Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A good threat though can have the pease....mass of the people to seek out a leader in their time of need

what ?


....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pease_pudding



I'm sure even Isis don't deserve that.

 reds8n wrote:
what ?


....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pease_pudding



I'm sure even Isis don't deserve that.

Almost typed in peasants

gotcha.

One would suggest masses would be a better term here but fret not for now.

Working on it. Only three mugs of coffee in me.

Sources on Reddit are saying that ISIS have promised to strike Mecca and destroy the Ka'aba, due to it being worshipped by idolaters.

That's going to go so well for them.


slightly (very) questionable source

When Allah aint happy, nobody is going to be happy...
Just saying.

I have a feeling that these guys are just a flash in the pan. They will last about as long as the OWS movement. Too flashy and they are making too many enemies too fast.

I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!

 Frazzled wrote:
I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!

Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!

Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest

but it was a clean bomb vest!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!

Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest

but it was a clean bomb vest!

We never know being he tripped coming at us at the ECP at Ghazni

Edit

OT though. Have they finally captured Anaconda or is both side still screwing around?

http://io9.com/that-isis-caliphate-map-is-bogus-so-stop-freaking-ou-1598657469?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 reds8n wrote:
http://io9.com/that-isis-caliphate-map-is-bogus-so-stop-freaking-ou-1598657469?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

This story just gets better and better...

chaos0xomega wrote:


Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource

Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?

ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource

Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?

ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.

If the West agree to their time table to taking over a fifth of the world by 2020

 Goliath wrote:
Sources on Reddit are saying that ISIS have promised to strike Mecca and destroy the Ka'aba, due to it being worshipped by idolaters.

That won't go well... What they dont realize is that Mohamed was a time traveler, which explains why the religion forbids any images of him (thus allowing him to travel time in anonymity)... he went into the future, and got a massive, Gatling laser defense turret, and a whole mess of other high tech weapons, and stashed htem in there... any attack on Mecca will result in countless masses being slain due to the defenses firing up

 Ketara wrote:
Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?

ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.

Yep, and the thing everyone seems to be missing is that the ease of their conquests in Iraq actually says a lot more about the state of Iraqi armed forces than it does about the militias.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource

Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?

ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.

There have been numerous reports of ISIS being extremely well funded (into the $billions) and well organised. I suppose the most important thing is whether those observations are correct or not. If they are, then they are not going to be a flash in the pan.

Sebster wrote:Yep, and the thing everyone seems to be missing is that the ease of their conquests in Iraq actually says a lot more about the state of Iraqi armed forces than it does about the militias.

The whole thing has been a recipe for disaster from the outset - destroy the strong, centralised, secular state and civil infrastructure. Stoke up sectarian tensions and create a government that epitomises and furthers those differences, remove that government's teeth, and pour a load of extra military equipment into a country that already had a lot floating about, and lots of grizzled military veterans and psychologically scarred victims of previous wars ready to use them! Shake well, and *KABOOM*

Those poor, poor fething people, because you have to remember the real victims of this are the millions who had quite normal lives before and just wanted to go on living them in peace. We've lit the match under a powder keg and the result is going to be generations of misery and shortening life expectancies. The issue is not putting the genie back in the bottle (you can't), but whether you can do anything at all without making the entire cluster-feth even worse than it already is.

The whole thing has been a recipe for disaster from the outset - destroy the strong, centralised, secular state and civil infrastructure. Stoke up sectarian tensions and create a government that epitomises and furthers those differences, remove that government's teeth, and pour a load of extra military equipment into a country that already had a lot floating about, and lots of grizzled military veterans and psychologically scarred victims of previous wars ready to use them! Shake well, and *KABOOM*

Those poor, poor fething people, because you have to remember the real victims of this are the millions who had quite normal lives before and just wanted to go on living them in peace. We've lit the match under a powder keg and the result is going to be generations of misery and shortening life expectancies. The issue is not putting the genie back in the bottle (you can't), but whether you can do anything at all without making the entire cluster-feth even worse than it already is.

Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway. Iraq was only held together by raw power. It was only lines on a map made up by British politicians a century ago. Take away that power and they had the option of forming a modern heterogeneous state, or going tribal. They picked tribal.

It will be interesting to see if Syria breaks up as well, or not.

Fail to see at what point I climbed on to the moral high horse there? I live in a country whose democratically elected government was one of the main instigators of the current situation.

And, I think there are ways of accomplishing something, and than manner in which it can happen. If you think that Hussein dying or being back-stabbed by an opponent would have resulted in the complete and utter destruction of the state, civil infrastructure, hundreds of thousands dead and probably the next 20 years of civil war, I think you need to take a closer examination of the forces involved and why exactly there is so much violence in the country right now.

