ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Kaos said:
"Nation-building"

Still don't know what the feck that means to this day.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it means something like: we destabilise, ruin and feck up a country for however many odd years, then pull out our troops, claim mission accomplished. Then we wait and watch said country collapse into a further pile of rubble and said country dissolves into separate nations. (Sunni Islamic State? Kurdistan? Shiite Iraq?)

Nation(s) built. (Y)

Or in the case of Afghanistan. Have troops stationed there for 10 years. Achieve feck all change.
 
Essaux said:
News media. The Dutch statistic comes from a survey conducted by Dutch (public) TV station NCRV1. The Saudi Arabia statistic comes from a survey institute which is under the command of the Saudi Deradicalisation Institute.
Click to expand...

Not very trustworthy or verifiable then.
 
Shamwow said:
Not very trustworthy or verifiable then.
Click to expand...
I see. Only English / American media is trustworthy.

feck the Dutch and Arab media. It's not English speaking so it must be false. :lol:

How about you learn Dutch and Arabic and read the SOURCE of these articles instead of the English media.

You think CNN and BBC are trustworthy? Rose-tinted Western glasses trustworthy perhaps, the rest of the World would disagree with you.
 
Peshmerga have made big gains in the last 24 hours or so, I would give it 2 weeks before every Kurdish town/village is back under Kurdish control.
 
Kaos said:
To be fair I wouldn't be surprised at the accuracy of those statistics.
Click to expand...
Even without these statistics, I can see with my own eyes that shit is hitting the fan where I live.

I lived on Brick Lane in London, near Tower Hamlets. I can assure you it's a problematic situation over there.

Now I live in my native Amsterdam again in a neighbourhood where also many muslims reside and it's the same problems. I talk to many muslims as well and it is surprising (well actually it isn't if you have read the Quran and understand Wahhabism) how many sunni muslims are sympathetic towards ISIS or outright support them.
 
Essaux said:
I see. Only English / American media is trustworthy.

feck the Dutch and Arab media. It's not English speaking so it must be false. :lol:

How about you learn Dutch and Arabic and read the SOURCE of these articles instead of the English media.

You think CNN and BBC are trustworthy? Rose-tinted Western glasses trustworthy perhaps, the rest of the World would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

If you provided the source maybe I could. That's why I'm saying not trustworthy or verifiable, nothing to do with which country they are from (:rolleyes:).
 
Shamwow said:
If you provided the source maybe I could. That's why I'm saying not trustworthy or verifiable, nothing to do with which country they are from (:rolleyes:).
Click to expand...
I provided the sources.

Essaux said:
- http://www.elsevier.nl/Nederland/ni...-moslims-vindt-Syrie-gangers-helden-1266504W/ (in Dutch)

- http://www.raialyoum.com/?p=124941 (in Arabic) this is a statistic not mentioned by a Western media (who you could argue could use it to spin their narrative around), but by a Saudi source, probably doesn't get any more real than that.
Click to expand...
 
New video released of the 15 Peshmerga captured since the war began, in Mosul. One was beheaded and they threatened to behead the rest if cooperation with Israel/America does not stop.
 
Number7 said:
I can't help but suspect something far worse is on the cards. There's so many potential options for them to 'showcase' their slaughter of large amounts of people at any time. Nothing would surprise me with this group, and I don't think the country is prepared for it.
Click to expand...
Most certainly agree with you. Sadly, we will just have to wait and see what is going to happen. It won't be pretty.
 
Suli said:
New video released of the 15 Peshmerga captured since the war began, in Mosul. One was beheaded and they threatened to behead the rest if cooperation with Israel/America does not stop.
Click to expand...

Nice chaps aren't they. Not to worry though - they will be pulverized fairly soon.
 
Sorry if this has been asked and answered before but how do ISIS actually work? As in where does their funding come from? Roughly how many people fight for them? Are they well trained, have good battle tactics or do they only gain land when there aren't many opposing groups against them?
 
PhilipB said:
Sorry if this has been asked and answered before but how do ISIS actually work? As in where does their funding come from? Roughly how many people fight for them? Are they well trained, have good battle tactics or do they only gain land when there aren't many opposing groups against them?
Click to expand...
Funding: No one really knows but currently they fight with American weapons.
Size: 10k reportedly
Well trained? Some of them, yes but others aren't. Apparently their training is quite good though.
Battle tactics: They invade smaller cities and take up as much land as they possibly can without getting killed. They do have good tactics but thats mainly because they have capitalized on errors created by the opposition.
 
