Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Cyrisnia]

"Welcome to the AntiChrist Idol Finale! Tonight it boils down to deciding who between Barack Hussein Obama and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will become the One and Only Seed of the Serpent!"

We already went over this, the IS was created by Obama's subordinates Hillary Clinton and the Mossad reptillians to justify the recolonization of the Middle East.

fixed

[Limborg]

Again, those few hundred men are still no match for the tens of thousends of men that ISIS has. that's the whole point of it.
And no, UK/US special forces don't have that much of combat experience, especially if you compare them with the Quds forces for example.

The last line says it all, they are good at hunting down people, but not armies. armies battle against armies. You can take down their leaders, but others will replace them. And hell, if these special forces of you where so good, and the CIA would have all the info, then why weren't they able to find that American that was killed by ISIS? they looked for him but didn't find him. Ah that's right, becouse they don't know that much as one would hope they would.

So lets address all the issues with this statement, because we need to understand that Task Force Black, is the best option for fighting ISIS.

those few hundred men are still no match for the tens of thousends of men that ISIS has

In no way is TF Black going to risk valuable operators taking out grunts. Its the same reason since the Roman era, you take out the commanders. Napoleonic era, British rifleman shot officers. Today, we take out leaders. Mindless grunts are mindless, that's why their useless unless there is someone controlling them. As such, when you say these few hundred men can't doing anything against ISIS' massed forces, you're entirely right. But what good are those masses without command and control?

UK/US special forces don't have that much of combat experience

This is just a blatant mistruth. Firstly, Delta, DEVRGU, and the SAS (which was founded in 1941, *poof* there goes your experience rebuttal) have been operating in the Middle East since the 90s, and have been heavily involved with COIN in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and East Africa (which has cultural and geographic similarities to much of the Middle East). As such, we have seen them change from Charlie Sheen's Navy SEALs of old into the lean, mean Zero Dark Thirty machine we know today. As for the ethnic Kurds, who do you think has been training them as of late? And during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the ongoing Iraq War.

Remembering that the Kurds themselves have been doing a fantastic, bang-up job of mauling ISIS, but in no way are they going to survive without SOF intervention.

So as for experience, I don't think anyone outside the JSOC / NATOSOF umbrella has more experience than these teams forming TF Black when it comes to COIN operations.

they are good at hunting down people, but not armies. armies battle against armies

I remember Iraq. I remember Afghanistan. I have read about Vietnam. ISIS is not an army, its an insurgency with a lot of funding and weapons. Armies don't fight insurgents. They aren't built for that kind of 4th Generation Warfare. SOF is. End of story.

You can take down their leaders, but others will replace them.

And you kill. Kill again. And again. How many leaders are they going to keep propping up if they realize they are going to be dragged weeping from their beds at 3AM by an angry British paratrooper whilst more pin their families to the concrete floor? Or annihilated by a drone? Or shot in the daylight by an SFOD raid? There is a reason that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden hide. It is because they are afraid. But we still find them.

And hell, if these special forces of you where so good, and the CIA would have all the info, then why weren't they able to find that American that was killed by ISIS?

The amount of radio and ELINT traffic pouring out of Syria is tremendous. There is a whole war going on there. Try finding one guy in a basement who is meant to be hidden. Finding leaders is different, because ISIS can't not use electronics if they want to thrive. Therefore, finding IS leadership is easier.

Oh, and heads up, they tired on several occasions but hit dry holes. Link.

So to conclude the rant:

• The Kurds are the faction to arm and support, but with backing they'll collapse. Its a time game and ISIS has more of that resource.
• TF Black has the experience and material necessary to take on the deconstruction of IS leadership.
• IS is not an army, its an insurgency. Would you consider the Taliban an army?
• Obama and Cameron have pledged not to deploy regular, or conventional forces. Because of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. We have learned.
• IS as a whole is controlled by a select few, as the low-level initiative and leadership has no leeway. That is why if you took apart a Marine Regiment, starting at its Colonel, you could get right down to a Corporal. Because Western armies promote leadership and low-level initiative. ISIS controls what are essentially Muslim terror droves. Telling them where to go, who to kill, and filming it all.

Woops, forgot to rebut some earlier statements.

Still, if the US is going to play the "leader" of the "coalition", then we all know that it isn't going to end well, the US is a pile of crap when we talk aobut wars, they never fully finished or even won a war without messing up the entire country.

