ISIS

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.

**Jihadin**

Shopping was my reason after I got down marking containers to go to what vehicles that go to what units

**Peter Wiggin**

Its pretty simple really, they want to provoke the West into a ground war so that they can use the conflict to pull in more recruits.

ISIS is really the most perfect example of a right wing fascist group, just of the islamic persuasion. Their doctorinal viewpoints on legitimization of political violence and expansionist viewpoint on territory are enough to warrant that label, the ethno-religious atrocities just seal the deal.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
Hordini wrote:
It's kind of like why a lot of taxi drivers in Egypt don't wear seat belts.

I've done that

I think just about any US service-member who's been in the Sand Box for any period of time (that includes any time outside the wire) has done that

Jihadin wrote:Well......seem the next American to be executed is a former Army Ranger. This might not work in ISIS best interest

Yeah... I've the feeling that either Obama will be forced to do something with boots on the ground (at the least, probably some SOF groups to go in and just light whole gridsquares up) or some of these SOF types, or former SOF types will take serious offense and put in a DA-31 for a religious "pilgrimage" to "East Jerusalem"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Its pretty simple really, they want to provoke the West into a ground war so that they can use the conflict to pull in more recruits.

That plan will probably back fire... badly. If they get what they "want" we won't be going in there the same way we did with Iraq the second time. This will be an old fashioned ass-whoopin' and nothing more.

Right now, ISIS/ISIL is pulling in some decent numbers of recruits, but aside from some limited areas, aren't facing any true resistance. And as things tend to go, everyone wants to join the army in peace time... not quite as many people want to join when there's some real fighting going on.

**BaronIveagh**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

That plan will probably back fire... badly. If they get what they "want" we won't be going in there the same way we did with Iraq the second time. This will be an old fashioned ass-whoopin' and nothing more.

Right now, ISIS/ISIL is pulling in some decent numbers of recruits, but aside from some limited areas, aren't facing any true resistance. And as things tend to go, everyone wants to join the army in peace time... not quite as many people want to join when there's some real fighting going on.

We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.

**Experiment 626**

Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.

Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.

**Jihadin**

Canadian going in the line up for a beheading by ISIS

**adamsouza**

Jihadin wrote:
Well......seem the next American to be executed is a former Army Ranger. This might not work in ISIS best interest

Well, since they seem to be interested in dying in a holy war, this may speed up the process a bit.

**Jihadin**

Mission Creep in high gear

WASHINGTON — The U.S. has begun using Apache AH-64 attack helicopters to strike at ISIS targets inside Iraq, the first time the aircraft have been used for offensive strikes since arriving in Baghdad in early July.

Their use opens up a new capability in the airstrike campaign against ISIS in Iraq, but one that also comes with risks, as they could be vulnerable to ground fire.

A defense official confirms that Apache helicopters were used this weekend as part of four airstrikes on a large ISIS force northeast of Fallujah. The attack was conducted in coordination with Air Force fighter aircraft that supported the operation.

A press release by U.S. Central Command said the air strikes near Fallujah “struck two mortar teams, a large ISIL [ISIS] unit and two small ISIL units.”

The official confirmed that the strikes were the first use of the Apache helicopters that were deployed to Iraq in early July.

Several Apache helicopters were included in an additional deployment of several hundred U.S. military personnel sent to Baghdad o reinforce security at U.S. embassy facilities and access to the Baghdad Airport.

The deployment of the attack helicopters was intended to be defensive nature, but their offensive capabilities are now being used against ISIS. Any restrictions on their use for offensive purposes were presumably lifted in early September when President Obama announced that offensive air strikes could be used against ISIS targets.

Apache helicopters can be used to provide close air support for ground troops, but can also fire Hellfire missiles at enemy targets from several miles away. The use of long-distance sensors and missiles lessens the potential exposure to small arms fire the helicopters could face in a ground combat situation. The aircraft are still vulnerable to small arms and missile fire, however, and during the war in Iraq several were shot down by enemy fire.

The defense official said the strikes northeast of Fallujah were coordinated with Iraqi security forces to support their operations.

“It’s a capability we have, that they asked for, and that could contribute to their operations” the official said.

In recent weeks Iraqi security forces have struggled against ISIS forces that have attacked several cities in Anbar Province west of Baghdad. ISIS victories there could pose an even greater security threat to Iraq’s capital.

As of Friday the Pentagon said it had conducted 334 airstrikes against ISIS — 248 in Iraq and 86 airstrikes in Syria.