To perhaps use a more apt metaphor, Hussein dying as a result of insurrection (originated from within Iraq) would have been throwing a match under the fire. But, in essence removing him from power in the way that the West did, and the apparent complete lack of planning for Iraq's future, has been the equivalent of rolling a stick of dynamite under a petrol-soaked building. Not so much caught fire, as blown to pieces.

I agree though it will be interesting what happens in Syria - I think the current situation in Iraq has the potential to destabilise the entire region, more so than it has already.

 reds8n wrote:
http://io9.com/that-isis-caliphate-map-is-bogus-so-stop-freaking-ou-1598657469?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

So in other words...

Gr8 Caliph8 m8. I don't mean to h8 but that map is pure b8 designed to ir8 and obfusc8. I doesn't represent the future Islamic St8.

 Pacific wrote:

I agree though it will be interesting what happens in Syria - I think the current situation in Iraq has the potential to destabilise the entire region, more so than it has already.

Perhaps, things are happenign exactly the way the APAC and Neo-cons wanted it. A destabilized Middle East.

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.

People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.

People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Perhaps, things are happenign exactly the way the APAC and Neo-cons wanted it. A destabilized Middle East.

Nah, because they wanted the transformation of Iraq to serve as a powerful statement on the power and reach of the US, as a platform for the US to continue to dominate world affairs for the next century. Didn't really work out like that at all.

US Coalition had to keep them separated from each other in Iraq

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.

People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.

People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.

Key difference there being that Iraq was/is a heavily tribal society, as opposed to Stalin's Russia, and Kim's Korea, where they are a "homogenous society" built up for a singular purpose.

Certainly, with Saddam out of the way, one of the flying rodent gak crazy sons would have come to power, but because they are such a tribal society, much of what Daddy did is not respected in the kid, so there will be power challenges by others, until he either fails, or they get tired of trying to knock him down.

It seems that ISIS is worried about my predicted outcome right now as well. They're demanding that all other Sunni factions disarm or swear allegiance to their glorious Caliph. Not entirely sure how well that'll work out for them, but apparently there was a firefight between some ISIS members and some of the Baathists (Saddam's old lot) the other day near Kirkuk. The reports have varied over what it was (the ISIS lot trying to disarm the Baathists, or a fight over some fuel spoils), but it left seventeen dead, so clearly the Baathists aren't exactly okay with that.

Considering Mosul is currently under the governance of a Baathist general as well while the ISIS fighters push the front, they're going to need to be careful that they don't end up alienating their support network on the ground by pushing this too hard.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.

People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.

People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.

Key difference there being that Iraq was/is a heavily tribal society, as opposed to Stalin's Russia, and Kim's Korea, where they are a "homogenous society" built up for a singular purpose.

Certainly, with Saddam out of the way, one of the flying rodent gak crazy sons would have come to power, but because they are such a tribal society, much of what Daddy did is not respected in the kid, so there will be power challenges by others, until he either fails, or they get tired of trying to knock him down.

Stalins (and in fact Soviet) Russia was very much a 'tribal' society. All the various ethnic groups were kept in check and forced to cooperate by fear, once the Soviet Union fell apart, they all went back to squabbling and fighting amongst themselves.

It seems that ISIS is worried about my predicted outcome right now as well. They're demanding that all other Sunni factions disarm or swear allegiance to their glorious Caliph. Not entirely sure how well that'll work out for them, but apparently there was a firefight between some ISIS members and some of the Baathists (Saddam's old lot) the other day near Kirkuk. The reports have varied over what it was (the ISIS lot trying to disarm the Baathists, or a fight over some fuel spoils), but it left seventeen dead, so clearly the Baathists aren't exactly okay with that.

Considering Mosul is currently under the governance of a Baathist general as well while the ISIS fighters push the front, they're going to need to be careful that they don't end up alienating their support network on the ground by pushing this too hard.

So its become Sunni insurgents vs. Sunni insurgents vs. Shiite Insurgents vs. Kurdish separatists vs. Iraqi Government?

Interesting on a good side

LONDON – Some 100 imams are urging British Muslims to refrain from traveling to Syria amid concerns that fighters will become radicalized.

The open letter issued Friday offered a unified voice by various religious factions, appealing to British Muslims to support those affected by the war in Syria and recent fighting in Iraq, but to do so "from the U.K. in a safe and responsible way."

The letter comes as concerns grow about home-grown terrorism. Fears about returning radicals have been heightened by a video released online that showed three men identified as British exhorting compatriots to come join the militants in Iraq.

U.K. authorities estimate as many as 500 Britons have traveled to Syria to fight, and that some may have crossed into Iraq.

The Islamic State is back in the news....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/03/world/meast/iraq-crisis-isis/

This time they defeated Kurdish Pesh-Merga (sp) and took a large Damn near Mosul. I had always heard that the Kurdish paa-militaries were pretty hardcore, so I'm a bit surprised that the realtively small ISIS beat them back.

Does nayone have more/better analysis of the region and its para-military forces?