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.

**PhantomViper**

Dreadwinter wrote:

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right... How do you propose to actually do that then?

Dreadwinter wrote:

Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.

At what point do you consider it major damage?

No that didn't provoke you in to a long and costly war, your inept political leadership did that! The US could have gone to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban and all the Al-Qaeda fighters that it could find and then GTFO. All that was needed was a retaliation for the attack and a strong "don't mess with us or you all die" message, instead you decided to occupy a hostile country for 10+ years for some odd reason...

Do you wan't to know what I consider major damage to a country? What you guys did to Iraq. Almost all infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead. THAT is major damage. 9/11 caused major psychological damage to the US but in terms of actual casualties and economic damage, it was barely a pinprick.

**Ahtman**

PhantomViper wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?

You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.

**PhantomViper**

Ahtman wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?

You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Such as?

**Soladrin**

America, this is the perfect time to unveil any secret oribital weapons you may or may not have hanging around.

Seriously though, I think we are at a point now where we just wait and see if the middle east can sort itself. If in the end they don't, that's when we go in.

There is no way for the west to uproot ISIS without extreme levels of collatoral damage. If the middle east can sort itself, for once, we won't have (as many) fingers pointing to us(the west).

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?

You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Thats not being argued here. Frankly bombing someone = war. We're at war now.

**Dreadwinter**

PhantomViper wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!

So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right... How do you propose to actually do that then?

Dreadwinter wrote:

Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.

At what point do you consider it major damage?

No that didn't provoke you in to a long and costly war, your inept political leadership did that! The US could have gone to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban and all the Al-Qaeda fighters that it could find and then GTFO. All that was needed was a retaliation for the attack and a strong "don't mess with us or you all die" message, instead you decided to occupy a hostile country for 10+ years for some odd reason...

Do you wan't to know what I consider major damage to a country? What you guys did to Iraq. Almost all infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead. THAT is major damage. 9/11 caused major psychological damage to the US but in terms of actual casualties and economic damage, it was barely a pinprick.

Are you saying that without 9/11, our inept political leadership was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

**PhantomViper**

Dreadwinter wrote:

Are you saying that without 9/11, our inept political leadership was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

Afghanistan probably not, Iraq? You betcha. Junior was itching to "finish" what Bush Senior had started (I don't actually think anything needed finishing, I think that Bush Sr. understood the ramifications that eliminating Saddam would have had for the geopolitical situation in the ME and that is why he didn't actually depose him in 91), and the excuse that he used as a pretext for the invasion was pretty much independent from 9/11.

Of course you could also argue that without 9/11 and the rallying effect that it had in the US, Bush probably wouldn't even have been re-elected in the first place and that would be a valid argument as well, in which case who knows how the world would look today...

P.S.- Crap, double post.

**Easy E**

Back to ISIS and the latest video. This is an interesting take on why the change in Video delivery than we have seen in the past.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/11/abdul_rahman_kassig_executed_by_isis_the_former_american_army_ranger_and.html

Key part

After the Syrians die, three more minutes of historical narration follow. Then comes the final scene with the prized victim, Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known as Peter Kassig. Based on previous ISIS videos, you’re expecting Kassig, an American aid worker, to deliver a parting speech damning President Obama and the United States. Instead, all you get is Kassig’s corpse, mercifully edited out of the picture by SITE. The executioner, unable to extract any scripted words from Kassig, delivers the closing lecture himself. Kassig “doesn’t have much to say,” says the executioner, trying to pass off this disappointment as a triumph. “His previous cellmates have already spoken on his behalf.”

Why the botched ending? One theory is that ISIS was afraid to stage a long production out in the open, where U.S. drones or aircraft might see it. But if that had been ISIS’s concern, the execution could easily have been moved indoors. It’s also possible that Kassig died in custody before he could be decapitated, though in that case, it might be suicide. My bet is that Kassig, unlike the others, didn’t go quietly to his death. He wasn’t a journalist. He was an Army Ranger who had served in Iraq.

We may never know what happened. ISIS shows us only what it wants to show.

**Sir Arun**

In other (disturbing news), a city in Libya with approx- 200,000 inhabitants is now flying the black flag of ISIS and declared itself part of the caliphate. City is near Benghazi.