Iraq has used a limited number of Russian-made attack helicopters against ISIS and has long sought to acquire Apache helicopters. In January the Pentagon announced the potential sale to Iraq of 24 of the aircraft for $4.8 billion, but so far Iraq has not indicated it will purchase the aircraft.

[url]
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/u-s-now-using-apache-helicopters-to-attack-isis-in-iraq/[/url]

**Relapse**

Some interesting comments under the article about chances of SAR for downed pilots and the potential for the U.S going back in force.

**Ouze**

The Hind was a pretty hard copter, and there were quite a few of them shot down by the Mujahideen. So sending in Apaches is a bit dangerous where CSAR is politically and tactically difficult. I'm not sure how much political will America has for losing $35 million dollar helicopters and, presumably, the the 2 crew beheaded.

The limitations of a drone-only offensive seem to have revealed themselves pretty quickly.

**Ensis Ferrae**

BaronIveagh wrote:

We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.

I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.

**Ouze**

Well, wouldn't you? It works.

**Dreadclaw69**

Relapse wrote:
Some interesting comments under the article about chances of SAR for downed pilots and the potential for the U.S going back in force.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/04/us/marine-casualty-persian-gulf/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- A Marine lost at sea after bailing out of a MV-22 Osprey when it appeared it might crash in the Persian Gulf is believed to be the first American military casualty in support of U.S. operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Cpl. Jordan L. Spears, 21, was declared dead after search and rescue efforts to locate him were unsuccessful, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement released Saturday.

Asked how Spears death will be classified, Pentagon spokesman Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters the question was still being decided.

"Clearly, that squadron and that ship were in the Gulf, supporting Central Command operations. Some of those operations included operations in Iraq and Syria, at least tangentially, through at least some tangential way, support to those missions," Kirby said, according to a transcript.

White House condemns Henning's killing What will be ISIS' downfall? Sen. doesn't want U.S. leading ISIS fight

"So there's no question that -- that this Marine's death is related to the operations that are going on, in some form or fashion."

Even so, he said he did not know whether the Marine's death would be formally classified as such. The branch of service typically determines how a service member's death is classified.

The military has not detailed the Osprey's mission at the time of the incident, which remains under investigation.

The Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft, was deployed as part of the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group "supporting operations in Iraq and Syria and throughout the region," the statement said.

Spears, a crew chief, went missing Wednesday when the Osprey lost power shortly after takeoff from the USS Makin Island and dropped toward the water, according to the Navy.

Spears and another crew member went into the water when it appeared the Osprey was about to crash, the Navy said.

The pilots managed to get control of the Osprey and land it safely, according to the statement.

Search and rescue crews found one crew member in the water, but were unable to locate Spears of Memphis, Indiana, it said.

"U.S. forces in the North Persian Gulf suspended a search and rescue operation for Spears Oct. 2, after efforts to locate him were unsuccessful," according to the statement.

Spears was assigned to Marine Tiltrotor Squadron 163, Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Aircraft Wing with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
Well, wouldn't you? It works.

Well, see.... that doesn't really work. I'm something of a heathen, and as such running, or otherwise going away from a battle goes completely against any of my beliefs.

Apparently some of these guys think that hiding from the US military will a) save them, and b) still get them their 72 virgins.

**Ouze**

Well, they don't need to hide for very long. 2, 3 months? Then pop up, do a few beheadings, repeat.

**Bromsy**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.

I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.

There really isn't a way to deter individuals from doing crap by using individual retaliation when they really don't care about themselves.

There isn't an effective way to combat the sort of radicalized violence we've been seeing, really, without becoming more 'barbaric' than we are willing to in either the short or the long term.

**Grey Templar**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

We'll see. I believe they're a serious threat, however, and not just to civilians. Early on, they were a threat few took seriously (achem), but now the fact is they're winning. This isn't just bringing fighters, it brings them foreign backers, and intel in the region.

I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.

You know what you do with Prairie Dogs? Or rats? Dump some gasoline down their holes and toss in a match.

**BaronIveagh**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I agree that they are more of a threat than had been earlier afforded them.... Ultimately, I don't think it'll matter much if the US send legit ground forces in to take out ISIS/ISIL, because many of the fighters that are a part of the ISIS army (or whatever you want to call it) are the same kind of idiots that we were dealing with in Iraq. As in, once someone with real fighting knowledge shows up, they kind of go prairie dog on us, as opposed to actually standing up to the very people they call weak.

