Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Cyrisnia]

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.

Unless....ISIS IS the media!
-spooky music-

[Napkiraly]

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?

Not being a pacifist means you are right wing apparently.

[Napkiraly]

ISIS is renaming itself, not the media.

Unless....ISIS IS the media!
-spooky music-

I just wish they hadn't taken a name with the same abbreviation as the much better ISIS.

[WestRedMaple]

Unless....ISIS IS the media!
-spooky music-

I just wish they hadn't taken a name with the same abbreviation as the much better ISIS.

To be fair, I don't think they started with the alphabet. They also probably don't have strong enough senses of humor to watch and appreciate that fantastic show.

[Blakk Metal]

NPR is right wing?

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

BBC is right wing?

Not being a pacifist treating Crazy Abe as less of a menace than Assad means you are right wing apparently.

Corrected.

[Limborg]

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)

1. Source?

2. Not really, and sure, it would affect the organization, but it isn't going to defeat them in any possible way.

3. Never said that, please learn to read. Also, never saw any creditable sources of the TK Black. And again, if he actually knew something about the Quds forces or the IRGC he would know more then enough, yet he fails on that, wich is a msitake of a four year old. Untill that is fixed i am not even going to do all that work.

4. The Ukrainian issue cannot even be compared with something like IS or Al-Qaeda or whatever. The Taliban isn't an insurgency, its more like a government in exile. Overthrowing a government with an army cannot be compared with defeating an insurgency.

5.Read 2.

6. Never claimed otherwise.

7. Nope, most insurgencies do have clear leadership, they just keep it more secret.

8. "it is up to the invaded country however to have the desire to change." You serious with that? So basicly you claim that people just have to accept an illegal occupation? just becouse you know, its their fault if they don't want to change after an illegal invasion... Right...

9. Sure, North-Korea, Turkmenistan ect. are crap aswell, but at least they don't screw around in the whole world like the US does.

10. Don't even see the point of these sources...

[Arcerion]

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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



*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.



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.

*Cracks knuckles* Finally home from work, been looking forward to this all frickin day.

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?

So first of all, calling my opinion BS invalidates yours. That is just a technical/procedural thing that is common in even basic debating. but that's lost on you. Now, as to the issue. Let me link you an article, that shows how Task Force Black immolated (read: violently ended) Iraqi insurgents. They have the experience, Link. Also, my opinion is backed up by thorough research, knowledge and discussion with people who have participated in COIN. So my opinion actually has a strong foundation. It may not be right, and we can argue that, but at least it is standing firm.

So in the fields of Iraq, where this is taking place, you can see in fact, yes they have plenty of experience. And now with the reincarnation, they bring with it more from activities in East Africa and Afghanistan. Don't be naïve.

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

How many well educated, experienced, and highly religious leaders can they find? Imagine trying to replace a major CEO repeatedly, every couple of months. The troops can't adjust to the constant leadership, the remnants of the last are still there in forms of policies and procedures. This also bears in fact that a company is better organized than ISIS, they are screwed.

Ontop of that, if you know that SEALs murdered the last person in your position, would you necessarily want to immediately take on that position? ISIS leadership isn't stupid.

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.

Well, have to address this one in multiple parts.

3. First of all, battle experience doesn't count for a whole unit, but for a person.

Nope. Just a big old nopity nope. A unit is called a unit because it fights as a unit. If this were baseball, I'd agree. A good pitcher doesn't mean a team will pitch well as a whole. However, in the military experience via combat in a unit is an institutional necessity. That is why even if you didn't participate in that raid, you can look at the debrief and say, 'Oh, here is something new I can learn and use."

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.

This is just a large, well.. lie. Task Force Black is made up of some of the original (read: oldest and most experienced) SOF units in the world. They have been active in COIN since before either of us were born, and the insitutional experience they bring is leaps and bounds more than anything your famed Kurds can. Now don't take that as a slight to the Kurds, but they are a 3GW, conventional force. They can only do so much.

Task Force Black does in fact, know such things! In fact, Asymmetric Warfare is literally all SOF do. That point is non negotiable.

Also, try and use some evidence and examples with your statements instead of chest thumping and shouting "Kurdistan!". Helps me discern what is necessary to research and look at before I respond.

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.

First, a challenge. Point out specifically to me where I said these things. Not implied, explicitly said so. I have only said that they are going to attack the head of the snake, leadership so to speak, as well as institutional infrastructure such as vehicle depots, maintenance facilities, or ammo/fuel dumps (Assuming that IS even has such at this point).