*cough* Gulf War *cough*. You know, a coalition. Led by the United States. Finished it. Won it. And yeah, they messed up Iraq, militarily. Was like Muhammad Ali fighting a frickin toddler after the air campaign. Iraq still had Saddam afterwards, by the way, so the government was destroyed, which meant they didn't mess up the country. Actually just finished Schwarzkopf's biography, and a main Coalition objective was to prevent the collapse of Iraq, but to destroy its military capability.

The only way to finish this extremist wave over the middle-east is a cooperation between the regional nations, nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, we must trust those mature, self-governing and stable Middle Eastern nations with the fate of a crucial part of the world petroleum infrastructure. Sure, bud. The reason the West meddles in the Middle East is because they Middle East can't be trusted with the West's vested interests.

1. That's your opinion, but its also bs. Task Force Black has never defeated a terrorist organization, it never even managed to turn the tide in a war with terrorism. So again, how can you belive that they are the "best" for such things while they never achieved anything big on those fields?

2. Have you seen how such things work? They just get replaced by someone else.

3. First of all, battle experience doesn't count for a whole unit, but for a person. And no, they don't have that much battle experience, there are multiple groups who have way more battle experience, groups that changed the tide in a war (look at Iraq and Syria with IS). groups that actually know how to combat terrorists like IS on both small scale as full scale. And no, this Task Force Black of yours isn't the one that knows such things.
Again, learn about the Quds forces who are actually in charge of Syria and Iraq at the moment, they have a thousend times more knowledge on these matters then any task force wether you like it or not.
Who do you think that changed the tide in Syria? Who do you think changed the tide in Iraq? It sure weren't any Task forces or other western military people. You clearly overestimate western special forces and underestimate special forces of other countries.

4. Haha, no. Armies do battle insurgents, have you watched the news lately? if you did, you would know. Anyhow, you basicly claim that these task forces are going to reconquer Mosul and Ar-Raqqah with just a handfull of men, wich is just redicilous.

5. And you know what happens in that time that your task forces have to kill and to kill? Ah yes, insurgencies only increase, they grow like cancer and spread like cancer. people will replace them again and again. Its an endless circle with no use at all.
Drones are useless, proven and all...
All terrorist groups are hiding in one way, and that's not becouse of your special forces, that's becouse they don't want to meet an army on their doorstep to whipe them out.

6. You only confirm that they aren't as good as you want them to be.

7. "The Kurds are the faction to arm and support"? there are many factions that should be armed and supported, not just the Kurds.
"•TF Black has the experience and material necessary to take on the deconstruction of IS leadership" Again, taking out leaders isn't going to end the problem in any possible way.
"•IS is not an army, its an insurgency. Would you consider the Taliban an army?" Army = insurgency. Just a matter of the way you fight.
"•Obama and Cameron have pledged not to deploy regular, or conventional forces. Because of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. We have learned." The thing you learned that another US/UK invasion would only make the problem worse, this only becouse the two fight like crap and ruin a whole country and its people, increasing the amount of terrorists.
"•IS as a whole is controlled by a select few, as the low-level initiative and leadership has no leeway. That is why if you took apart a Marine Regiment, starting at its Colonel, you could get right down to a Corporal. Because Western armies promote leadership and low-level initiative. ISIS controls what are essentially Muslim terror droves. Telling them where to go, who to kill, and filming it all." So? IS leadership gets replaced remember.

8. Wow, you found one single war where the US didn't screw up, you want a nobel prize now? Serious? again, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Or go even further into dept without actually coalitions: Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria.
So again, the US as a "leader" is one of the worst things that one can do, they messed up 90% of their wars in every possible way.

9. Haha, yeah right, dream on kid. If there's one country in the world that cannot be trusted its the US to say at least. So no, that bs of yours isn't going to work here.

Conspiracy theorists claim Hillary Clinton helped to create ISIS.

Not saying that the US or anyone from the US created it, but the US did helped/supported it, just like many other nations.

[Connori Pilgrims]

-snips-

The only interesting thing I've found in the above exchange is this:

"Again, learn about the Quds forces who are actually in charge of Syria and Iraq at the moment, they have a thousend times more knowledge on these matters then any task force wether you like it or not."