Just this summer I had seen a documentary of how the Libyan Transitional Government has now actually completely lost control of the country and is in fact hiding off shore on a Greek cruise ship.

The propaganda of ISIS expanding across all borders might not be so far fetched after all. In a couple months, Libya might just become an exclave.

**whembly**

Hagel! Get thee under the bus!
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Step Down

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down amid criticism of the president’s national security team on a series of global issues, including the threat posed by the militant group known as ISIS.

Senior defense officials confirmed to NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign.

The officials say the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon. According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.”

Another senior administration official said that Hagel has been discussing a departure from the White House "for several weeks."

"Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready," the official said. "Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola. In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time."

Multiple sources also said that Hagel was originally brought to the job to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, as the fight against the Islamic State ramped up, he was not as well matched for the post.

"Rather than winding down two wars, we’re winding up,” said one source close to Hagel and top Pentagon officials.

President Barack Obama is expected to make the announcement at the White House at 11:10AM ET. A successor will be named "in short order," an official said, but Hagel will stay in the job until his replacement is confirmed.

That replacement will not be named today, administration sources said, but possible nominees include: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy (who would be the first female Defense Secretary) and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B Carter.

Hagel, the only Republican on the president's national security team and the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the Department of Defense, has served in the job since February 2013. His tenure began with a shaky performance at his confirmation hearing in January of that year.

**Jihadin**

Putin just laughing and giggling his arse off tossing back victory shots of Vodka

**jhe90**

And now the hog has come. They will most likely learn quick why it is so feared and loved in equal measure.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852247/A-10-Warthogs-Reaper-drones-called-blast-ISIS-skies-U-S-Air-Force-s-feared-ground-attack-planes-strike-militant-targets-days.html

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Jihadin wrote:
Putin just laughing and giggling his arse off tossing back victory shots of Vodka

As I said before, I'm no Putin fan, but he seems to be the only world leader to have a sound, coherent foreign policy.

Russian interests threatened in Ukraine - Putin acts

Russian bases in Syria threatened - Putin acts

etc etc and slightly OT

With regard to ISIS, you would think the west, with all that money and advisors, could conjure up something similar. Hell, dakka could probably formulate better Middle Eastern policy than the Obama administration.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jhe90 wrote:
And now the hog has come. They will most likely learn quick why it is so feared and loved in equal measure.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852247/A-10-Warthogs-Reaper-drones-called-blast-ISIS-skies-U-S-Air-Force-s-feared-ground-attack-planes-strike-militant-targets-days.html

Fair point, but ISIS, like the Viet-Cong before them, have this annoying habit of not wearing uniforms and blending into civilian populations.

**PhantomViper**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Putin just laughing and giggling his arse off tossing back victory shots of Vodka

As I said before, I'm no Putin fan, but he seems to be the only world leader to have a sound, coherent foreign policy.

Russian interests threatened in Ukraine - Putin acts

Russian bases in Syria threatened - Putin acts

etc etc and slightly OT

With regard to ISIS, you would think the west, with all that money and advisors, could conjure up something similar. Hell, dakka could probably formulate better Middle Eastern policy than the Obama administration.

When ones foreign policy resumes itself to only act in our own self interest and completely disregard any and all international laws, it becomes easy to formulate coherent plans. I especially appreciate where you once again seem to be advocating that the US sends its own troops to fight and die in a foreign country for no apparent reason and at the same time, praise Putin for not doing the same thing...

And lets see how sound Russia's foreign policy is when Europe starts importing the majority of its gas from other places in about 5 years, especially if the Russian inflation continues to rise as much as it is rising, the Ruble continues its free fall and oil prices remain relatively low.

My guess in by the end of next year, Putin won't have enough money to keep its 70 year old planes taking trips to western Europe... again. Only this time he has burned the majority of his economic bridges. I wonder which country he will invade then to take his countrymen's attention away from their tanking economy?

**Torga_DW**

Oceania is being threatened by the evil forces of Eurasia, while the Eastasians stand helplessly by. If we all tighten our belts and work for the common good, Oceania may survive these troubled times.