As for armies battling insurgents, they do, if they're 3GW. And what happens when a 3GW unit goes against insurgents? Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. There is a reason behind the Vietcong's fear of the SOG groups the US operated, its because they set the groundwork for how to run COIN. They terrified the Vietcong. TF Black will use fear and raids in an equal manner.

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.

Sure, whatever. Keep replacing the mindless Islamic drones on the ground. Fantastic. But if you kill the brain, the one controlling the drones, they will fizzle out. Assuredly. Question for the Americans in this thread (As I am your friendly Northern neighbor, Canadian), how many of you are still afraid of Al-Qaeda? After years after years of dismantling their leadership and control networks, they have ceased to be a real threat. Obama said it'd be a long fight, as it will be. Hell, Al-Shabab rejected Al-Qaeda's merger request because they saw them as a has been and decrepit organization. Pretty much just laughed and said nope.

My point? Killing leaders is the needed course of action.

that's because they don't want to meet an army on their doorstep to wipe them out.

Corrected your spelling, if you're having trouble finding where you said that. *Gasp!* Insurgents hide from armies! So then armies.. armies may not be the best and most effective way to deal with insurgents? Could it be that you just looped your own argument? It can be such! You said armies fight insurgents, and then said insurgents hide from armies. Therefore, you need something that goes out, sniffs out where they hide, and drags them kicking and screaming into the open to be shot. Such a force? SOF.

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

Foley wasn't a top-tier priority. They weren't trying on an institutional level to find him, like they were when they funneled all resources into UBL. If a spy agency had an eye and ear on everything, we'd all be screwed. My first year at university had some interesting moments I'd prefer the CIA never know about. That being said, they do a damn fine job, and can find someone when they need to.

There are many factions that should be armed and supported, not just the Kurds

That was an opinion, but I stand by it. The Kurds are the only ones I know and trust and have researched enough to say that I'd be fine with giving them support.

Again, taking out leaders isn't going to end the problem in any possible way.

Again, Iraq was fine (read: not devolving into chaos faster than a greased ferret on a slip and slide) before ISIS. Now, not so much. If ISIS has no control over its ground forces, it can be split apart, divided and conquered. So kill the leaders.

Army = insurgency. Just a matter of the way you fight.

Army = Trained, uniformed personnel fighting for a country utilizing conventional or guerrilla tactics.
Insurgency = Non-uniformed, without standardized training personnel fighting for an ideology or purpose other than overthrowing a government.

When armies use guerilla tactics, it is guerilla tactics. Note hat the NVA are a perfect example. You can't call the NVA insurgents, as they were an actual army. However, the Vietcong are not an army. The Taliban is not an army. Neither have standardized training, fight for a flag or national cause, and therefore are insurgents.

Before we talk about how groups fight, we should differentiate between said groups.

The thing you learned that another US/UK invasion would only make the problem worse, this only because the two fight like crap and ruin a whole country and its people, increasing the amount of terrorists.

Oh my sweet baby Odin I have been waiting to get to this one. Firstly! The US and the UK fight like demons. They are fantastic armed forces with proud histories and good conduct throughout all wars they have fought. Second! Neither the US or the UK militaries ruined Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. Almost always it is politicians unwilling to move from popular support to achieve an objective. Waning support for unpopular policy means that these forces were put in increasingly difficult situations. I reference the ROE for compound entering within Afghanistan.

Coalition forces are not allowed to enter compounds unless taking fire. Only the incompetent ANA and ANP are able to do so. That means insurgents can hide, wait, and then pop up and shoot into the formation's rear. Who imposed such a policy? Politicians. Certainly not military personnel. As such, no conventional would not make the situation worse. If you give the military a strict set of objectives to run with, they will complete those objectives. If you tell them to disrupt ISIS operations, they will do so. But if you give them conflicting objectives, i.e. Nation build and conduct COIN (Afghanistan) at the same time, with no specialist support (Cultural development teams, etc.) then you are hamstringing their ability to conduct a successful counter-insurgency.

So? IS leadership gets replaced remember.

Already addressed this.

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.

Nobel Prize for what, using Google? I think you misunderstand the purpose of such prizes. But that is neither here nor there.

