ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Baiji is now totally cleared of ISIS.

The whole operation to clear Baiji, the Baiji oil refinery, Albujwari, Alsiniya (and its airport), Makhoul mountains (and the presidential palace there) and several villages north of Baiji took only about 10 days. ISIS literally collapsed in Baiji (and around it), which shows when there is real intent to defeat ISIS, they can easily be defeated.
 
Losing power > being hit by barrel bombs from Assad or Russian cluster bombs. Also, they had been without power for an extended period before the ISIS/Syrian agreement to reactivate it. Now they'll be in the same situation as the rebels who are cut off from power.

What does it have to do with cluster bombs from Assad, Russians or whoever else? I asked about the plight of the people left in Aleppo that have no electricity because US aviation had bombed the biggest power plant in the area.
 
What does it have to do with cluster bombs from Assad, Russians or whoever else? I asked about the plight of the people left in Aleppo that have no electricity because US aviation had bombed the biggest power plant in the area.

Are you truly concerned about folks in Aleppo not having power ?
 
What does it have to do with cluster bombs from Assad, Russians or whoever else? I asked about the plight of the people left in Aleppo that have no electricity because US aviation had bombed the biggest power plant in the area.

My point was that there are much worse things than being without electricity, which is something they'd have become used to by now. Humans can survive without electricity even if it's inconvenient. Bombing infrastructure that ISIS uses to maintain itself or project influence is much more reasonable than fighting ISIS by not bombing ISIS. I assume you'd be upset with the US bombing oil fields ISIS ran and used to generate funds as well, particularly since Assad was one of their biggest customers.
 
It's good that ISIS starts to show weakness in Iraq,probably they know have to focus in two fronts.Can you recommend some site to read the military updates?I use to read cnn and aljazeera but they don't go too deeply
 
It's good that ISIS starts to show weakness in Iraq,probably they know have to focus in two fronts.Can you recommend some site to read the military updates?I use to read cnn and aljazeera but they don't go too deeply

Have you got a Twitter account? I can recommend a good list.
 
The United States won assurances from Iraq on Tuesday that it would not seek Russian air strikes against Islamic State, America's top general said, adding he warned Baghdad that a Russian air role would impede the U.S.-led campaign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/us-mideast-crisis-usa-iraq-idUSKCN0SE0QX20151021


Foolish move by Abadi, unsurprising but foolish nonetheless.

The sentiment amongst Iraqis right now is that they have lost faith with the US's supposed 'campaign' and are very keen for the Russians to get involved. Abadi will likely marginalise and anger his own people by bottling it and capitulating to the US's bullying.

Not that it matters anyway, considering the Iraqi government is an obsolete entity that will likely be undermined by the militias.
 
Foolish move by Abadi, unsurprising but foolish nonetheless.

The sentiment amongst Iraqis right now is that they have lost faith with the US's supposed 'campaign' and are very keen for the Russians to get involved. Abadi will likely marginalise and anger his own people by bottling it and capitulating to the US's bullying.

Not that it matters anyway, considering the Iraqi government is an obsolete entity that will likely be undermined by the militias.

Seems like a sound decision by Abadi, since having both the US and Russians flying over Iraqi space would only increase the chances of an accident. There is plenty of fire power in the air to take care of ISIS right now.
 
Father Paolo Alive in City of Tabqa: ISIS Defector
http://syrianobserver.com/EN/News/29998/Father_Paolo_Alive_City_Tabqa_ISIS_Defector/

I met this guy and spent four nights staying at his monastery in 2008, it was very much a symbol of Syria's tradition of religious tolerance, with Muslims, Druze etc. coming to worship alongside Christians from all over the Middle East. More than a place of worship, it was somewhere young Syrians could spend a weekend or holiday break out in the desert. He seemed a bit disillusioned though when I asked him about Muslim-Christian relations more generally. He was kidknapped in Raqqa in 2013 and hasn't been seen since.
 
“The link is undeniable,” Obama said in a speech at the State Department on 19 February “When people are oppressed and human rights are denied – particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines – when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit.”

Of course, he is right. Every word. However, the underlying message is also clear: it’s everyone else’s fault but ours. Now, that’s hardly true, and Obama, once a strong critic of his predecessor’s war, knows it well.

