal how will they live, trade with, and what plans do they have in place regards state building?

I believe that the main goal is to become a fully functioning Islamic State that will continue to expand throughout the Muslim world and unite the "Ummah". Obviously they won't be recognised by the international world but that won't stop them from attempting to function as a state.
Regarding their actual attempts to function as a state, the use of oil reserves and refineries could act as a relatively stable income. They already sell oil on the black market and there have been many reports of people on the Turkish side of the border accepting the oil and selling it on themselves. The Iraqi oil industry and their officials say that ISIS currently make $1 million a day from oil profits and this could reach $3 million if they secure gas fields and oil reserves in Syria.

As people like Kaos have pointed out, ISIS continue to get funded by countries such as Qatar and Saudi, as well as support from Turkey. These countries will have their reasons but generally, this is what has allowed ISIS to attempt to build a state of their own.

The media also reported some stuff about ISIS forming their own currency to be used in the state, but I have no idea if that has been implemented yet.

Overall, the reliance at the moment seems to be on selling oil/gas on the black markets which will be difficult to stop.

I think @Relevated could probably add some thoughts to your questions.

 

[Suli]

Overall, the reliance at the moment seems to be on selling oil/gas on the black markets which will be difficult to stop.

Regarding this point, just came across this article...

UAE F-16 jets based in Jordan attacked oil refineries under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militant group, the country’s official state news agency WAM reported.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-take-out-ISIS-oil-depots-return-safely-.html

 

[Sultan]

@Suli

There's no way the Muslim Ummah can ever be united under such leadership. These people are a stain and an embarrassment on our religion.

 

[Sultan]

@Suli

Do they have any experience of oil refineries? How can they transport oil, and sell in such volatile conditions? Surely these trucks can be easily blown if the coalition willed?

I personally can't see the practicalities.

 

[Suli]

@Suli

There's no way the Muslim Ummah can ever be united under such leadership. These people are a stain and an embarrassment on our religion.

Yeah I agree, it won't ever happen, but that is their aim.

@Suli

Do they have any experience of oil refineries? How can they transport oil, and sell in such volatile conditions? Surely these trucks can be easily blown if the coalition willed?

I personally can't see the practicalities.

ISIS has support from locals, some of whom will have experience in the oil industry.

U.S.-led forces want to avoid hitting the oil installations hard because it could hurt civilians more than the militants and could radicalize the local population, analysts say.

As you said, they can easily be blown up if the coalition was willing to do so. These sort of air strikes have occurred in the past, but not enough to prevent ISIS from making a profit off of oil.

In terms of ISIS actually transporting the oil and selling it, The benefits that come from it are going to be larger than the costs involved with doing so.

Traders say the bombing of these larger refineries may have reduced processing capacity by 20-30 percent but was not having any major impact on the domestic fuel market so far.

Hundreds of smaller scale refineries are spread across swathes of insurgent-held land, making it difficult to hit them. They continue to refine the bulk of crude extracted, according to experts and traders.

The refineries included the one run by trader Mazen Mukhtar, who said his was destroyed by a U.S. Tomahawk missile this week in a direct hit, turning his family's life savings into a heap of mangled metal and burnt crude oil.

Quotes from: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-is...-oil-flow-despite-us-led-strikes-2014-10?IR=T

 

[Relevated]

ISIS are very smart, ill answer a few points tonight

 

[Relevated]

@Suli

1 - What are ISIS actually trying to achieve? Do they have an end goal besides a supposed Caliphate?

2 - At present they just seem to have some brain-dead, dysfunctional, radicalised youths for support.

3 - Even their Sunni Muslim neighbours are wanting them to meet their creator in a hurry, and are helping speed the process through military action.

4 - Even if by some miracle they do achieve their goal how will they live, trade with, and what plans do they have in place regards state building?

1 - They see themselves as the defenders of ahlus sunnah (they are obviously salafi in aqeedah). They see themselves as a state where other Muslims can seek refuge and, in baghdadis words, the Muslim will be able to walk with his head held high in honour and be proud. They want a state with shariah, which they're currently doing even if you do disagree with their version of shariah - its their interpretation nonetheless. They want to reclaim territory that Muslims once held, such as Andalus, and most of all they want to defeat America. Now America is kind of symbolic, its pretty much the opposite and Quran and Sunah in terms of politics but its a very functional state - something that I feel ISIS are jealous of. They want to be that functional state with all the power and thats why they are even more so hungry to defeat the USA.

2 - You're underestimating their members. Just because youths go from countries such as England doesn't mean they don't have real proper support. So many other mujahideen groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS and so many fighters go over all the time but we don't hear about them. They may have inexperienced, over emotional kids in their ranks but for every 1 kid they have about 10 real educated fighters. They know exactly what they're doing in terms of recruitment, don't underestimate them in this regard. They also have support from other arab civilians, its just that they dont speak out as it would mean jail. 70% of something of Saudi citizens are in favour of what ISIS are doing, now imagine if Saudi didn't have their king? It would be in ISIS hands already without a doubt (in addition to other groups fighting for it, and foreign intervention) and they'd be in control of the Haram - how symbolic for a caliphate to hold Mecca and Madinah? It would legitimize them.

3 - I assume you mean other Arab countries? They consider these governments as Murtadeen and are glad to fight them and they believe they will win due to the help of God.