%90? For the love of God I didn't want to do this but I had to get an NS friend to help me. Read this: Link

I counted all of them. I really did. 69 wars (yep, not even kidding, 69 military conflicts. Hilarious.) The tally stands:

Wars won, ended in compromise, or otherwise were not defeated or withdrew: 65
Wars lost, ended in defeat or compromise: 4

And using math, something you can't argue, that means the US has won %95 of its military conflicts. Watch this a few times to understand what just happened there.

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.

Firstly, don't refer to me as kid, that is just a respect thing. Internet aside, we're attempting to have a constructive conversation here.

Secondly, never trust any country.

*sips scotch* I think that was sufficient. I await your response.

[Arcerion]

Oh goody, more!

1. Source?

yeah, as per your #10 response you don't get to wave the source card around.

2. Not really, and sure, it would affect the organization, but it isn't going to defeat them in any possible way.

If they have low morale, they fight like crap. Simple enough. They fight like crap, they lose.

3. Never said that, please learn to read. Also, never saw any creditable sources of the TK Black. And again, if he actually knew something about the Quds forces or the IRGC he would know more then enough, yet he fails on that, wich is a msitake of a four year old. Untill that is fixed i am not even going to do all that work.

Learn to read? Again, Floyd Mayweather, you learn to read and be thorough. Reference my previous response before you blow a fuse at that. I know plenty about the Kurds, and love 'em. They just can't beat ISIS. TF Black can. As for not having sources which is a four year old move.. uhm.. where have your sources been during our argument?

4. The Ukrainian issue cannot even be compared with something like IS or Al-Qaeda or whatever. The Taliban isn't an insurgency, its more like a government in exile. Overthrowing a government with an army cannot be compared with defeating an insurgency.

Sweet merciful Zeus. Literally, go look at this: Link. 4th introductory paragraph says they regrouped as an insurgency. There ya go.

5. Read 2.

Read everything I said to you previously.

6. Never claimed otherwise.

Really? Because I am pretty sure that here:

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

You directly referenced me saying that the CIA can't keep tabs on everything and get perfect information every time. Why so suddenly humble, bud?

7. Nope, most insurgencies do have clear leadership, they just keep it more secret.

It is a loose bag at best. They have no ranks, and seniority or claiming your the descendant of Mohammed normally is what gets you to the front of the line nowadays.

8. "it is up to the invaded country however to have the desire to change." You serious with that? So basicly you claim that people just have to accept an illegal occupation? just becouse you know, its their fault if they don't want to change after an illegal invasion... Right...

Just. He's right. If the country doesn't want to change, COIN can't always be successful. Afghanistan clearly doesn't give a damn about ISAF being there. But when they leave they'll have a sudden change of heart.

9. Sure, North-Korea, Turkmenistan ect. are crap aswell, but at least they don't screw around in the whole world like the US does.

Yeah. Because they can barely power a rocket with acorn fuel and feed their own people rather than run the most finely tuned and largest military in the world.

10. Don't even see the point of these sources...

You're insufferable. My source:

1. Source?

Your own words.

[Connori Pilgrims]

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.

So, shitposting and name calling eh? Good to know you have no sources to back up the assertions and accusations YOU are making.

By all means continue your unsourced juvenile anti-American ranting.

[Blakk Metal]

For an Islamist organization, they sure remind me of a certain Catholic state.

[Limborg]

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.



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

*Cracks knuckles* Finally home from work, been looking forward to this all frickin day.

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?

So first of all, calling my opinion BS invalidates yours. That is just a technical/procedural thing that is common in even basic debating. but that's lost on you. Now, as to the issue. Let me link you an article, that shows how Task Force Black immolated (read: violently ended) Iraqi insurgents. They have the experience, Link. Also, my opinion is backed up by thorough research, knowledge and discussion with people who have participated in COIN. So my opinion actually has a strong foundation. It may not be right, and we can argue that, but at least it is standing firm.

So in the fields of Iraq, where this is taking place, you can see in fact, yes they have plenty of experience. And now with the reincarnation, they bring with it more from activities in East Africa and Afghanistan. Don't be naïve.

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

How many well educated, experienced, and highly religious leaders can they find? Imagine trying to replace a major CEO repeatedly, every couple of months. The troops can't adjust to the constant leadership, the remnants of the last are still there in forms of policies and procedures. This also bears in fact that a company is better organized than ISIS, they are screwed.

Ontop of that, if you know that SEALs murdered the last person in your position, would you necessarily want to immediately take on that position? ISIS leadership isn't stupid.