PhilipB said:
Sorry if this has been asked and answered before but how do ISIS actually work? As in where does their funding come from? Roughly how many people fight for them? Are they well trained, have good battle tactics or do they only gain land when there aren't many opposing groups against them?
Click to expand...

They get their funding the same way most organized crime syndicates do: extortion, smuggling, robberies, kidnappings, black market oil, etc. http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/08/hitting-isis-where-it-hurts-disrupt-isiss-cash-flow.html

They use the normal insurgency weapons: AKs, weapons from the Saddam era military and from the post-war military. They have tanks, apcs, humvees, etc that they seized from Iraqi military bases but likely aren't capable of using the helicopters and other aircraft so far. They're tactically more sophisticated than the groups from the Iraq War and post-war period. They have set goals and strategies to achieve them. Apparently they've benefited from the experience of Chechen fighters who've joined up after years fighting in Russia. They've clearly read Mao's books on tactics.
 
Essaux said:
Meanwhile in the Islamic State:
IS capture airfield. Set to execute captured PoWs. Twitter link: NSFW.

It's funny how the world is "shocked" by the use of chemical weapons, but yawns prior to that whilst 1000s upon 1000s of innocent civilians got slaughtered and murdered through conventional weapons. Hypocrites everywhere.

Assad will need to covertly decimate these thugs. The same thugs the US so proudly armed and trained to "rebel" against Assad.
Click to expand...

Essaux said:
It's a classic way of making more $$$$$$

Create a problem. Then tell the world we need to fix the problem. = $$$$$$ in the bank for the Military Industrial Complex. They need to keep selling those guns, bombs, humvees, tanks, jets.

Can't have peace you know, peace doesn't pay the bills. What's a couple of (American) lives lost in the process. Let alone the lives of all the innocent non Americans.
Click to expand...

Essaux said:
I'm guessing it means something like: we destabilise, ruin and feck up a country for however many odd years, then pull out our troops, claim mission accomplished. Then we wait and watch said country collapse into a further pile of rubble and said country dissolves into separate nations. (Sunni Islamic State? Kurdistan? Shiite Iraq?)

Nation(s) built. (Y)

Or in the case of Afghanistan. Have troops stationed there for 10 years. Achieve feck all change.
Click to expand...

Essaux said:
I see. Only English / American media is trustworthy.

feck the Dutch and Arab media. It's not English speaking so it must be false. :lol:

How about you learn Dutch and Arabic and read the SOURCE of these articles instead of the English media.

You think CNN and BBC are trustworthy? Rose-tinted Western glasses trustworthy perhaps, the rest of the World would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Root cause of the problem is wahabism funded by saudi and gulf kingdoms. All the networking, finance, ideological backing, safe housing is done there. I reckon if the state starts maintaining mosques in europe that will stifle the wahabis because they chip in when the local mosque cant pay the bills or if a new one needs to be built and install there own priest who peddles there extremist ideology.
 
Essaux said:
I'm guessing it means something like: we destabilise, ruin and feck up a country for however many odd years, then pull out our troops, claim mission accomplished. Then we wait and watch said country collapse into a further pile of rubble and said country dissolves into separate nations. (Sunni Islamic State? Kurdistan? Shiite Iraq?)

Nation(s) built. (Y)

Or in the case of Afghanistan. Have troops stationed there for 10 years. Achieve feck all change.
Click to expand...

You have a far too cynical view. In fact I would say it's outrageous. You actually believe the US intentionally wanted Iraq to turn into a shit show? Or that they didn't want to make progress in Afghanistan? Really?

The US didn't pulled out of Iraq, they didn't wait and watch. I'd also suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, is the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan? You are making factually incorrect statements to support your silly near conspiracy theorist world view.
 
Wipe these fecks off the face of the planet. They are fecking barbarians that will never be reasoned with.

They act like rabid dogs, and we all know what you do with a rabid dog.
 
Last edited:
We don't hear about Al-Qaeda or Taliban anymore.. I wonder what will replace IS once the Masters are bored of them, maybe a young and "cool" bunch of Muslims, raping and singing with their bling bling ON while murdering and terrorising civilians.
 
