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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So, in light of these events, anyone yet prepared to tell me what peace between ISIS and the rest of the world looks like? Especially when it seems that ISIS may be nothing more than an apocalypse cult
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/index.html

Ya, there is actually a more in depth article about their beliefs in The Atlantic. Goes into much more detail and actually interviews extremists in Australia and UK that support him. I'll link it if I can find it.

Here we go:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 LordofHats wrote:
No one is really paying attention to the profound displays of racism and (Godwin) Nazi like behavior

What is Godwin? I've seen that mentioned a couple of times here but don't recall seeing it anywhere else?

Computron wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
No one is really paying attention to the profound displays of racism and (Godwin) Nazi like behavior

What is Godwin? I've seen that mentioned a couple of times here but don't recall seeing it anywhere else?

Its safe to google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 Frazzled wrote:

Computron wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
No one is really paying attention to the profound displays of racism and (Godwin) Nazi like behavior

What is Godwin? I've seen that mentioned a couple of times here but don't recall seeing it anywhere else?

Its safe to google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Yeah, but it's just as easy to ask a question for what turns out to be a simple answer. Thanks for the reply too.

I linked because there's a cool history to it. I meant the link was safe to open in a NSFW context.

Looks like ISIS is stepping up on the creepy.

raq's ambassador to the United Nations asked the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to look at allegations that the Islamic State group is using organ harvesting as a way to finance its operations.

Ambassador Mohamed Alhakim told reporters that in the past few weeks, bodies with surgical incisions and missing kidneys or other body parts have been found in shallow mass graves.

"We have bodies. Come and examine them," he said. "It is clear they are missing certain parts."

He also said a dozen doctors have been "executed" in Mosul for refusing to participate in organ harvesting.

Alhakim briefed the council on the overall situation in Iraq and accused the Islamic State group of "crimes of genocide" in targeting certain ethnic groups.

The outgoing U.N. envoy to Iraq, Nikolay Mladenov, told the council that 790 people were killed in January alone by terrorism and armed conflict.

Mladenov noted the increasing number of reports and allegations that the Islamic State group is using organ harvesting as a financing method, but he said only that "it's very clear that the tactics ISIL is using expand by the day." He used an acronym for the group.

He said Iraq's most pressing goal is to win back the vast territory that the Islamic State group has seized in the past year. The Sunni militants seized a third of both Iraq and neighboring Syria and imposed strict Sharia law.

"Especially worrying is the increasing number of reports of revenge attacks committed particularly against members of the Sunni community in areas liberated from ISIL control," Mladenov said.

Organ harvesting has got to be one of the most disturbing ways to fund a terror campaign. At least the Taliban had the decency to just be petty drug dealers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I linked because there's a cool history to it. I meant the link was safe to open in a NSFW context.

I don't think the law works so well anymore though. As seen in my post, people are starting to get so aware of the law itself that they purposely invoke it XD

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Rather a lot like the "peace" with Somalia...International or American Navy taskforces patrolling the shores to guard against piracy. Border guards patrolling the land borders. The occasional Special Forces raid to rescue kidnapping victims. Punitive air raids whenever some militant group steps out of line and stirs gak up across the borders.

A failed state is a failed state. Contain it at the borders and don't let anything in or out.

Basically this. It is not in the immediate interests of the United States to get into yet another protracted land war in the Middle East. Frankly, we can't afford it, either financially or in the strength of our military forces (which, let's face it, after a 15 year war, are pretty worn thin). A unilateral effort of the UN, however, to contain IS, and to cut off any external communication with the outside world (to reduce its propaganda machine to near-total silence). Any activity against the containing forces is met with air strikes and off-shore artillery (when possible).

If it is true, as is claimed of them, that they're an apocalyptic death cult, then this is an organization that needs to be fought on several fronts, but not in the way we fought al-Qaeda. Fight their religious fervor with social and political responses, rather than positioning it as a neo-Crusade (because that is exactly the response they want), and crush their military with overwhelming firepower.

 Psienesis wrote:
A unilateral effort of the UN, however, to contain IS, and to cut off any external communication with the outside world (to reduce its propaganda machine to near-total silence). Any activity against the containing forces is met with air strikes and off-shore artillery (when possible).