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.

Well, have to address this one in multiple parts.

3. First of all, battle experience doesn't count for a whole unit, but for a person.

Nope. Just a big old nopity nope. A unit is called a unit because it fights as a unit. If this were baseball, I'd agree. A good pitcher doesn't mean a team will pitch well as a whole. However, in the military experience via combat in a unit is an institutional necessity. That is why even if you didn't participate in that raid, you can look at the debrief and say, 'Oh, here is something new I can learn and use."

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.

This is just a large, well.. lie. Task Force Black is made up of some of the original (read: oldest and most experienced) SOF units in the world. They have been active in COIN since before either of us were born, and the insitutional experience they bring is leaps and bounds more than anything your famed Kurds can. Now don't take that as a slight to the Kurds, but they are a 3GW, conventional force. They can only do so much.

Task Force Black does in fact, know such things! In fact, Asymmetric Warfare is literally all SOF do. That point is non negotiable.

Also, try and use some evidence and examples with your statements instead of chest thumping and shouting "Kurdistan!". Helps me discern what is necessary to research and look at before I respond.

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.

First, a challenge. Point out specifically to me where I said these things. Not implied, explicitly said so. I have only said that they are going to attack the head of the snake, leadership so to speak, as well as institutional infrastructure such as vehicle depots, maintenance facilities, or ammo/fuel dumps (Assuming that IS even has such at this point).

As for armies battling insurgents, they do, if they're 3GW. And what happens when a 3GW unit goes against insurgents? Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. There is a reason behind the Vietcong's fear of the SOG groups the US operated, its because they set the groundwork for how to run COIN. They terrified the Vietcong. TF Black will use fear and raids in an equal manner.

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.

Sure, whatever. Keep replacing the mindless Islamic drones on the ground. Fantastic. But if you kill the brain, the one controlling the drones, they will fizzle out. Assuredly. Question for the Americans in this thread (As I am your friendly Northern neighbor, Canadian), how many of you are still afraid of Al-Qaeda? After years after years of dismantling their leadership and control networks, they have ceased to be a real threat. Obama said it'd be a long fight, as it will be. Hell, Al-Shabab rejected Al-Qaeda's merger request because they saw them as a has been and decrepit organization. Pretty much just laughed and said nope.

My point? Killing leaders is the needed course of action.

that's because they don't want to meet an army on their doorstep to wipe them out.

Corrected your spelling, if you're having trouble finding where you said that. *Gasp!* Insurgents hide from armies! So then armies.. armies may not be the best and most effective way to deal with insurgents? Could it be that you just looped your own argument? It can be such! You said armies fight insurgents, and then said insurgents hide from armies. Therefore, you need something that goes out, sniffs out where they hide, and drags them kicking and screaming into the open to be shot. Such a force? SOF.

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

Foley wasn't a top-tier priority. They weren't trying on an institutional level to find him, like they were when they funneled all resources into UBL. If a spy agency had an eye and ear on everything, we'd all be screwed. My first year at university had some interesting moments I'd prefer the CIA never know about. That being said, they do a damn fine job, and can find someone when they need to.

There are many factions that should be armed and supported, not just the Kurds

That was an opinion, but I stand by it. The Kurds are the only ones I know and trust and have researched enough to say that I'd be fine with giving them support.

Again, taking out leaders isn't going to end the problem in any possible way.

Again, Iraq was fine (read: not devolving into chaos faster than a greased ferret on a slip and slide) before ISIS. Now, not so much. If ISIS has no control over its ground forces, it can be split apart, divided and conquered. So kill the leaders.

Army = insurgency. Just a matter of the way you fight.

Army = Trained, uniformed personnel fighting for a country utilizing conventional or guerrilla tactics.
Insurgency = Non-uniformed, without standardized training personnel fighting for an ideology or purpose other than overthrowing a government.

When armies use guerilla tactics, it is guerilla tactics. Note hat the NVA are a perfect example. You can't call the NVA insurgents, as they were an actual army. However, the Vietcong are not an army. The Taliban is not an army. Neither have standardized training, fight for a flag or national cause, and therefore are insurgents.

Before we talk about how groups fight, we should differentiate between said groups.

The thing you learned that another US/UK invasion would only make the problem worse, this only because the two fight like crap and ruin a whole country and its people, increasing the amount of terrorists.