Depends. I think that they're moving to more 'army' and less 'insurgency'. The Syrians and Iraqis both have had a lot of US and Russian armor captured, and most of it has yet to be accounted for. Call me paranoid, but I suspect ISIS high command has been showing us what we expect to see. They seem a lot better organized and led than the Iraqi insurgency or, and Jihadin might dispute this, the Taliban. Their blitz into Iraq as well timed and well planned, and swelled their ranks with US trained soldiers officers and US made gear to supplement the already sizable assets they seized from Assad. There are two items on the list of missing that deeply disturb me, Iraqi copies of the US M687 binary chemical dispersal shells and a few US M109A5s plus some M198s. That gives them a sarin dispersal system, but not the binary agents.

They used an interesting combination of insurgent and US tactics as they did so. I liked the fact they rigged Mosul dam, and am glad they did not have time to use that hole card, it would have caused horrendous damage all down the Tigris, like the Johnstown flood on Steroids.

So far the Peshmerga have made some gains, but to isolate ISIS and cut off their lines of supply we're going to need something more substantial. The Kurds have their own armor and artillery, but they''re struggling to make progress.

**sarpedons-right-hand**

I'm in Istanbul at the moment on work/pleasure and all the talk here is about ISIL taking control of a town on the Syria/Turkey border. Apparently the Kurds are pissed because the Turkish govt, although sending tanks and choppers to the area, have so far done Jack to help them fight ISIL..

Seems they are just waiting for the ISIL footsloggers to set foot on Turkish soil before invoking article 5 and going in full bore....

We shall see. It's strange to be in a country that's seemingly about to go to war, but physically so far away from it that even watching it on the news makes it seem further away than it really is. (Around 20 hours by car...)

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
I'm in Istanbul at the moment on work/pleasure and all the talk here is about ISIL taking control of a town on the Syria/Turkey border. Apparently the Kurds are pissed because the Turkish govt, although sending tanks and choppers to the area, have so far done Jack to help them fight ISIL..

Seems they are just waiting for the ISIL footsloggers to set foot on Turkish soil before invoking article 5 and going in full bore....

We shall see. It's strange to be in a country that's seemingly about to go to war, but physically so far away from it that even watching it on the news makes it seem further away than it really is. (Around 20 hours by car...)

Been watching this on Al Jazeera as well. Some key points:

1) Turkey reluctant to help Kurds for historical reasons.

2) Iraqi city of Hit, was subject to air-strikes and at least 30 civilians killed.

3) Reports coming in that ISIL possess some decent AA assets. Unconfirmed to what these are, but with US helicopters getting involved, we may find out sooner or later.

4) As usual, Britain commits to action, and then days later, we're warned that we're running out of missiles/ammo for the jets. Same old story there

**Frazzled**

The Turks are waiting because there's no reason for them to do anything.

Any evidence at all that ANY of the strikes hav been by non US/European aircraft since Day 1? The usual suspsect countries have gone back to their usual suspect ways of doing nothing. Its a sad day when the ones doing anything are the freaking Iranians.

Arm the Kurds and stay out of it.

**BaronIveagh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

3) Reports coming in that ISIL possess some decent AA assets. Unconfirmed to what these are, but with US helicopters getting involved, we may find out sooner or later.

I know the Syrians are supposedly missing a few BUKs, which we saw so recently in the Ukraine. They're old school, but effective enough against helos. US jets might not have a problem, but they could mess up an A-10 with a close enough hit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
The Turks are waiting because there's no reason for them to do anything.

Any evidence at all that ANY of the strikes hav been by non US/European aircraft since Day 1? The usual suspsect countries have gone back to their usual suspect ways of doing nothing. Its a sad day when the ones doing anything are the freaking Iranians.

Arm the Kurds and stay out of it.

UAE has been. The Turks are sitting back because a few in authority are making money selling oil from ISIS controlled areas in Syria to the US. The old label swap shell game.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I know the Syrians are supposedly missing a few BUKs, which we saw so recently in the Ukraine. They're old school, but effective enough against helos. US jets might not have a problem, but they could mess up an A-10 with a close enough hit.

That's what I like about Al-Jazeera - old school journalism that actually asks questions, and the questions being asked are: what exactly did ISIL get their hands on?

That's pretty disturbing what you've written about the A-10, I thought those things were near invincible.

**Frazzled**

Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)

How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)

How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?