Nucks said:
You have a far too cynical view. In fact I would say it's outrageous. You actually believe the US intentionally wanted Iraq to turn into a shit show? Or that they didn't want to make progress in Afghanistan? Really?

The US didn't pulled out of Iraq, they didn't wait and watch. I'd also suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, is the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan? You are making factually incorrect statements to support your silly near conspiracy theorist world view.
Click to expand...

Beyond the flamboyant BS of his posts, you have to admit there is a trace of comedy in there.
 
Is it really far-fetched for Essaux to suggest the US had intentions to fragment Iraq? They have a history of it in Latin America and in the middle east itself to divide and conquer, creating a rife platform to assert its regional agenda.
 
Kaos said:
Is it really far-fetched for Essaux to suggest the US had intentions to fragment Iraq? They have a history of it in Latin America and in the middle east itself to divide and conquer, creating a rife platform to assert its regional agenda.
Click to expand...

Yep pretty much. The objective was a strong, unified, and democratic Iraq that would flourish economically as counterbalance to Iran and Saudi.
 
Raoul said:
Yep pretty much. The objective was a strong, unified, and democratic Iraq that would flourish economically as counterbalance to Iran and Saudi.
Click to expand...

Why would you counterbalance Saudi? You've got them stringed up like an obedient dog desperate to appease its owner.

And surely a unified Iraq that is democratic would be naturally inclined towards Iran considering its dominant Shia demographic? Surely thats counterproductive as a buffer effect?
 
Kaos said:
Why would you counterbalance Saudi? You've got them stringed up like an obedient dog desperate to appease its owner.

And surely a unified Iraq that is democratic would be naturally inclined towards Iran considering its dominant Shia demographic? Surely thats counterproductive as a buffer effect?
Click to expand...

Well because neither are exactly paragons of virtue (Iran and Saudi). Can't ever have enough democratic states around.

On the Iran ties, that's a tough one. They would obviously always be Shi'a centric in terms of PM and other key cabinet posts, but an Iraq driven by a sense of national unity would ideally also be independent, and indeed many Iraqi Shi'a are still Iraqi first. The Sadr family are a good example of this - despite many of them being nutters and Muqtada having hid in Iran for a few years, historically, they have always bigged up their Iraqi Shi'a first credentials among their constituents, and there still remains a sense of pride among Iraqi Shi'a, that they are Iraqi first vice Iranian puppets.
 
Raoul said:
Well because neither are exactly paragons of virtue (Iran and Saudi). Can't ever have enough democratic states around.

On the Iran ties, that's a tough one. They would obviously always be Shi'a centric in terms of PM and other key cabinet posts, but an Iraq driven by a sense of national unity would ideally also be independent, and indeed many Iraqi Shi'a are still Iraqi first. The Sadr family are a good example of this - despite many of them being nutters and Muqtada having hid in Iran for a few years, historically, they have always bigged up their Iraqi Shi'a first credentials among their constituents, and there still remains a sense of pride among Iraqi Shi'a, that they are Iraqi first vice Iranian puppets.
Click to expand...

Was that what you thought about Mossadegh's Iran or Allende's Chile? ;)

You're right about the second part though, for the most part. Its an inevitability that Iraq will always maintain close ties to Iran, that's something the West needs to accustom itself to.
 
Raoul said:
Well because neither are exactly paragons of virtue (Iran and Saudi). Can't ever have enough democratic states around.

On the Iran ties, that's a tough one. They would obviously always be Shi'a centric in terms of PM and other key cabinet posts, but an Iraq driven by a sense of national unity would ideally also be independent, and indeed many Iraqi Shi'a are still Iraqi first. The Sadr family are a good example of this - despite many of them being nutters and Muqtada having hid in Iran for a few years, historically, they have always bigged up their Iraqi Shi'a first credentials among their constituents, and there still remains a sense of pride among Iraqi Shi'a, that they are Iraqi first vice Iranian puppets.
Click to expand...
I actually think the Shia/Iraqi government ties with Iran will strengthen after the latest developments, because they realize now the danger they're in, and the US has proven to be a very unreliable partner when needed the most.

Also on popular level, there is very little sense of national unity right now, seeing how every constituent only cares about the interests of that constituent. Can you say for example that the Kurds are Iraqis first?
 
