https://news.vice.com/article/my-journey-inside-the-islamic-state
We're going to have to deal with these clowns at some point.
Know your enemy: My Journey Inside the Islamic State
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
From CA's link
Al-Iraqi was a commander in a makeshift artillery brigade that was fighting against the Americans, but not yet affiliated with al Qaeda. He was a former colonel in Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, which was disbanded in 2003 in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq. He was then clean-shaven and not particularly religious.
Related: The Islamic State Is Here to Stay
Overnight, thousands of men like al-Iraqi lost their income and their status. Many of them took their military training — and in many cases their weapons — and joined the resistance.
I wonder what would have happened if we had kept the members of the defeated Iraqi Army busy and on the payroll? Might have been better off. But we really didn't have a plan for after the victory.
Our post-invasion actions have probably been used to write chapters in textbooks titled 'what not to do'...
The problem is that they are in Syria. They are trying to goad a western power into tracking them to a certain town in Syria. They believe they are agents of the Islamic version of the apocalypse. If a western power invades Syria then it is believed that all Islamic people will unite and take over the world.
Western Christian nations invaded and took over Syria in 1089 and 1918. How'd that work out for the islamic crazies?
The ISIS guys are savages. I am afraid they cannot be reformed. They will just have to be put down. The "inclusiveness" crowd in the west will want to save them all, and give them a hug, but the weirdos beheading people, and crucifying children, those folks just need to be put down.
Linda Robinson of RAND went to Iraq and interviewed folks on the ground and testified last month before the HASC. Robinson - Assessment of the Counter-ISIL Campaign
Ten pages or so, but a good read. Solid analysis. No hysterics. Sobering.
These are not your run of the mill post-911 terrorists. These folks are evil. I don't care what apologetic cultural relativist lens you want to use to define them, these folks are snarling, frothing and rabid. It's unfortunate, but they are absolutely and totally lost to the concept of rehabilitation. There's no room for hesitation, empathy or mercy with ISIS. In this case, ROE should be very loose and executed very swiftly. History will be the moral judge on that action and, I believe, will judge very favorably.
Sounds as though nothing has changed in spite of the military success of ISIS; the Shias and Sunnis cannot come together to save their country. Iraq dissolving and being in the "Iranian orbit" while scary comes as no surprise. Thanks for the link TW.
Yes, but our biggest obstacle at this point is that their most powerful sympathizer is sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I see no evidence that this is the case. Sympathizer is much too strong a word.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like how he is going about it. He hasn't hurt them enough. He draws lines without enforcing them. However, we are working with every group in the area opposing them.
Last edited:
I don't believe President Obama sympathizes with ISIS. I do believe he sympathizes with Islam. Anyone suggesting otherwise is fooling themselves. And I don't mean to debate whether or not sympathizing with Islam is good or bad. Just distinguishing between that and groups like ISIS.
But I don't believe he has a great strategy to deal with these animals. I don't know that a great strategy even exists. In the end, my opinion is they must be put down like the rabid dogs they are, swiftly with prejudice. That ain't going to be easy no matter which way you go about doing it. But it must be done.
But I don't believe he has a great strategy to deal with these animals. I don't know that a great strategy even exists. In the end, my opinion is they must be put down like the rabid dogs they are, swiftly with prejudice. That ain't going to be easy no matter which way you go about doing it. But it must be done.
Then again, in 1089 you are talking about the last remnants of the Roman Empire and in 1918 you are talking about the Ottoman Empire.
The Byzantines were dieing, and the Seljuk Turks took it back fairly easily. But communication is nowhere near as prevelant as it is today. Also, until Saladin there really isn't a strong enough Islamic leader to get behind.
The Ottoman Empire is compared like turkey is today. They are highly westernized and mostly not the fanatical type Muslims. They like commerce and advancement over quarrels of religion. That's why the fanatics despise them. Lawerence of Arabia was able to convince the fanatics to join his side to bring down the empire. Again after he did, what Islamic faction was strong enough to push the Brits and French out?
I don't believe in Islam, but with the amount of technology and the huge amount of organized Islamic countries, you would risk a all out war
With Islam itself if you attack Syria in today's time. Isis has stated their intent to fight Rome, and giving them that fight is likely I'll advised. But Obama's Neville chamberlain impersonation with the Iran deal is also ill advised.
In ISIS' twisted ideology, we now represent Rome and they are hoping and praying for a apocalyptic battle with us at a certain town in Syria, to fulfill their prophecies...
I actually see some wisdom in Obama's policy vis-a-vis ISIS. I like bombing them from up high (plays to our strength, avoids our weakness), and avoiding putting ground troops out front to fight them. Tactical Air Control Parties (TACPs) at Iraqi brigade level (so we bomb the right targets) is about as far forward as US troops are going.
My only critique would be to step up the amount bombing, but the US seems to have stepped that up a bit lately, so, for the time being, I'd keep doing what we're doing. It sucks for the Iraqis and Syrians on the ground, but, that is too bad. If they want to rid their countries of these sickos, then they had better grow a spine and get rid of them. We'll help, but they have to do the heavy lifting.
Last edited:
*like*
I agree, and that is in line with Obama's speech last year. If he would stop making stupid statements like ISIS is not Islamic. If he would stop making statements that indicate a commitment then back away from them. If he would be more consistent I could get on board with his strategy in this case. My problem is that he continues to do things that make it difficult for those who will work with us to trust us.
IMO both Clinton and G.W. Bush did a better job of dealing with Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad than Obama is doing dealing al-Baghdadi and Ali Khamenei.
Finnish diplomat reports that in 2012, the Russians offered to have Assad step aside. The US, France and Britain ignored the Russian offer because they felt he was on the way out anyway.
If true, that is a missed trick.
If true, that is a missed trick.
Agreed
Um, no. If GW Bush had handled this properly the only ISIS we'd know would be the fictional spy agency on Archer
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 1
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