According to what I've read, quite a few are either Saddam, Assad, or trained by the coalition in the new Iraq army.

Let's not forget that experience of warfare is a great trainer, and as these ISIL troops are both fanatical, and battle hardened, they won't be a push over.

Been watching rolling Al-Jazeera reports all day. The Kurds in Kobane are putting up a good fight, but the lack of heavy weapons is hamstringing them. Air-strikes seem to be ineffective due to it being a built up area, and the Turkish army is sitting on its ass!

ISIL's forces on the other hand, have the heavy weapons, and to the surprise of observers, have been calling down disciplined artillery strikes...

I'm no military expert and I'm sure other people could help me out, but wouldn't targeting ISIL's artillery support be a priority, unless it's mobile and sneaky at hiding.

**Frazzled**

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for thermobaric bombs...

Or just stay out. Even if we win, what will the "winners" do?

**Hordini**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)

How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?

According to what I've read, quite a few are either Saddam, Assad, or trained by the coalition in the new Iraq army.

Let's not forget that experience of warfare is a great trainer, and as these ISIL troops are both fanatical, and battle hardened, they won't be a push over.

Been watching rolling Al-Jazeera reports all day. The Kurds in Kobane are putting up a good fight, but the lack of heavy weapons is hamstringing them. Air-strikes seem to be ineffective due to it being a built up area, and the Turkish army is sitting on its ass!

ISIL's forces on the other hand, have the heavy weapons, and to the surprise of observers, have been calling down disciplined artillery strikes...

I'm no military expert and I'm sure other people could help me out, but wouldn't targeting ISIL's artillery support be a priority, unless it's mobile and sneaky at hiding.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Who trained them. BUKs can't fire themselves (right?)

How many ISIS are former Hussein, or even better, former IRaqi Army that we trained?

BUK's modular. You can have one launcher, or several launchers slaved to one command unit, and several command units meshed together into a larger network. The button can be pressed at any level of command. It just takes a target being designated as hostile by IFF. Then it's SAM city.

BUK can pack a punch, depending on what missiles are loaded into it.. The Russians thoughtfully just passed out their latest and greatest SAMs and ASM to their pal Assad, who promptly lost them, so we could be talking about equivalent to being hit by the RIM-66 that's part of the armament of the Ticonderoga class cruiser. They have a 95% Kill probability with just one SAM. They also handed off Onyx, making Syria one of the few countries to have that particular toy. It's a heavy ASM designed to take out US fleet carriers. The Syrians took delivery of 72 of them, but the Israelis took out some of the launchers. If any are in the hands of Isis, God only knows.

Hordini wrote:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.

I think the issue was them calling down the strikes in real time, as opposed to planned barrages. This suggests advanced communications gear is in use with a solid command and control structure. Further, and more worrying, they may have that same capability now as well, since they're using a lot of US gear, with US trained gunners and commanders.

**Hordini**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Hordini wrote:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised they are capably of calling down artillery strikes. It's not that difficult to do. The only reason they couldn't really do it well in Iraq and Afghanistan outside of small mortar strikes is because we have very effective counter-battery and CAS capability. Their artillery assets I'm certain are a priority in terms of targets, and judging from the YouTube videos we've already blown up some, but it's difficult to get them all with limited air strikes, especially considering you can hide them in garages.

I think the issue was them calling down the strikes in real time, as opposed to planned barrages. This suggests advanced communications gear is in use with a solid command and control structure. Further, and more worrying, they may have that same capability now as well, since they're using a lot of US gear, with US trained gunners and commanders.

You don't need advanced communications gear to call for fire, either pre-planned strikes or on the fly, unless you consider radios to be advanced communications gear. You do have to know what you're doing, but it's not that difficult, particularly when (as you note), you have US-trained personnel and your opponent lacks effective counter-battery/CAS capabilities. And of course, any US equipment that they have stolen from Iraqi arsenals only makes it worse.

**Bobthehero**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Looks like Canada is finally getting in on the fight & is going to be sending 6 CF-18's, a refueling jet and a large transport plane to join the fight, along with roughly 600 personal for at least a 6 month mission.

Parliament votes on Monday, but as the Conservatives have a house majority, the bill will pass easily.
It's just embarrassing as feth the stance of the Liberal party... (basically mocking the entire situation as Harper just wanting to "whip out our CF-18's and show off how big they are.") Apparently Tru-durp missed the memos about ISIS beheading children or burying them alive for kicks & giggles.

Yup, bill just passed as I am typing this.