That's been tried in the past. One thing the US did learn, in theory, from Vietnam was that you can't win by air-power and dominance of off shore waters alone.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So, in light of these events, anyone yet prepared to tell me what peace between ISIS and the rest of the world looks like? Especially when it seems that ISIS may be nothing more than an apocalypse cult
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/index.html

Ya, there is actually a more in depth article about their beliefs in The Atlantic. Goes into much more detail and actually interviews extremists in Australia and UK that support him. I'll link it if I can find it.

Here we go:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Thank you, that is a very interesting and insightful article.

Well, we didn't win Vietnam with infantry power, either, so not sure that conflict is a good example.

The thing with millennial cults (and ISIS is basically one) is that, barring an outside world to interact (violently) with, they tend to turn inwards and consume themselves. We can see this happening in similar extremist organizations, where suddenly there are "purity tests" that judge whether or not people within the organization are the "right" kind of people.

Deny ISIS the ability to spread further, and it has nowhere to turn but inwards... if, as has been suggested, this is an apocalyptic cult.

ISIS is basically the Islamic version of certain hardline, fundamentalist Christian sects, the sorts that won't wear blended fabrics, won't eat certain grains or meats, have weird segregationary practices and other sundry oddball practices. They follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, as it was originally written for the era in which it was written. Most Muslims don't practice their faith that strictly (just as most Christians don't follow the Old Testament all that strictly, either).

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, we didn't win Vietnam with infantry power, either, so not sure that conflict is a good example.

The thing with millennial cults (and ISIS is basically one) is that, barring an outside world to interact (violently) with, they tend to turn inwards and consume themselves. We can see this happening in similar extremist organizations, where suddenly there are "purity tests" that judge whether or not people within the organization are the "right" kind of people.

Deny ISIS the ability to spread further, and it has nowhere to turn but inwards... if, as has been suggested, this is an apocalyptic cult.

ISIS is basically the Islamic version of certain hardline, fundamentalist Christian sects, the sorts that won't wear blended fabrics, won't eat certain grains or meats, have weird segregationary practices and other sundry oddball practices. They follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, as it was originally written for the era in which it was written. Most Muslims don't practice their faith that strictly (just as most Christians don't follow the Old Testament all that strictly, either).

Unfortunately, in order to properly contain ISIS, we would need our own boots on the ground at this point. The Kurds don't have nearly enough man power themselves, and the Iraqi army is a damn joke, despite the best intentions & sacrifices made by the US to get them on their feet.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Well, we didn't win Vietnam with infantry power, either, so not sure that conflict is a good example.

The thing with millennial cults (and ISIS is basically one) is that, barring an outside world to interact (violently) with, they tend to turn inwards and consume themselves. We can see this happening in similar extremist organizations, where suddenly there are "purity tests" that judge whether or not people within the organization are the "right" kind of people.

Deny ISIS the ability to spread further, and it has nowhere to turn but inwards... if, as has been suggested, this is an apocalyptic cult.

ISIS is basically the Islamic version of certain hardline, fundamentalist Christian sects, the sorts that won't wear blended fabrics, won't eat certain grains or meats, have weird segregationary practices and other sundry oddball practices. They follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, as it was originally written for the era in which it was written. Most Muslims don't practice their faith that strictly (just as most Christians don't follow the Old Testament all that strictly, either).

Unfortunately, in order to properly contain ISIS, we would need our own boots on the ground at this point. The Kurds don't have nearly enough man power themselves, and the Iraqi army is a damn joke, despite the best intentions & sacrifices made by the US to get them on their feet.

Why?
Let Persia, er Iran annex Sunnistan. They will eventually anyway.
Give the Kurds 2,000 T55 tanks and Hind helicopters. Alternatively, Let Turkey take over Eastern Syria and Iraq.

Also... it sorta makes sense why the Obama administration is bending over backwards trying to resolve the Iranian Nuke issue (if that's a good idea, that's another discussion). Because, if that hurdle can be cleared, then we may have a tenuous ally (Iran) against ISIS.

