Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[Novus America]

True. Which is why Germany would have better off they stay neutral. Germany would not have had to bail them out if they did not spectacularly loose so many battles against much smaller and hopelessly out gunned opponents.

Just as Iraq does

Exactly.

[Migas999]

First the link you gave me requires a subscription to read
Second from what I can read it says small arms not heavy weaponry like Iraq has received
Third Iraq doesn´t fight alongside them, It almost completely depends on them

Just wanted to repost this to make sure it was read, further proof of incompetence from the Iraq army and ability by the Kurds

[Gauthier]

ISIS terrorists pray to Allah instead of the American flag, do not raise their kids to speak English, and not once have they ever thanked us for removing some of their scumbag leadership from the planet. they simply can't be reasoned with.

But they manage to gain English-speaking recruits and fanboys. You Can't Explain That!

[Dain II Ironfoot]

A 10-1 advantage means absolutely nothing when you have the strategic disadvantage. The Iraqi Troops had no Air Support and were caught by surprise. Numbers simply don't help in that scenario.

Look at the Kurds despite having far less western air support they have managed to beat back ISIS sometimes even when outnumbered, What happened in Ramadi was purely and simply bad performance on the Iraqi Army part
The Kurds have far less support yet they fare far better

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.

Pretty much yeah.



Its widely known that the commanders are the problem in Iraq. The troops are very motivated, even at the beginning, but a simple soldiers doesn't know what to do when his commander runs, and so they also run. If only Iraq had some proper commanders then this wouldn't be such an issue all together and Iraq could have beaten back IS already... I sadly have to agree with the soldier, the militia's are doing a much more effective job then the army.

As for splitting it up, i'm not very fond on that plan. Those new nations would never be able to function properly as they would become puppet states of the regional powers like Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Iran and probably Israel. Aside from that it would likely only cause more issues, more wars, more shit we don't want. On that all though, if the people living there would want it, then sure, but as for now i haven't heard them supporting something like that.
I'd rather see Syria and Iraq federalized, giving all those ethnicities & Religions more choices of their own while staying part of a nation that can act in its own interests.

The thing is a federal state will inevitably be de facto split, so the unified federal state will only exist on paper. There is no reason to believe the grips will accept a federal state with any real powers, for example the Kurds have said they will only accept an extremely weak federal government. And the states are just going to disregard the federal government anyway.

I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

[Napkiraly]

Look at the Kurds despite having far less western air support they have managed to beat back ISIS sometimes even when outnumbered, What happened in Ramadi was purely and simply bad performance on the Iraqi Army part
The Kurds have far less support yet they fare far better

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.

The thing is a federal state will inevitably be de facto split, so the unified federal state will only exist on paper. There is no reason to believe the grips will accept a federal state with any real powers, for example the Kurds have said they will only accept an extremely weak federal government. And the states are just going to disregard the federal government anyway.

I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

Russia is working well as a federal state because a lot of power has been centralized under Putin. During the Yeltsin era and early Putin days, things weren't so rosy and there have been four conflicts fought due to religious/ethnic separatist movements (two Chechen wars, Dagestan, and the ongoing insurgency throughout the Caucasus).

[Migas999]

Look at the Kurds despite having far less western air support they have managed to beat back ISIS sometimes even when outnumbered, What happened in Ramadi was purely and simply bad performance on the Iraqi Army part
The Kurds have far less support yet they fare far better

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.

The thing is a federal state will inevitably be de facto split, so the unified federal state will only exist on paper. There is no reason to believe the grips will accept a federal state with any real powers, for example the Kurds have said they will only accept an extremely weak federal government. And the states are just going to disregard the federal government anyway.

I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

I´m going to adress that in points

1)I can find 1001 links that tell me of US support to Iraq but not many that tell me of US support to the Kurds except for one link given here that cited small arms not heavy weaponry or anything of the sort, if you could provide me with a link that talks of considerable US support to the Kurds I would change my opinion accordingly
The link is this http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-giving- ... 1407777223 notice that to read the article you need to be subscribed which prevented me from reading the whole thing, so this link provided to me by New Jordslag isn´t even fully acceptable

2)Be it the soldier´s or the commander´s fault fact is the Iraq army isn´t that efficient right now

3)The Kurds might not have lots of choices right now but I still support their independence they have proven themselves worthy of it, and in fact the Kurdish regional government is already de facto independent

[Novus America]

Look at the Kurds despite having far less western air support they have managed to beat back ISIS sometimes even when outnumbered, What happened in Ramadi was purely and simply bad performance on the Iraqi Army part
The Kurds have far less support yet they fare far better

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.