Writing at MSNBC.com, Sarah Leah Whitson went a step further. In “Why the fight against ISIS is failing,” Whitson, criticized the anti-IS alliance for predicating its strategy on militarily defeating the group, without any redress of the grievances of oppressed Iraqi Sunnis, who, last year welcomed IS fighters as “liberators”.

“But let’s not forget how Iraq got to that point,” she wrote, “with the US-led Iraq war that displaced a dictator but resulted in an abusive occupation and destructive civil war, leaving more than a million dead.”
 
Writing at MSNBC.com, Sarah Leah Whitson went a step further. In “Why the fight against ISIS is failing,” Whitson, criticized the anti-IS alliance for predicating its strategy on militarily defeating the group, without any redress of the grievances of oppressed Iraqi Sunnis, who, last year welcomed IS fighters as “liberators”.

While I broadly agree - it is equally true, the Iraqi Sunnis need to suck it up. They are a minority in Iraq (~35%), but under Saddam, they enjoyed all the power and perks and the Shia majority(~65%) were oppressed. It is natural, there will be a period of adjustment and the Shia majority will be out to redress historical wrongs.

This sounds like I am saying the Sunnis deserve to be oppressed or have it coming to them...but that's not my intention. It is simply a part of what happens when power changes hands.
 
Seems like a sound decision by Abadi, since having both the US and Russians flying over Iraqi space would only increase the chances of an accident. There is plenty of fire power in the air to take care of ISIS right now.

Except this supposedly plentiful firepower has done sweet feck all in two years. Its time to perhaps consider an alternative plan while the US are too occupied arming Islamic extremists and aiding their gulf allies in other bombing campaigns.

Regardless, it won't matter. If the militias under their Iranian patrons give the Russians their blessing, the Iraqi government can do sweet feck all about it. Abadi knows this, that's why he's giving the Yanks this empty promise of his while he just lets the militias do as they wish.
 
Except this supposedly plentiful firepower has done sweet feck all in two years. Its time to perhaps consider an alternative plan while the US are too occupied arming Islamic extremists and aiding their gulf allies in other bombing campaigns.

Regardless, it won't matter. If the militias under their Iranian patrons give the Russians their blessing, the Iraqi government can do sweet feck all about it. Abadi knows this, that's why he's giving the Yanks this empty promise of his while he just lets the militias do as they wish.

I'm not surprised given that the US aren't likely to work with Quds force or As'aib al-Haq type groups. Still a great decision, since an accident would probably lead to an escalation over his country's airspace.
 
Except this supposedly plentiful firepower has done sweet feck all in two years. Its time to perhaps consider an alternative plan while the US are too occupied arming Islamic extremists and aiding their gulf allies in other bombing campaigns.

Regardless, it won't matter. If the militias under their Iranian patrons give the Russians their blessing, the Iraqi government can do sweet feck all about it. Abadi knows this, that's why he's giving the Yanks this empty promise of his while he just lets the militias do as they wish.
Iraq doesn't seem to need the Russian airstrikes right now. The joined operations room seems to be enough and doing the job.

Hopefully Abadi traded the Russian airstrikes for less US meddling in the Iraqi politics which leads to (as it has many times already) ISIS gaining territory in Iraq.
 
Was anyone watching the 6 o'clock BBC news? They briefly showed official Russian footage of their air force attacks. I can't find the full video anywhere. Does anyone happen to know where I can find it? It made the air strikes look like a movie or computer game.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...is-syria-russia-strikes-idUSKCN0SF24L20151021


Almost 80 percent of Russia's declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Islamic State, a Reuters analysis of Russian Defence Ministry data shows, undermining Moscow's assertions that its aim is to defeat the group.

The majority of strikes, according to the analysis, have instead been in areas held by other groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which include al Qaeda offshoots but also fighters backed by Washington and its allies.

Defence ministry statements of targets hit by the Russian Air Force and an online archive of Russian military maps show Russia has hit 64 named locations since President Vladimir Putin ordered the first round of air strikes three weeks ago.

Of those targets, a maximum of 15 were in areas held by Islamic State, according to a survey of locations of the rival forces in Syria compiled by the Institute for the Study of War.

"If you look at the map, you can easily understand that they are not fighting Islamic State but other opposition groups," said Alexander Golts, a Moscow-based defense columnist and deputy editor of online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal.