Oh my sweet baby Odin I have been waiting to get to this one. Firstly! The US and the UK fight like demons. They are fantastic armed forces with proud histories and good conduct throughout all wars they have fought. Second! Neither the US or the UK militaries ruined Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. Almost always it is politicians unwilling to move from popular support to achieve an objective. Waning support for unpopular policy means that these forces were put in increasingly difficult situations. I reference the ROE for compound entering within Afghanistan.

Coalition forces are not allowed to enter compounds unless taking fire. Only the incompetent ANA and ANP are able to do so. That means insurgents can hide, wait, and then pop up and shoot into the formation's rear. Who imposed such a policy? Politicians. Certainly not military personnel. As such, no conventional would not make the situation worse. If you give the military a strict set of objectives to run with, they will complete those objectives. If you tell them to disrupt ISIS operations, they will do so. But if you give them conflicting objectives, i.e. Nation build and conduct COIN (Afghanistan) at the same time, with no specialist support (Cultural development teams, etc.) then you are hamstringing their ability to conduct a successful counter-insurgency.

So? IS leadership gets replaced remember.

Already addressed this.

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.

Nobel Prize for what, using Google? I think you misunderstand the purpose of such prizes. But that is neither here nor there.

%90? For the love of God I didn't want to do this but I had to get an NS friend to help me. Read this: Link

I counted all of them. I really did. 69 wars (yep, not even kidding, 69 military conflicts. Hilarious.) The tally stands:

Wars won, ended in compromise, or otherwise were not defeated or withdrew: 65
Wars lost, ended in defeat or compromise: 4

And using math, something you can't argue, that means the US has won %95 of its military conflicts. Watch this a few times to understand what just happened there.

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.

Firstly, don't refer to me as kid, that is just a respect thing. Internet aside, we're attempting to have a constructive conversation here.

Secondly, never trust any country.

*sips scotch* I think that was sufficient. I await your response.

1. "Also, my opinion is backed up by thorough research, knowledge" So is mine, what's your point?
And again, tell me, how many times did they turn the tide in a war, how many terrorist organizations have been defeated by them?

2. Lol, "every couple of months" Right... that's why it takes years for them to hunt some leader down... And yeah, in ISIS there are many to replace them, don't have to worry about that.

3. You misunderstood me there. The point is that if they where active in lets say the 90s, one that joined after that cannot be counted amongst that experience. Experience is gained by a person, if he's in a team and they work together, sure the whole team gets it. But if they weren't active in another time, you cannot count it in.

Again, like above, a group that operates doesn't have the experience of the groups that went 10 years before them. Also, what's up with you thinking i have something with the Kurds? I'm not getting that at all...

That's what you say, They aren't that experienced nor do they have the knowledge of civil wars and insurgencies like many other groups do. Nor have they ever changed the tide in a war or have they ever defeated a certain terrorist group of some kind.

I have yet to see any sources from you, so why would i bother? Also, what's with your fetish towards the Kurds?

4. Nope, that's your claim. If one handles it correctly one can take ISIS out in a matter of weeks. You claiming that a regular army wouln't be capable of defeating an insurgency is redicilous.

5. Al-Qaeda hasn't become weaker at any stage, that you hear less from them at this time does not mean that they became weak, if you think so, you're gonna have a bad they once they reach the news again.

One Insurgency doesn't equal another insurgency. So no, your logic isn't making any point.

"Foley wasn't a top-tier priority. They weren't trying on an institutional level to find him" And you claim this based on what exactly?
"and can find someone when they need to" like in about 10 years or so...

"That was an opinion, but I stand by it. The Kurds are the only ones I know and trust and have researched enough to say that I'd be fine with giving them support." So you're saying that you lack knowldege on the different factions operating in Iraq/Syria? Good to know.

"Army = Trained, uniformed personnel fighting for a country utilizing conventional or guerrilla tactics.
Insurgency = Non-uniformed, without standardized training personnel fighting for an ideology or purpose other than overthrowing a government."
Funny though, that so many insurgencies are trained and most of the time they are fighting for "a country". Then there's also a fact that being a "rebel" against the government doesn't equal being an insurgent..
On another hand. Those that fight for a country, often fight for a ideology aswell.

"The Taliban is not an army. Neither have standardized training, fight for a flag or national cause, and therefore are insurgents. "
Not at all, Taliban is nothing more then a government in exile. Or do i have to remind you of who has been running Afghanistan from the Soviet retreat untill the invasion? The taliban does have training and they do fight for a nationalistic cause, that of Afghanistan. One can argue wether their cause is legit, but nobody can deny that cause to exist.