The thing is a federal state will inevitably be de facto split, so the unified federal state will only exist on paper. There is no reason to believe the grips will accept a federal state with any real powers, for example the Kurds have said they will only accept an extremely weak federal government. And the states are just going to disregard the federal government anyway.

I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

The political system in Belgium is a mess, and Russia, well keeping peace through leveling cities and mass repression is not my cup of tea. And Russia has a large Russian majority. Besides minorities are not very well treated in Russia, and there is massive crime, and some times ethnic riots.

But this is the Middle East, and I have yet to see federalization work there, well there is the UAE but it does not have the same divides as Syria and Iraq. And that is why a support creating a federal United Arab Kingdom for the Sunnis, which would be similar.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.



I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

Russia is working well as a federal state because a lot of power has been centralized under Putin. During the Yeltsin era and early Putin days, things weren't so rosy and there have been four conflicts fought due to religious/ethnic separatist movements (two Chechen wars, Dagestan, and the ongoing insurgency throughout the Caucasus).

obviously the federalization of Iraq would be quiet different and it would mainly revolve around relieving some tentions there, i was just noting that in Russia (while they also have their issues) its running pretty well.

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.



I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

I´m going to adress that in points

1)I can find 1001 links that tell me of US support to Iraq but not many that tell me of US support to the Kurds except for one link given here that cited small arms not heavy weaponry or anything of the sort, if you could provide me with a link that talks of considerable US support to the Kurds I would change my opinion accordingly
The link is this http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-giving- ... 1407777223 notice that to read the article you need to be subscribed which prevented me from reading the whole thing, so this link provided to me by New Jordslag isn´t even fully acceptable

2)Be it the soldier´s or the commander´s fault fact is the Iraq army isn´t that efficient right now

3)The Kurds might not have lots of choices right now but I still support their independence they have proven themselves worthy of it, and in fact the Kurdish regional government is already de facto independent

1) Support for the Kurds =/= US support. The largest support for the Kurds in the early days mainly came from other Kurds like the Syrian YPG and the Turkish PKK. Then there's also Iran who was quick to send small arms, ammunition, drone support and tank support to the Iraqi Kurds. Adding to that the airsupport from various nations aswell as any support from these nations (wether lethal or not) they certainly had alot more support at the beginning then the Iraqi army had.

2) True.

3) Many support their independence, many do not. I don't think this is the right time for anyone in that region to declare independence, and i don't think the Iraqi Kurds are even thinking about that right now. There are more important things going on there at the moment.

I don't fully agree, the Kurds do have alot of support, on some parts even more then Iraq does. Don't forget taht the Kurds where losing the fight against IS at first aswell, though support for the Kurds arrived much faster then it did for Iraq.
The main problem in Iraq is the military leadership, its commaders just fail over and over again. The Iraqi soldiers are more then willing to put up a fight but without any proper commanders its hard to do so.



I don't really agree. Look at Belgium and Russia, they are functioning perfectly as federal nations. Sure you always have some nations that call for something, but its still the majority that matters. Now yes, a federalization of Syria or Iraq would be another story, but there's no reason to assume it would fail. We haven't heard any majority in those nations calling for splitting the country, and if they want to keep it together (which seems to be the case) federalization would be the best way to go.
As for the Kurds, in opposition to what exactly? Its not like the kurds have alot of choices at the moment.

The political system in Belgium is a mess, and Russia, well keeping peace through leveling cities and mass repression is not my cup of tea. And Russia has a large Russian majority. Besides minorities are not very well treated in Russia, and there is massive crime, and some times ethnic riots.

But this is the Middle East, and I have yet to see federalization work there, well there is the UAE but it does not have the same divides as Syria and Iraq. And that is why a support creating a federal United Arab Kingdom for the Sunnis, which would be similar.

It really isn't, at most its confusing, but certainly not a mess. Like stated above, the Federalization wouldn't be the exact same as in other places and it would mainly serve to relief some pressure. Its the best one can do in this case.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

[The Romulan Republic]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

Oh, this bullshit again.

Why do people keep using this argument that Assad made Syria stable? Is it just the faulty assumption that authoritarian=safe?

What you're basically saying is "He kept Syria stable if you don't count the bloody civil war, the massive refugee crisis, and ISIS taking over half the country." So in other words, he didn't keep it stable at all.

[Seraven]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

Oh, this bullshit again.