The data supports assertions from Washington and its NATO allies that Russia's intervention in Syria, its biggest military deployment abroad since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is designed to prop up Assad, who flew to Moscow on Tuesday to thank Putin for his support.

Moscow's other possible motives could be to maintain a strategic foothold in the Middle East and showcase itself as a global military power at a time when relations with the West have sunk to a post-Soviet low over the crisis in Ukraine.

Russian officials have rejected the accusations and repeatedly stressed that they are targeting Islamic State, alongside other groups they classify as Islamist terrorists. They say Moscow and the West are fighting a common enemy.

However, the pattern of the strikes in Syria suggests a different picture.

Russia's air force has flown over 780 sorties against almost 800 targets in Syria since Sept. 30. As recently as Monday, its jets hit targets in six named locations, none of which were in areas held by Islamic State, the Reuters analysis showed.

"The main goal of these air strikes is supporting ground offensives by the Syrian army," Golts said.

The Russian defense ministry was not immediately available for comment.

Statements from the United States Central Command show that 84 air strikes by the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State hit 13 locations in Syria between Sept.30 and Oct. 19.

In contrast to the Russian campaign, the coalition strikes were concentrated in Syria's northern and eastern regions, where Islamic State militants have take control of large swathes of the country.

A senior Western diplomat in New York said 85 percent of Russian air strikes had been against groups not affiliated with Islamic State.

The Reuters analysis only included specific locations named by the Russian Defence Ministry as air force targets in Syria.

A total of four locations could not be found on maps including Russian military documents. But three of them were identified by Russia's defense ministry as being in Syria's western Latakia and Idlib provinces, meaning they were not in Islamic State territory.

The fourth location, Kfaysir, was in the northern Aleppo province where territory is contested between Islamic State, opposition rebels and the Syrian army.

Russia has also hit Islamic State strongholds in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor where the defense ministry says it has destroyed command centers, training camps and munitions factories.

Backed by Russia's air force, Syrian government forces have launched offensives against rebels in Syria's Homs, Hama, Latakia, Idlib and Aleppo provinces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said Russia's bombing campaign has killed 370 people in the last three weeks, one third of them civilians.

:lol: Yes, Russia has defeated ISIS by only attacking them 20% of the time!
 
They're randomly bombing "terrorist areas" and probably racking up far more civilian casualties than are being reported.
 
They will probably deny it and launch a troll campaign to discredit the Syrian Observatory again.

You mean a guy sitting somewhere in Coventry, probably in his underwear, in front of the computer pulling stories out of his ass? Yeah, I'm sure the whole might of the Russian state propaganda will be required to discredit him.
 
You mean a guy sitting somewhere in Coventry, probably in his underwear, in front of the computer pulling stories out of his ass? Yeah, I'm sure the whole might of the Russian state propaganda will be required to discredit him.
It's funny - you and Kaos both make this false accusation, but when I asked Kaos and yourself for a shred of evidence you're both found wanting.
 
I'm not surprised given that the US aren't likely to work with Quds force or As'aib al-Haq type groups. Still a great decision, since an accident would probably lead to an escalation over his country's airspace.

Perhaps if they changed their names to Jaish Al-Fatah and Al Nusra, the US support might come flooding in :)

Iraq doesn't seem to need the Russian airstrikes right now. The joined operations room seems to be enough and doing the job.

Hopefully Abadi traded the Russian airstrikes for less US meddling in the Iraqi politics which leads to (as it has many times already) ISIS gaining territory in Iraq.

Pretty much all of the Iraqi military's successes in recent months have largely been down to the militias. I can't see them being too happy with Abadi turning down some much needed Russian air support.
 
It's funny - you and Kaos both make this false accusation, but when I asked Kaos and yourself for a shred of evidence you're both found wanting.

Are we still doing this?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208

https://web.archive.org/web/2012061...lves-over-syrian-observatory-for-human-rights

The video below is a research piece on the Syrian Observatory from RT, so obviously do take it with a pinch of salt, but again feel free to debunk it:




He can cite all these 'anonymous' sources all he wants, but at the end of the day he's still one man in a Coventry appartment, who's openly anti-regime and who's never been to Syria in 15 years.
 