The Kurds are not the legendary warrior tribe some make them out to be. Look how long it took them to run Da'Ish out of Kobani, even with US air support against an enemy with zero air and very little anti-air that could effect the sorties. Frankly, it was a less than impressive showing.

They may be better motivated than other forces in the region, but they are not ready to be The Boots On The Ground that is going to destroy Da'Ish any time soon.

 whembly wrote:
Also... it sorta makes sense why the Obama administration is bending over backwards trying to resolve the Iranian Nuke issue (if that's a good idea, that's another discussion). Because, if that hurdle can be cleared, then we may have a tenuous ally (Iran) against ISIS.

And if nothing else it should be good for another Iron Eagle plot.

Chappy flies again!

 nels1031 wrote:
Chappy flies again!

The British can send in Biggles too

 CptJake wrote:
The Kurds are not the legendary warrior tribe some make them out to be. Look how long it took them to run Da'Ish out of Kobani, even with US air support against an enemy with zero air and very little anti-air that could effect the sorties. Frankly, it was a less than impressive showing.

They may be better motivated than other forces in the region, but they are not ready to be The Boots On The Ground that is going to destroy Da'Ish any time soon.

It's more than anyone else has done.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The Kurds are not the legendary warrior tribe some make them out to be. Look how long it took them to run Da'Ish out of Kobani, even with US air support against an enemy with zero air and very little anti-air that could effect the sorties. Frankly, it was a less than impressive showing.

They may be better motivated than other forces in the region, but they are not ready to be The Boots On The Ground that is going to destroy Da'Ish any time soon.

It's more than anyone else has done.

That is not entirely accurate. Assad's forces have pushed them out of places, Hez brigades working for Assad have beaten them in Syria, other Syrian groups have pushed them out of places (though clearly there has been a lot of back and forth among all parties in Syria), Shia militia backed by Quds force guys have beaten them or at least held their own within Iraq, and if you want to go back to when they were AQI, US forces hammered the absolute gak out of them in Fallujah and Ramadi.

The Kurds are decent at defensive warfare and limited raids as long as they have massive US support. As I mentioned, they are better motivated (and to some extent better led) than other forces in the region. But if it took them as long as it did to beat Da'Ish in one town with the aid of US CAS, they frankly are not as good as some folks are making them out to be. Giving them more gear is not really the answer, they barely have the force structure to maintain security in Iraqi Kurdistan, to expect them to be capable of conducting offensive ops to clear Da'Ish out of the rest of Iraq or into Syria is silly. They are not capable of that.

Obama just used the word "terrorists" and clarified we are not at war with Islam but with Terrorist who twisted the meaning of Islamic Faith

The nerve of him.

 CptJake wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The Kurds are not the legendary warrior tribe some make them out to be. Look how long it took them to run Da'Ish out of Kobani, even with US air support against an enemy with zero air and very little anti-air that could effect the sorties. Frankly, it was a less than impressive showing.

They may be better motivated than other forces in the region, but they are not ready to be The Boots On The Ground that is going to destroy Da'Ish any time soon.

It's more than anyone else has done.

That is not entirely accurate. Assad's forces have pushed them out of places, Hez brigades working for Assad have beaten them in Syria, other Syrian groups have pushed them out of places (though clearly there has been a lot of back and forth among all parties in Syria), Shia militia backed by Quds force guys have beaten them or at least held their own within Iraq, and if you want to go back to when they were AQI, US forces hammered the absolute gak out of them in Fallujah and Ramadi.

The Kurds are decent at defensive warfare and limited raids as long as they have massive US support. As I mentioned, they are better motivated (and to some extent better led) than other forces in the region. But if it took them as long as it did to beat Da'Ish in one town with the aid of US CAS, they frankly are not as good as some folks are making them out to be. Giving them more gear is not really the answer, they barely have the force structure to maintain security in Iraqi Kurdistan, to expect them to be capable of conducting offensive ops to clear Da'Ish out of the rest of Iraq or into Syria is silly. They are not capable of that.

US support was only "massive" after the Kurds put up a good fight. They were told by the US that Kobane will fall, that it was inevitable.