"Oh my sweet baby Odin I have been waiting to get to this one. Firstly! The US and the UK fight like demons. They are fantastic armed forces with proud histories and good conduct throughout all wars they have fought. Second! Neither the US or the UK militaries ruined Iraq/Afghanistan," Never claimed otherwise.

"Almost always it is politicians unwilling to move from popular support to achieve an objective." I fully agree.

Point is, I never claimed that it where the armies that screwed up, although idividual soldiers and mercs screwed up here and there, sometimes on a big scale, it are the politics that are shit. Starting a war and not finishing it is the worst thing anyone can do, and as we seen it, the US/UK did it twice (only looking at Iraq and Afghanistan (on the last i know, other nations where involved aswell and yeah they screwed up just aswell))

"Wars won, ended in compromise, or otherwise were not defeated or withdrew: 65
Wars lost, ended in defeat or compromise: 4"
Winning a war doesn't equal having done a good job. The Iraqi invasion was considerd a victory, just as Libya, but please, explain how those weren't screwups. Besides that, I'm not even counting wars/conflicts that happend over a hundred years ago.

"yeah, as per your #10 response you don't get to wave the source card around."
I do, i actually educate myself on a subject that is being discussed.

"If they have low morale, they fight like crap. Simple enough. They fight like crap, they lose." And who do they fight? a yes, armies, not special forces.

"I know plenty about the Kurds, and love 'em. They just can't beat ISIS. TF Black can. As for not having sources which is a four year old move.. uhm.. where have your sources been during our argument?"

Quds Forces =/= Kurds. I don't even know where you get that from...

"Sweet merciful Zeus. Literally, go look at this: Link. 4th introductory paragraph says they regrouped as an insurgency. There ya go." Right, Wikipedia desides today what an insurgency is and what not?

"Read everything I said to you previously."
Same.

"You directly referenced me saying that the CIA can't keep tabs on everything and get perfect information every time. Why so suddenly humble, bud?"
Try reading, it really helps in a debate. That had nothing todo with the CIA or anything for that matter.

"It is a loose bag at best. They have no ranks, and seniority or claiming your the descendant of Mohammed normally is what gets you to the front of the line nowadays." They do have ranks, you just fail to see.

"Just. He's right. If the country doesn't want to change, COIN can't always be successful. Afghanistan clearly doesn't give a damn about ISAF being there. But when they leave they'll have a sudden change of heart." Yeah right. Let me give you this example.
You're from Canada right? (think i saw it somewhere above) Anyhow, lets say Canada is invaded by China, it ruins the whole country, creates alot of tentions amongst different tribes in the country. Then a rebellion is going on in the North. China is bombing many innocent civillians with drones, alot of your friends have been killed by Chinese soldiers, this while they didn't had anything to do with the war. And they they say you have to change into somekind of pro-China country becouse you know, China saved you.
Just tell me, would you change? I wouldn't.

"Yeah. Because they can barely power a rocket with acorn fuel and feed their own people rather than run the most finely tuned and largest military in the world." Again the bs is going everywhere. North-Korea is capable of doing more damage then Canada, so just stfu with that nonsense.

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.

So, shitposting and name calling eh? Good to know you have no sources to back up the assertions and accusations YOU are making.

By all means continue your unsourced juvenile anti-American ranting.

I have enough sources, but i'm not going to do the work becouse you're to lazy to educate yourself on anything for that matter.

Another two things.
1. America is a continent, not sure why i would have a problem with a continent.
2. I'm not anti US for that matter, if you think i am, you clearly lack any knowledge about me, but ofcourse that was already obviously.

[Limborg]

The Peace brigades (An anti-IS alliance that include the Al-Mahdi Army and a few other Shia militia's) are reportedly on their way to Amerli.

http://www.abna.ir/english/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2014/08/28/634034/story.html
https://www.facebook.com/No2ISISofficial

EDIT: Possible that Iraqi forces and other militia's are amongst the Peace Brigades aswell.

The Brigades spokesman, Salah al-Obeidi stated that, “The Brigades accompanied with security forces as well as armed clans, have arrived to the outskirts of Amerli , pointing out that, the brigades, security forces, and the rest of the mob became very close to the district.”