Hilarious watching the pro US and pro Russian posters taking potshots at each other. Both cut from the same cloth, the sad thing is the people of Iraq & Syria are forgotten in this whole mess, poor feckers being bombed into the stone ages.
 
Hilarious watching the pro US and pro Russian posters taking potshots at each other. Both cut from the same cloth, the sad thing is the people of Iraq & Syria are forgotten in this whole mess, poor feckers being bombed into the stone ages.

You're absolutely right, the peoples of Syria and Iraq are the ultimate losers in all this.

I can't speak for the Syrians, however I can tell you that the sentiment amongst Iraqis is that they very much welcome Russian support over whatever the US is doing over there. It doesn't make Russia some sort of benevolent vanguard, but it doesn't change the fact that they're currently more popular than the US over there - something many of the pro-Washington posters here seem to routinely be in denial about.
 
Are we still doing this?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208

https://web.archive.org/web/2012061...lves-over-syrian-observatory-for-human-rights

The video below is a research piece on the Syrian Observatory from RT, so obviously do take it with a pinch of salt, but again feel free to debunk it:




He can cite all these 'anonymous' sources all he wants, but at the end of the day he's still one man in a Coventry appartment, who's openly anti-regime and who's never been to Syria in 15 years.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that he's falsifying claims or he's made them up.

The Guardian 'article' is full of hearsay and rumours - I've read it there's literally nothing there. This is the sum of their investigation ffs

When the Guardian's Middle East live blog cited "Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" it also linked to a sceptical article in the Modern Tokyo Times – an article which suggested news outlets could be a bit "more objective about their sources" when quoting "this so-called entity", the SOHR.

Give me something to bloody work with here?? You've espoused time and time again they make things up, but I'm still waiting for you to give me an iota of something that is untrue.



Anyway, to your second link, it does nothing to aid your argument:

"We want accuracy and transparency in the news," he said.

"We have had many infiltration attempts by the Syrian intelligence services, but we don't put any news out until we are 100 percent certain about our source. If the source is new, we have to verify the information with other sources," he added.

His sources, some cultivated over many years, risk their lives to investigate incidents and call him with information.

Six have already been killed, Abdulrahman said, but despite the danger the observatory's network of contacts has expanded to more than 200 people from 54 since the uprising began, he said.

THREATS

Abdulrahman, a Sunni Muslim, is acutely sensitive that his reports are seen as free from bias, given accusations against him of sectarianism, of being in the pay of foreign agents or of being swayed or infiltrated by Assad's security services.

Sunnis are the majority in Syria, but the country has long been dominated by Assad's Alawite minority sect.

"I have Alawites phoning and complaining, Sunnis phoning and complaining. I'm between two fires. But it shows I'm being neutral if both sides complain," he said, insisting he accepts no funding and runs the observatory on a voluntary basis.

Members of Abdulrahman's wife's family have been arrested and beaten, he said, while he receives threatening text messages. Some of Abdulrahman's family refuse to speak to him, supporting Assad out of what he said was fear or ignorance.

So again - where is this big lie that you claim he's been reporting? Where's the evidence that he's made it all up? Because surely, the only way to report the news is if you're physically there witnessing it. :wenger: I mean, there is clear hard evidence of what the regime has done reported from multiple sources. I still don't see your point, and tbh, I don't think you're making much of a point.

And then you back up your point with RT links....which doesn't actually show/say anything that credits your argument? antihenry posted it earlier claiming it said x and y, and I watched it and it didn't back any of those up.

So - I'll ask you again - can you provide me with evidence that he has made/falsified claims regarding the Syrian civil war?

Also to this bit:
'who's never been to Syria in 15 years'

Why does that bother you so much? He grew up in Syria, lived there for 30 odd years under the previous regime. You'd think he'd have some semblance of what Syrian life is like.

And this:
After three short spells in prison in Syria for pro-democracy activism, Abdulrahman came to Britain in 2000 fearing a longer, fourth jail term.

There's many Syrians I know living here for this same reason.

Hilarious watching the pro US and pro Russian posters taking potshots at each other. Both cut from the same cloth, the sad thing is the people of Iraq & Syria are forgotten in this whole mess, poor feckers being bombed into the stone ages.
100% - it's what I've been saying all along. There is no sanctity of life with these guys involved.