Nucks said:
You have a far too cynical view. In fact I would say it's outrageous. You actually believe the US intentionally wanted Iraq to turn into a shit show? Or that they didn't want to make progress in Afghanistan? Really?

The US didn't pulled out of Iraq, they didn't wait and watch. I'd also suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, is the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan? You are making factually incorrect statements to support your silly near conspiracy theorist world view.
Click to expand...

Kaos said:
Is it really far-fetched for Essaux to suggest the US had intentions to fragment Iraq? They have a history of it in Latin America and in the middle east itself to divide and conquer, creating a rife platform to assert its regional agenda.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
Yep pretty much. The objective was a strong, unified, and democratic Iraq that would flourish economically as counterbalance to Iran and Saudi.
Click to expand...

Listen. It's clear that some posters on here have absolute unshakeable faith in the righteousness of their country. Raoul and Nucks would be them. That's fair enough.

However, I simply present to you a reasonable and fair alternative perspective to the situations around the world where the US has meddled in.

If you think the US is solely in it for altruistic reasons than we are done "debating" on this topic, because it will lead to nowhere.

I'm not one who believes in conspiracy theories, I don't care for any shadow government stuff like illuminati or whatsoever. I'm just using my eyes, my brain and connect the dots of what is happening. And what is happening is a giant clusterfeck of shit wherever the US sets foot. (And no, they did not have to set foot in any place in the Middle East as it doesn't border their country and therefore is not an immediate threat to their security. Unlike Ukraine/Russia situation.)

Fortunately, it is clearer and clearer to many people inside and outside of the US that the US is in it for $$$$$ reasons. Perpetual war to keep the MIC $$$$ coming in. Secure oil-deals along the way and establish unstable states which can be steered by US interest at anytime.

This is really it for me discussing US failed foreign policy. Back to ISIS and Islam chat in this thread.
 
VidaRed said:
Agreed.

Root cause of the problem is wahabism funded by saudi and gulf kingdoms. All the networking, finance, ideological backing, safe housing is done there. I reckon if the state starts maintaining mosques in europe that will stifle the wahabis because they chip in when the local mosque cant pay the bills or if a new one needs to be built and install there own priest who peddles there extremist ideology.
Click to expand...
Wahabism is definitely the root cause for much of the sectarian strife.

Did you know that the most beheadings in the World are carried out in Saudi Arabia? Just averaging more than 1 a day..... people get beheaded there even for "minor" offences like smuggling marihuana.

The United States have some fantastic ally in Saudi Arabia, don't they.
 
Danny1982 said:
I actually think the Shia/Iraqi government ties with Iran will strengthen after the latest developments, because they realize now the danger they're in, and the US has proven to be a very unreliable partner when needed the most.

Also on popular level, there is very little sense of national unity right now, seeing how every constituent only cares about the interests of that constituent. Can you say for example that the Kurds are Iraqis first?
Click to expand...

Interesting given that it was Iran who pressured Maliki (via Sadr) to not renew the US military presence, which precipitated the full on rise of ISIS into what it is today. Of course we can say there was no such thing until the US invasion in 2003, but that's ancient history at this point, and the situation in 2011 was sufficiently stable to where good governance and better national unity could've taken Iraq into a different direction. A simple extension of US forces in 2011 could've easily averted this through providing air power to Iraqi units in Mosul when ISIS began their assault.

On the 2nd point - the Kurds have been looking for an excuse to federalize and they found it through the instability that has taken place over the past 3 years. Not sure they are every coming back at this point.
 
Peshmerga have retaken control of the town Zummar.
 
Today the news in the US had a story about the threat to the US from ISIS militants crossing the border illegally from Mexico and then doing their thing, like suicide bombing. Far fetched or not?
 
The siege on Amerli has been broken.
 
surf said:
Today the news in the US had a story about the threat to the US from ISIS militants crossing the border illegally from Mexico and then doing their thing, like suicide bombing. Far fetched or not?
Click to expand...
Hard to believe this would happen.

If anything, an inside attack is more likely, like the Fort Hood jihadist. Nidal Hasan stated from prison that he wants to join the Islamic State.
 
Another US journalist murdered by IS. Completely sickening, his poor family.
 
Agent Red said:
Another US journalist murdered by IS. Completely sickening, his poor family.
Click to expand...

They've been doing it for a couple of years now in syria, difference is earlier it was because of "freedom and democracy" and now its "islam".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.