4 - They have many government buildings such as courts, jails and they immigration buildings too. They how homeless shelters, orphanage homes and in all fairness to them (maybe due to propaganda?), they supply the children and old people will food etc and occasionally take the children on outings. For married couples they supply houses, monthly or weekly supplies and in some cases they supply clothes. They distribute food to homeless and poor people. They give monthly allowances to their citizens in terms of electricity, basic food supplies etc.

The thing is that you have to be with them or you're against them completely, i get the impression that you will be treated horribly if you're Sufi, let alone any other religion. If you're shia? Say goodbye to life.

I have seen all this info from official ISIS videos and from their twitter accounts. I am just replying to these points based on what their videos show, no other reports.

 

[2cents]

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.

Key point here that nobody really wants to face - IS have a lot of support among Iraqi Sunnis and Sunnis in Syria's north and east. No way they could have conquered and run what appears to be a fully functioning state without the local population's consent.

One thing you left out though - while Saudi/GCC and Turkish actions have certainly helped empower IS, it's hard to see the local Sunni populations turning away from them as long as the Syrian and Iraqi regimes remain (implicitly) sectarian-based and the Sunnis feel disenfranchised as a result. If Assad ever wants to regain control over Raqqa and Deir ez-Zoir, he's gonna have to find some way of reaching out beyond the safety-net of the 'Resistance Axis'/'Shia Crescent'. If he can't do that, Syria as we have known it has no future. Same goes for Iraq.

 

[Relevated]

Key point here that nobody really wants to face - IS have a lot of support among Iraqi Sunnis and Sunnis in Syria's north and east. No way they could have conquered and run what appears to be a fully functioning state without the local population's consent.

One thing you left out though - while Saudi/GCC and Turkish actions have certainly helped empower IS, it's hard to see the local Sunni populations turning away from them as long as the Syrian and Iraqi regimes remain (implicitly) sectarian-based and the Sunnis feel disenfranchised as a result. If Assad ever wants to regain control over Raqqa and Deir ez-Zoir, he's gonna have to find some way of reaching out beyond the safety-net of the 'Resistance Axis'/'Shia Crescent'. If he can't do that, Syria as we have known it has no future. Same goes for Iraq.

The thing is that Assad is Alawi and after all hes done I dont think theres a chance in hell that the sunnis of ISIS controlled territory will ever welcome him again. So that adds more fuel to the fire (him being a different sect). They probably cant wait for the day that hes dead.

 

[2cents]

The thing is that Assad is Alawi and after all hes done I dont think theres a chance in hell that the sunnis of ISIS controlled territory will ever welcome him again. So that adds more fuel to the fire (him being a different sect). They probably cant wait for the day that hes dead.

Yeah I agree that Assad will find it impossible. Which is why he's as much a part of the problem as anyone else, despite what some want to pretend. If there was some sort of internal coup within the Syrian Ba'th which could produce a more palatable leadership then that might help things. But right now everybody has retreated into their sectarian comfort zone, with no signs of any movement been made to bridge the sectarian gap.

 

[barros]

Meanwhile, the Israeli's are doing this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31449362

Damn, now he can't go back to Syria

 

[barros]

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.

The best the west could do is keeping up the air support and give heavy equipment to the Kurds, they would take care of the IS.

 

[barros]

500+ children.
14 journalists.
2000+ civilians.

@Kaos makes a valid point.

But who killed them? When Hamas forces civilians to stay inside the house they just used to fire a rocket then Hamas is responsible.

 

[LeChuck]

But who killed them? When Hamas forces civilians to stay inside the house they just used to fire a rocket then Hamas is responsible.

...I'm not going to get drawn in a debate with you about this, but what you've said is just, plain and simply, wrong.

 

[Fearless]

I agree with you in a way. If its not your war then why should you fight it?

But it is our war.

From 7/7 to Lee Rigby, and all the other stuff in between and on it's way, it is our war.

 

[2cents]

Pretty good lengthy article here - http://www.theatlantic.com/features...sis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=SFTwitter

What ISIS Really Wants
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

 

[Sir Matt]

As Kaos said, hitting their big cities like Mosul and Raqqa will inevitably lead to civilian casualties. They have done so already. The better thing to do is use the local population to fight ISIS, as bombing them from the air isn't going to solve anything.

How many people in Raqqa aren't a part of ISIS (actively or passively)? All reasonable people or those who don't support ISIS will surely have left.

 

[Suli]

How many people in Raqqa aren't a part of ISIS (actively or passively)? All reasonable people or those who don't support ISIS will surely have left.

I'm not talking about fighting within Raqqa by the population of Raqqa. I mean using Syrians to take Raqqa, not Americans etc. The general population of Syria are against ISIS, they should liberate Raqqa.

 

[Relevated]

But it is our war.

From 7/7 to Lee Rigby, and all the other stuff in between and on it's way, it is our war.

If you wanna talk like that then It didnt start at 7/7, it started at sykes-picot and when the ottoman empire was demolished.

 

[2cents]

If you wanna talk like that then It didnt start at 7/7, it started at sykes-picot and when the ottoman empire was demolished.

Your choice of 'starting point' (of what exactly?) is just as arbitrary as his.

 

[Relevated]

Your choice of 'starting point' (of what exactly?) is just as arbitrary as his.

exactly, im trying to show him how ridiculous it is. We can even go further, It started 1400 years back or we can go further back to when civilization started?

Makes no sense at all.

 

[Sir Matt]

I'm not talking about fighting within Raqqa by the population of Raqqa. I mean using Syrians to take Raqqa, not Americans etc. The general population of Syria are against ISIS, they should liberate Raqqa.

I was asking with regards to airstrikes on Raqqa since it's the "capital" of IS.