Source please? No seriously I want to see where you get this assertion. All the publicly available information on Quds Force only highlights their alleged activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Syria. While they are no doubt an active force, being after all one of the few policy tools available to Iran to actually do anything on the world stage, this does not in anyway say they are "a thousand times" more knowledgable at anything any more than US/UK special forces units which have indeed been involved in just as many if not even more operations in the last few decades.

So by all means do enlighten us with your credible sources that we may come to understand your very amusing opinion.

[The Laxus Union]

Another conflict based purely on religion. What a shocker.

There are more wars over land and money than there are over religion. Not even the Gaza conflict is religious, it's all a war over land. In fact, most wars in the Middle East aren't religious. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? Land. US invasion of Iraq? Government and possibly oil. 6 Days War? Land. Syrian Civil War? Government.

ISIS and the Crusades are the only major instances of religious violence in the Middle East that I know of.

I understand people.

[Limborg]

-snips-

The only interesting thing I've found in the above exchange is this:

"Again, learn about the Quds forces who are actually in charge of Syria and Iraq at the moment, they have a thousend times more knowledge on these matters then any task force wether you like it or not."

Source please? No seriously I want to see where you get this assertion. All the publicly available information on Quds Force only highlights their alleged activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Syria. While they are no doubt an active force, being after all one of the few policy tools available to Iran to actually do anything on the world stage, this does not in anyway say they are "a thousand times" more knowledgable at anything any more than US/UK special forces units which have indeed been involved in just as many if not even more operations in the last few decades.

So by all means do enlighten us with your credible sources that we may come to understand your very amusing opinion.

I'll get you sources once you corrected those mistakes of a four year old there. Or, try and follow up on the subject for a change.

[The Lone Alliance]

Again why I said we should only keep up the air war, let the local fighters handle the civilians since they obviously know the culture better then many American soldiers.

Aerial sorties contribute significantly to "our" poor image in middle eastern nations.

You mean the Middle East nations supporting these Aerial sorties?

Do you actually seem to think that having the US stand aside while ISIS murders everyone who isn't them will improve the US's image?

So, too, does "our" tendency to hip fire reactionary sanctions on offensive regimes. Both aerial sorties and sanctions adversely affect the population of a targeted nation rather than the offending government.

The only people left in ISIS lands are ISIS member and supporters because ISIS has killed or driven everyone else off.
No one cares if they die.

If America wants to weigh in on the conflict here discussed then I'd council humanitarian aide ONLY. No military activity.

In other words you want to allow ISIS to murder everyone in order to improve the US's image in the eyes of... ISIS.

No, kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

[Landenburg]

I see these things happening;

>america joins war
"o my god america you're a war mongerer you just want the oil!" - the whole world

>america leaves/never joins war
"o my god america you're number one you have to defend us and our rights and democracy!" - the whole world

[The Lone Alliance]

I see these things happening;

>america joins war
"o my god america you're a war mongerer you just want the oil!" - the whole world

That's not happening though, and if it did, the US should just revoke all foreign aid to those nations.

Lets see the 3rd world cry about those evil Americans when they know their check from America is going to get cut in response.

>america leaves/never joins war
"o my god america you're number one you have to defend us and our rights and democracy!" - the whole world

It'll be Rwanda all over again.

[Landenburg]

I see these things happening;

>america joins war
"o my god america you're a war mongerer you just want the oil!" - the whole world

That's not happening though, and if it did, the US should just revoke all foreign aid to those nations.

Lets see the 3rd world cry about those evil Americans when they know their check from America is going to get cut in response.

I can already hear the UN crying

[Limborg]

I see these things happening;

>america joins war
"o my god america you're a war mongerer you just want the oil!" - the whole world

>america leaves/never joins war
"o my god america you're number one you have to defend us and our rights and democracy!" - the whole world

1) Most countries can do perfectly without US aid.
2) Nope, never happend and will never happen.

[New Frenco Empire]

I see these things happening;

>america joins war
"o my god america you're a war mongerer you just want the oil!" - the whole world

>america leaves/never joins war
"o my god america you're number one you have to defend us and our rights and democracy!" - the whole world

"Obama doesn't have a backbone! There are people dying over in Iraq! We need to go back!"

*airstrikes declared against ISIS*

"Obama is a warmonger. And the liberals call the GOP warlike..."