Al-Obeidi said: “We have prepared a joint battle that will not last long before redeeming the city” and according to a security source in Salahuddin province, a large force of armed volunteers from mobs headed towards Amerli to lift the siege, will be there soon.

[Papait]

ISIS has executed 250 Syrian soldiers, who were captured by them.
They humiliated and tortured them before driving them in their underwear into the desert like cattle where they were executed.

This has gone far enough, it is time action is taken, the international community must finally say that it has gone too far.
While the russian seperatists get heavily criticised for parading POWs through town, while these thugs have broken almost every rule that was made according to the Geneva Convention.

The prisoners did not get treated with respect,
they were not allowed to write to their family,
they were not evacuated from the war zone,
they were held captive by those who captured them,
they were denied food and hygiene,
they were executed without trial and while the conflict was still raging,
they were afterwards not properly buried,
and they were not given death certificates after dying in captivity

this needs to be avenged, and even if it may seem hypocrite, I think we should start giving permission to Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah to execute any captured ISIS insurgent, and hand over any returning Jihadists that are caught within europe or the americas to Iraq and Syria, who may execute them.
This may seem hypocrite but it isnt.
ISIS is not an army nor are they civillian contractors of the army, and neither are they innocent civillians.
They are terrorists/insurgents/civillians participating in battle, and are therefore not enjoying the protection soldiers have.
If ISIS thinks it okay to avenge actions from the US and Hezbollah, then we must return the favor.

[Pola]

I've heard on CNN that the Peshmerga recaptured some villages near Mosul?

[Farnhamia]

I've heard on CNN that the Peshmerga recaptured some villages near Mosul?

You're not sure you heard it?

[Bulgar Rouge]

ISIS has executed 250 Syrian soldiers, who were captured by them.
They humiliated and tortured them before driving them in their underwear into the desert like cattle where they were executed.

This has gone far enough, it is time action is taken, the international community must finally say that it has gone too far.
While the russian seperatists get heavily criticised for parading POWs through town, while these thugs have broken almost every rule that was made according to the Geneva Convention.

The prisoners did not get treated with respect,
they were not allowed to write to their family,
they were not evacuated from the war zone,
they were held captive by those who captured them,
they were denied food and hygiene,
they were executed without trial and while the conflict was still raging,
they were afterwards not properly buried,
and they were not given death certificates after dying in captivity

this needs to be avenged, and even if it may seem hypocrite, I think we should start giving permission to Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah to execute any captured ISIS insurgent, and hand over any returning Jihadists that are caught within europe or the americas to Iraq and Syria, who may execute them.
This may seem hypocrite but it isnt.
ISIS is not an army nor are they civillian contractors of the army, and neither are they innocent civillians.
They are terrorists/insurgents/civillians participating in battle, and are therefore not enjoying the protection soldiers have.
If ISIS thinks it okay to avenge actions from the US and Hezbollah, then we must return the favor.

They killed nearly 300 troops, militiamen and technicians in ash-Shaar a month ago, but nobody noticed that. Along with a few other massacres in the hundreds range that went unnoticed, because, you know, the victims were "regime troops" and civilians in "regime-held areas". Those we don't care about !

[Vamtrl]

42 UN troops captured, man what is this shit

[Bulgar Rouge]

42 UN troops captured, man what is this shit

Probably those Nusra fucks or their "moderate Islamist" allies from the Islamic Front.

[Napkiraly]

42 UN troops captured, man what is this shit

Probably those Nusra fucks or their "moderate Islamist" allies from the Islamic Front.

It's al-Nusra apparently.

[Limborg]

ISIS has executed 250 Syrian soldiers, who were captured by them.
They humiliated and tortured them before driving them in their underwear into the desert like cattle where they were executed.

This has gone far enough, it is time action is taken, the international community must finally say that it has gone too far.
While the russian seperatists get heavily criticised for parading POWs through town, while these thugs have broken almost every rule that was made according to the Geneva Convention.

The prisoners did not get treated with respect,
they were not allowed to write to their family,
they were not evacuated from the war zone,
they were held captive by those who captured them,
they were denied food and hygiene,
they were executed without trial and while the conflict was still raging,
they were afterwards not properly buried,
and they were not given death certificates after dying in captivity

this needs to be avenged, and even if it may seem hypocrite, I think we should start giving permission to Iran, Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah to execute any captured ISIS insurgent, and hand over any returning Jihadists that are caught within europe or the americas to Iraq and Syria, who may execute them.
This may seem hypocrite but it isnt.
ISIS is not an army nor are they civillian contractors of the army, and neither are they innocent civillians.
They are terrorists/insurgents/civillians participating in battle, and are therefore not enjoying the protection soldiers have.
If ISIS thinks it okay to avenge actions from the US and Hezbollah, then we must return the favor.