Why do people keep using this argument that Assad made Syria stable? Is it just the faulty assumption that authoritarian=safe?

What you're basically saying is "He kept Syria stable if you don't count the bloody civil war, the massive refugee crisis, and ISIS taking over half the country." So in other words, he didn't keep it stable at all.

Why do you assuming that Assad didn't made Syria stable?

[Laanvia]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

A (Sunni) Islamic Republic is what's needed in Syria. Of course, I'd prefer a secular regime, but we've seen that Secularism does not work in the Middle East and Syria is no exception.

[Laanvia]

Oh, this bullshit again.

Why do people keep using this argument that Assad made Syria stable? Is it just the faulty assumption that authoritarian=safe?

What you're basically saying is "He kept Syria stable if you don't count the bloody civil war, the massive refugee crisis, and ISIS taking over half the country." So in other words, he didn't keep it stable at all.

Why do you assuming that Assad didn't made Syria stable?

"why do you assuming"...

The grammar skill is strong with you...

[Utrinque Paratus]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

A (Sunni) Islamic Republic is what's needed in Syria. Of course, I'd prefer a secular regime, but we've seen that Secularism does not work in the Middle East and Syria is no exception.

Secularism works everywhere.

[Laanvia]

A (Sunni) Islamic Republic is what's needed in Syria. Of course, I'd prefer a secular regime, but we've seen that Secularism does not work in the Middle East and Syria is no exception.

Secularism works everywhere.

Are you sure? Really? Really?

I don't think you are, because look at Syria now. That's what Secularism does in the Arab world.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Secularism works everywhere.

Are you sure? Really? Really?

I don't think you are, because look at Syria now. That's what Secularism does in the Arab world.

No, that's what Islamic extremists do in the Arab world.

[Costa Fierro]

North Korean couple living in Libya have been abducted by ISIS.

[Utrinque Paratus]

North Korean couple living in Libya have been abducted by ISIS.

Let's see if NK start going to war with ISIS..

[Laanvia]

Are you sure? Really? Really?

I don't think you are, because look at Syria now. That's what Secularism does in the Arab world.

No, that's what Islamic extremists do in the Arab world.

Granted, many extremist groups hate secularism.
But it doesn't make an Islamic Republic bad. I wouldn't want a radical one that sets about bumping off alawites and Christians every day...

[The Nuclear Fist]

What the fuck were North Koreans doing in Libya?

[Utrinque Paratus]

What the fuck were North Koreans doing in Libya?

Earning foreign currency for their government...

[Ganos Lao]

North Korean couple living in Libya have been abducted by ISIS.

Let's see if NK start going to war with ISIS..

It's ironic considering their expertise at kidnapping people.

Chances are they'll offer up a mixture of condemning ISIS (who no doubt are bound to disagree with the Hirohito-esque personality cult of the Kimmies) and blaming the West (America) for it.

[Ganos Lao]

Continuing from earlier: the FSA will obviously turn Syria into some kind of Islamic stronghold instead of a secular republic like Assad wanted. Yes, Assad is a bit harsh at times but at least he kept the country relatively stable until now. Screw the FSA, Daesh and any other radical brigades out there.

A (Sunni) Islamic Republic is what's needed in Syria. Of course, I'd prefer a secular regime, but we've seen that Secularism does not work in the Middle East and Syria is no exception.

It "doesn't work" because no one really tries it.

You can't say it doesn't work when most people in the Middle East have only two options - radical Islamism or indifferent authoritarianism - and choose one or the other.

Western ideals are usually connected to supposed Judeo-American plots, so things like secularism tend to be undesirable.

[Utrinque Paratus]

A (Sunni) Islamic Republic is what's needed in Syria. Of course, I'd prefer a secular regime, but we've seen that Secularism does not work in the Middle East and Syria is no exception.

It "doesn't work" because no one really tries it.

You can't say it doesn't work when most people in the Middle East have only two options - radical Islamism or indifferent authoritarianism - and choose one or the other.

Western ideals are usually connected to supposed Judeo-American plots, so things like secularism tend to be undesirable.

Exactly.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Okay then, let them have their supposedly "non-radical Islamic Republic" but cut all foreign aid and diplomatic relations. Issue bans on our citizens going there, arms embargos and up the sanctions on Iran as well. Strike some kind of deal with Russia and China to withdraw their support from Syria as well.

Another option is we start providing military assistance to the Syrian Army, and I am talking about the proper army not these FSA/ISIS nutjobs and monetary assistance to the Assad government.