[Pope Joan]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

[Limborg]

US ISIS fighter killed in Syria
Indian ISIS fighter killed in Iraq

Lets hope more will follow.

[Limborg]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

Shitty timing with that crap now that the world stands behind Assad.

[The New Sea Territory]

[conservative]Gosh! Obama! ISIS is YOUR Fault! Bomb Them![/conservative]

*Obama launches bombings*

[conservative]Gosh! Obama! Stop being wimpy! Go bomb ISIS already!!![/conservative]

[The Black Forrest]

[conservative]Gosh! Obama! ISIS is YOUR Fault! Bomb Them![/conservative]

*Obama launches bombings*

[conservative]Gosh! Obama! Stop being wimpy! Go bomb ISIS already!!![/conservative]

Almost right.

[conservative]ISIS is an abomination! Our weak President should be doing something![/conservative]

*Obama orders strikes*

[conservative]Look at that warhawk! He is out of control![/conservative]

[Geilinor]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

I thought the usual accusation against NPR and BBC was "liberal public media bias, the Democrats/Labour controls it!"

[Limborg]

After hearing many depressing stories about the situation in Amerli, positive news has come at last. Iraqi forces and Shia militias are preparing to break the siege

[The Lone Alliance]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

I thought the usual accusation against NPR and BBC was "liberal public media bias, the Democrats/Labour controls it!"

Apparently Pope Joan believes NPR and BBC are now right wing because they are advocating intervention, at least that's what I'm getting.

I didn't know pacifism was a requirement to be liberal.

[Spestis]

1. That's your opinion, but its also bs. Task Force Black has never defeated a terrorist organization, it never even managed to turn the tide in a war with terrorism. So again, how can you belive that they are the "best" for such things while they never achieved anything big on those fields?

2. Have you seen how such things work? They just get replaced by someone else.

3. First of all, battle experience doesn't count for a whole unit, but for a person. And no, they don't have that much battle experience, there are multiple groups who have way more battle experience, groups that changed the tide in a war (look at Iraq and Syria with IS). groups that actually know how to combat terrorists like IS on both small scale as full scale. And no, this Task Force Black of yours isn't the one that knows such things.
Again, learn about the Quds forces who are actually in charge of Syria and Iraq at the moment, they have a thousend times more knowledge on these matters then any task force wether you like it or not.
Who do you think that changed the tide in Syria? Who do you think changed the tide in Iraq? It sure weren't any Task forces or other western military people. You clearly overestimate western special forces and underestimate special forces of other countries.

4. Haha, no. Armies do battle insurgents, have you watched the news lately? if you did, you would know. Anyhow, you basicly claim that these task forces are going to reconquer Mosul and Ar-Raqqah with just a handfull of men, wich is just redicilous.

5. And you know what happens in that time that your task forces have to kill and to kill? Ah yes, insurgencies only increase, they grow like cancer and spread like cancer. people will replace them again and again. Its an endless circle with no use at all.
Drones are useless, proven and all...
All terrorist groups are hiding in one way, and that's not becouse of your special forces, that's becouse they don't want to meet an army on their doorstep to whipe them out.

6. You only confirm that they aren't as good as you want them to be.

7. "The Kurds are the faction to arm and support"? there are many factions that should be armed and supported, not just the Kurds.
"•TF Black has the experience and material necessary to take on the deconstruction of IS leadership" Again, taking out leaders isn't going to end the problem in any possible way.
"•IS is not an army, its an insurgency. Would you consider the Taliban an army?" Army = insurgency. Just a matter of the way you fight.
"•Obama and Cameron have pledged not to deploy regular, or conventional forces. Because of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. We have learned." The thing you learned that another US/UK invasion would only make the problem worse, this only becouse the two fight like crap and ruin a whole country and its people, increasing the amount of terrorists.
"•IS as a whole is controlled by a select few, as the low-level initiative and leadership has no leeway. That is why if you took apart a Marine Regiment, starting at its Colonel, you could get right down to a Corporal. Because Western armies promote leadership and low-level initiative. ISIS controls what are essentially Muslim terror droves. Telling them where to go, who to kill, and filming it all." So? IS leadership gets replaced remember.