I think Hezbollah is already killing them off and i wouldn't be suprised if Iraqi soldiers and Syrian soldiers do the very same. ISIS are the worst of the worst, everybody knows it and yet there's almost nobody that is actually taking steps in stopping them.

I agree that those captured in western nations should be send to Syria and/or Iraq, but that counts for all nations that manage to capture these scumbags. And not only those that have been on Jihad with ISIS but also those that openly support ISIS. Oh and while everybody should do that, they should also send a bullet or a piece of rope with every single IS man/woman.

Probably those Nusra fucks or their "moderate Islamist" allies from the Islamic Front.

It's al-Nusra apparently.

Officially its Jabhat al-Nusra

[Organized States]

Limborg, I apologize that I cannot reply to your earlier statement directly (I'm on my phone), but your comment "How many terror groups were defeated by SOF", there were actually a few that have been destroyed or severally weakened. For example,
1. AQ (severely weakened by the death of OBL, and the senior leadership through Special Forces and Drone Strikes)
2. ABS (AQ-linked group in the Philippines, which has lost quite a bit of its senior leadership and materials following the actions of American and Filiphino Special Forces)
There's a few others I can bring up later.

[Limborg]

Ah, once again (like Always) there's so much reason to be ashamed of my own country...
Netherlands sends no arms nor soldiers to Iraq, at most they send some bulletproof vests, helmets and other stuff that doesn't change much to the Kurds

And look, we send more..
Netherlands sends 1,5 million to Kurds to clear mines

In the meanwhile: Iran sends weapons to Kurds, Foxnews fails to see that the Kurds aren't US allies, and if they are, then Iran would be allied to them aswell

One thing is sure, Iran will be the real victorious side on this whole ISIS situation. Its clear that the Gulf nations (Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia) played their last card in the games of both Syria and Iraq.
http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-calls-international-war-against-islamic-state-iran-vows-solidarity-266475
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/iran-soldiers-iraq-islamic-state-2014823161322258630.html

Lebanon calls for support against IS http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/28/376912/lebanon-calls-for-support-to-fight-isil/

Just like the UK, US and Germany, France also joined the side of ignorant countries, refusing to combat IS effectively http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/28/376909/assad-no-ally-in-fight-against-isil/

[Limborg]

Limborg, I apologize that I cannot reply to your earlier statement directly (I'm on my phone), but your comment "How many terror groups were defeated by SOF", there were actually a few that have been destroyed or severally weakened. For example,
1. AQ (severely weakened by the death of OBL, and the senior leadership through Special Forces and Drone Strikes)
2. ABS (AQ-linked group in the Philippines, which has lost quite a bit of its senior leadership and materials following the actions of American and Filiphino Special Forces)
There's a few others I can bring up later.

Both are not taken out or have been severely weakened by the SOF on its own. In both of them regular forces did most of the work eventually. Besides that, Al-Qaeda has been weakened by many factors, not just military actions, and on that note aswell. They still exist and they are still a very serious threat.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Just like the UK, US and Germany, France also joined the side of ignorant countries, refusing to combat IS effectively http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/28/376909/assad-no-ally-in-fight-against-isil/

If there's one thing that all this middle-east bullshit has taught me it's that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Or in this case in particular, the fact that my new enemy is the enemy of my old enemy doesn't make my old enemy any better.
Besides, supporting Assad means squishing the FSA, and we like those guys.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Just like the UK, US and Germany, France also joined the side of ignorant countries, refusing to combat IS effectively http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/28/376909/assad-no-ally-in-fight-against-isil/

If there's one thing that all this middle-east bullshit has taught me it's that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Or in this case in particular, the fact that my new enemy is the enemy of my old enemy doesn't make my old enemy any better.
Besides, supporting Assad means squishing the FSA, and we like those guys.

The FSA is already a non-existent entity, and crushing whatever remains of them is the only way to restore some kind of stability in Syria. Since the beginning of the war they have been unable to come up with anything even remotely resembling a unified command, so they're basically disoriented thugs with guns spreading chaos in the countryside. No reason not to get rid of them and arm Assad.