I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east. Everything was rather smooth in comparison until iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and the usa decided to attack iraq.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Torga_DW wrote:
Oceania is being threatened by the evil forces of Eurasia, while the Eastasians stand helplessly by. If we all tighten our belts and work for the common good, Oceania may survive these troubled times.

I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east. Everything was rather smooth in comparison until iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and the usa decided to attack iraq.

The Orwellian reference is cute but misses the point - some people simply need to die, and these ISIS feths have earned their spot at the front of the line.

**Torga_DW**

They didn't earn their spot at the front of the line, they were bumped up from the rear when america attacked the ally that was keeping them in check. Much like america was against the evil syrians who were trying to keep the valiant rebels in check. Who were the valiant rebels again? Let me think. ISIL seems to ring a bell. The Orwellian reference is pertinent because american politicians use these self-created conflicts to do things that violate their own constitution in the name of protecting their citizens. Not blowing up the middle east and backstabbing allies for fun and profit would go much further towards protecting their citizens in the long run.

I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east.

**Hordini**

Torga_DW wrote:
They didn't earn their spot at the front of the line, they were bumped up from the rear when america attacked the ally that was keeping them in check. Much like america was against the evil syrians who were trying to keep the valiant rebels in check. Who were the valiant rebels again? Let me think. ISIL seems to ring a bell. The Orwellian reference is pertinent because american politicians use these self-created conflicts to do things that violate their own constitution in the name of protecting their citizens. Not blowing up the middle east and backstabbing allies for fun and profit would go much further towards protecting their citizens in the long run.

I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east.

You know there are more Syrian rebel groups than just ISIS right? The Free Syrian Army is more of a moderate/secular militia that has fought against both Assad and ISIS. The situation is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. And what ally did America attack that was keeping them in check?

**Torga_DW**

Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".

As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.

**reds8n**

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-iranian-f-4-phantoms-wade-into-the-anti-isis-1665411308

world gets stranger by the day.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Torga_DW wrote:
Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".

As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.

The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."

Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.

Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

**trexmeyer**

reds8n wrote:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-iranian-f-4-phantoms-wade-into-the-anti-isis-1665411308

world gets stranger by the day.

Are we cheering for the Iranians now?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

Isn't that a gross over simplification? IMO, they're (ISIS and other radical groups, not legitimate militaries and governments) are honest to god religious zealots that respect nothing "heathens and blasphemers" do whatsoever, and will gladly fight to their death for what they believe.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Torga_DW wrote:
As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the

Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea

), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.

You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)

**trexmeyer**

Shame on US for thinking we could change centuries old bias in under a decade. When has that ever worked?

**NuggzTheNinja**

trexmeyer wrote:
reds8n wrote:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-iranian-f-4-phantoms-wade-into-the-anti-isis-1665411308

world gets stranger by the day.

Are we cheering for the Iranians now?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

Isn't that a gross over simplification? IMO, they're (ISIS and other radical groups, not legitimate militaries and governments) are honest to god religious zealots that respect nothing "heathens and blasphemers" do whatsoever, and will gladly fight to their death for what they believe.

You could argue that they respect Islam, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate as they will kill you for being the wrong type of Muslim just as fast as they'll kill you for being a Christian or a Jew.

The only thing they appear to value is a very particular interpretation of their holy book. The only way to stop them is force.

**Sir Arun**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".

As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.

The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."

Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.

Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.

**Jihadin**

Seems one of Bagdadi wife and son been captured crossing a border

**NuggzTheNinja**

Sir Arun wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".

As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.

The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."

Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.

Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.

Using force to secure access to natural resources is not terrorism. Posts like this are one reason Dakka needs an "eye roll" emoticon.

**Ashiraya**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Sir Arun wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".

As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.

Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.

The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."

Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.

Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.

Using force to secure access to natural resources is not terrorism. Posts like this are one reason Dakka needs an "eye roll" emoticon.

**Torga_DW**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."

Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.

Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.

Never a truer word was spoken, although that applies to america more than anywhere else. America wants the oil so badly, it needs to conquer these oil-producing countries and make them part of america. Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea ), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.

You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)

You might want to re-read that wiki, because america was on the side of iraq. You tried to get a working *american* government setup there, the problem is iraq isn't america. What works in america doesn't always work in the rest of the world. And the difference between sunni and shia is a really big and important one as far as religions go.