8. Wow, you found one single war where the US didn't screw up, you want a nobel prize now? Serious? again, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Or go even further into dept without actually coalitions: Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria.
So again, the US as a "leader" is one of the worst things that one can do, they messed up 90% of their wars in every possible way.

9. Haha, yeah right, dream on kid. If there's one country in the world that cannot be trusted its the US to say at least. So no, that bs of yours isn't going to work here.

1. TF Black is tasked with killing, and disrupting terrorist cells within the northern Middle-East, no doubt they have destroyed several low-key organizations. Why haven't we heard any? Well... truthfully it is because it is mostly made up by personnel from the US Army, who keeps a tight leash around their operational record. Why do you think JSOC went ahead with using DEVGRU when SFOD was available?

2. And then they get killed and replaced, so on so-forth. The intended effect however, is to demoralize the enemy to cease fighting. Keep in mind that whenever a leader get's killed, their subordinates lose plenty of morale. The way you keep playing it off as nothing would change if Ibrahim was killed as IS would simply replace him is a very strawman argument. Keep in mind Ibrahim has proclaimed himself to be the descendant of prophet Muhammad, it will not be easy for them to replace him.

3. You keep saying that Quds Force is some sort of Jesus in the Special Operations community, yet you have failed to give out credible sources, and instead proclaimed "I'll get you sources once you corrected those mistakes of a four year old there. Or, try and follow up on the subject for a change.". Either A.) Give out credible, sensible, sources of the information you have claimed or B.) Cease claiming about something that has no external source whatsoever.

4. Yes, armies do battle insurgencies, but at great costs. Look at Ukraine for example, government forces are taking a huge beating fighting the insurgency in east Ukraine. That classical, strong-arm, conventional tactic will not work in reality. The initial stages of the Invasion of Afghanistan was entirely fought by SOF (with Northern Alliance help) and airstrikes, and within months they toppled the the Taliban government with little casualties.

5. Read 2 again, the more high-ranking people they lose, the more demoralized they become, the first few would likely be martyrs, but the general ranks will realize soon enough the futility of fighting as each leader is slain one by one.

6. This is an acceptable fact of intelligence, that you are bound to be misinformed at some point. Everyone has encountered it, even your Quds Force.

7. I'm not going to explain what I wrote in 2 and 5 again. An army is a structured organization that has ranks and clear leaders. An insurgency is an irregular force composed primarily of paramilitary personnel with usually very few identifiable leaders; an army is not an insurgency.

8. Kosovo, The Former Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, Korea, Post-WWII Japan. Instability is to be expected when one country invades another, it is up to the invaded country however to have the desire to change.

9. Well I wouldn't really trust North Korea or Turkmenistan, but whatever floats your boat kid.

Sources:
http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... 69,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washi ... ref=slogin

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 0276832001

http://sofrep.com/36631/islamic-calipha ... w-taliban/

"American Spartan: The Promise, the Mission, and the Betrayal" - Ann Scott tyson

"One Bullet Away" - Lt. Nathaniel Fick

"THE INSURGENTS: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War" - Fred Kaplan

"Counterinsurgency: FM 3-24" - Lt. Gen. David Petraeus (USA) and Gen. James Amos (USMC)

[The Black Forrest]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

NPR is right wing?

Does that mean the republicans are going to stop trying to defund it?

BBC is right wing?

[Blakk Metal]

The UN today published the results of an investigation which soundly criticized ISIS and the Islamic State. The right-leaning NPR (formerly liberal) public radio (and BBC which has become quite right wing as well) characterized the report with headers and lead paragraphs which said, ignoring the content of their story, "UN condemns Syrian government for atrocities".

NPR is right wing?

Does that mean the republicans are going to stop trying to defund it?

BBC is right wing?

Dude's probably butthurt that the media is starting to target the real thugs.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Just an observation, but i think its interesting how many times the Obama administration (and the Mainstream media) has tried to rename these creeps... how about we just stick to one.

[Geilinor]

Just an observation, but i think its interesting how many times the Obama administration (and the Mainstream media) has tried to rename these creeps... how about we just stick to one.

ISIS is renaming itself, not the media.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Just an observation, but i think its interesting how many times the Obama administration (and the Mainstream media) has tried to rename these creeps... how about we just stick to one.

ISIS is renaming itself, not the media.

So we must follow suit? how about we scrap it and call them what they are "those damned terrorists in iraq and syria".