I don't think anyone expects the Peshmerga to liberate all of Iraq and Syria but they are the best bet right now to hold onto the Kurdish part of Iraq which I'm sure is their goal.

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama just used the word "terrorists" and clarified we are not at war with Islam but with Terrorist who twisted the meaning of Islamic Faith

I suppose that it was differentiation that needed to be made, though how well it sticks in the Middle East is a good question.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


US support was only "massive" after the Kurds put up a good fight. They were told by the US that Kobane will fall, that it was inevitable.

I don't think anyone expects the Peshmerga to liberate all of Iraq and Syria but they are the best bet right now to hold onto the Kurdish part of Iraq which I'm sure is their goal.

Da'Ish convoys were targeted even as they began to move into Kobani and the surrounding areas. The sortie rate did pick up, but we were flying missions from day one, in fact even before the Pesh were decisively engaged. The targeting at that point was not conducted to stop/destroy Da'Ish but instead to hit some specific high value target sets (going for an operational/strategic effect vice a tactical CAS type effect). The focus did turn towards a CAS/support 'troops in contact' once the public outcry became too loud for the administration to ignore. (The Kurds have a VERY good public relations operation and can whip up support very effectively).

You may not expect the Kurds to be used as the boots on the ground, but I did not initially respond to you, I was responding to others I've seen in this topic (and in similar ones on other forums) calling to give the Pesh more gear (to include some mentioning tanks and other heavy gear). I've stated they are good at defending their territory. So we agree on that. The fact is though, that their territory is not the area where the real issues are.

There are reasons beyond capability (or lack there of) to NOT use the Kurds in other areas. They would not be welcome in Shia or Sunni dominate areas. Shia militias backed by Iran in particular would make a Pesh 'liberation' a difficult task. The Sunni areas would have some folks support Da'Ish over the Pesh, the rest likely just stay out of it to the extent they can.

My only real point is

The Kurds are not a good choice to be the Boots on the Ground to accomplish our stated goal of destroying Da'Ish. They are good in their areas, but just don't have the capability to go far outside Kurdish areas, and it would be very expensive and a long term (as in multi-year) prospect to try to grow that capability, and doing so comes with a hefty political cost as a vastly strengthened Peshmerga (which would pretty much have to come with a nation state of Kurdistan separate from Iraq) worries the Turks, the Iranians, and the Iraqis.

According to Marie Harf (US govt spokesidiot), the Islamic State can be stopped by providing the men with jobs.
Pretty sure many of them left jobs and university to join ISIS in the first place.

Computron wrote:
According to Marie Harf (US govt spokesidiot), the Islamic State can be stopped by providing the men with jobs.
Pretty sure many of them left jobs and university to join ISIS in the first place.

Oh I don't know about that. I bet there's plenty of work available as grave diggers.

No points for guessing who's graves they'll be digging.

Computron wrote:
According to Marie Harf (US govt spokesidiot), the Islamic State can be stopped by providing the men with jobs.
Pretty sure many of them left jobs and university to join ISIS in the first place.

Actually a surprisingly large number have joined at gunpoint. No real job issue there.

Yeah, this isn't being caused by a lack of jobs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama just used the word "terrorists" and clarified we are not at war with Islam but with Terrorist who twisted the meaning of Islamic Faith

I suppose that it was differentiation that needed to be made, though how well it sticks in the Middle East is a good question.

Yeah... no.

Obama really needs to stop making those statements because they only make him look like an idiot to the rest of the Muslim world.

ISIS is the true Islam, in the most strict and primitive interpretation of the religion, its like what Christianity would look like if you had a sect that followed the old testament to the letter.

Having a non-Muslim decrying ISIS as apostates by saying that they aren't true Muslims (one of the gravest offences that a Muslim could make), only helps bolster ISIS propaganda and makes it seem like the US is trying to but in in Islamic religious matters as well.

PhantomViper wrote:
its like what Christianity would look like if you had a sect that followed the old testament to the letter.

Wouldn't "Christians" strictly adhering to the Old Testament instead of the New Testament be a lot closer to Jewish than to Christian?