The war on ISIS.

  • Thread starter mister dog
  • 3,128 comments
  • 131,247 views
Not to mention that after said wars, their borders expanded. The 1948 war doubled their land overnight whereas the 1967 war secured them the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
FTFY. It is not the Yiddish monster.
 
Terms such as "hatebeard", "raghead" and "towelhead" can be construed as racist. We can discuss the problem of terrorism without such labels, which are unfair to non-combatants and Muslim victims of ISIS and ISIL. Thank you.
Seems like the Jordanian government(and the Jordanian king Abdul) is poised to swap the Iraqi failed female suicide bomber Sajida al-Rishawi with the Jordanian pilot Lt-Muath al-Kaseasbeh as soon as they confirm the proof that he is still alive as a condition for liberating him from the hands of Islamic State, and this can also pose some influence on the release of Japanese outliving hostage Kenji Goto Jogo from the heinous terrorists.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...16d97a-a73f-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html
 
The Kurds lost a good man today. General Sherko Shwani was killed after ISIS attacked Kirkuk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/w...-on-kirkuk-killing-top-kurdish-commander.html

http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30012015

My friend had lunch with him when he visited Iraq a few years ago.

He struck me by noting, during our meal together one afternoon, "If more people, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, Shia, Sunni, sat together and ate and talked as we do now, there wouldn't be half of the problems that there are in Iraq."
 
And on a positive note; Kobani has been liberated by the Kurds. Town is sadly destroyed but it's the first major step in breaking those hatebeards spine.
A smarter move might have been to control the battle so that ISIL thought they had a shot at controlling it. Holding Kobane would give them a connection to Turkey, but it also forced them to over-extend themselves. By taking the town back, ISIL now have a chance to regroup.
 
A smarter move might have been to control the battle so that ISIL thought they had a shot at controlling it. Holding Kobane would give them a connection to Turkey, but it also forced them to over-extend themselves. By taking the town back, ISIL now have a chance to regroup.
A bit of a weird logic if you ask me, if you fight the enemy the point is to get him out no? Also the fight for Kobani was a major PR battle hence why the coalition started bombing there even though it wasn't strategically important for them.
If Kobani would have been taken for sure we would have seen lot's of ISIS promo vids about their win against the army of the evil crusader, inspiring other young desperates to join them again.
 
A bit of a weird logic if you ask me, if you fight the enemy the point is to get him out no?
Not necessarily. Like I said, Kobane was of strategic importance to ISIL, but in order to take it, they had to commit to it. If the Peshmega drew the fight out, ISIL would be forced to keep committing troops and resources to the campaign, spreading themselves thin elsewhere.
 
Not necessarily. Like I said, Kobane was of strategic importance to ISIL, but in order to take it, they had to commit to it. If the Peshmega drew the fight out, ISIL would be forced to keep committing troops and resources to the campaign, spreading themselves thin elsewhere.
I'm guessing they are already spreading themselves thin, going for Kirkuk now, fighting in Anbar province, fighting near Baghdad and even in the south there are reports they are trying to start a fight with Saudi Arabia too.

The major problem is their safe haven in Syria were they have a base to operate from, and there's no ground troops that are challenging them much.
 
Also the fight for Kobani was a major PR battle hence why the coalition started bombing there even though it wasn't strategically important for them.
I would have to disagree that its of no strategic importance to the coalition, given that it sits right on the border with Turkey (it is effectively a border crossing from Syria to Europe) it being held by IS would certainly be a strategic problem. Given that it would be a base from which to launch attacks within Turkey and as such Europe.
 
Last edited:
I would have to disagree that its of no strategic importance to the coalition, given that it sits right on the border with Turkey (it is effectively a border crossing from Syria to Europe) it being held by IS would certainly be a strategic problem. Given that it would be a base from which to launch attacks within Turkey and as such Europe.
True, i remember a press conference in the early stages where a US army figure stated that it wasn't of real strategic relevance to the air campaign, but they would focus on the city because they didn't want ISIS to have the pr win.
Been looking for the video but haven't found it so far.

You're right though, if Kobani would have fell the border with Turkey would have been wide open, so it's good that they did bomb ISIS away from the spot.
 
Jordan Stands Up to ISIS: Execute Our Pilot, and All of our ISIS Prisoners Will Die.

Jordan, working on freeing the failed homicide bomber Sajida al-Rishawi, said Thursday that they would require proof of life from ISIS prisoner Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh to free the female bomber to ISIS custody. The deadline for freeing the woman passed Thursday without word from the terrorists about the condition of the pilot, and of Japanese man Kenji Goto, who was last seen in an ISIS video holding up a picture of a freshly executed Haruna Yukawa. As a condition of their release, ISIS demanded the release of al-Rishawi from Jordanian custody.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/01...ot-and-well-execute-all-your-prisoners-176531
 
If it comes down to [STRIKE]Jordon[/STRIKE] Jordan executing the prisoners, I at least hope the West can benefit from that. As in, make everyone aware that those who join the Islamic State aren't safe from anyone. :)
 
Last edited:
Jordan Stands Up to ISIS: Execute Our Pilot, and All of our ISIS Prisoners Will Die.

Jordan, working on freeing the failed homicide bomber Sajida al-Rishawi, said Thursday that they would require proof of life from ISIS prisoner Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh to free the female bomber to ISIS custody. The deadline for freeing the woman passed Thursday without word from the terrorists about the condition of the pilot, and of Japanese man Kenji Goto, who was last seen in an ISIS video holding up a picture of a freshly executed Haruna Yukawa. As a condition of their release, ISIS demanded the release of al-Rishawi from Jordanian custody.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/01...ot-and-well-execute-all-your-prisoners-176531
That's a real pickle for ISIS. I'd guess the pilot is already executed and now they don't know what to do. Looks like they messed with the wrong people this time.
 
It's most likely that they'll declare any prisoners executed by Jordan as martyrs and use that in their propaganda whilst carrying out retaliatory attacks.
Which is no different than many extremist groups in the area.
 
Who comes up with their executions, Ramsay Snow?
 
Swift justice for all. Jordan executes two of their ISIS prisoners, including the woman that ISIS wanted released.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...eases-graphic-video-showing-killing-of-pilot/

They were hanged.
Revenge, pure and simple.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for just a moment. Of course it is monstrous to burn anyone alive. But the Jordanian pilot could also have burned people alive during his sorties with coalition forces. ISIS is said to have lost 6000 people to recent coalition actions. So ISIS took revenge by burning him in turn. Now the cycle of revenge is continued by execution of prisoners. Please explain why burning people alive is okay for the coalition, but not for the enemy? How is the cycle of revenge to be broken? Thank you for indulging a potentially naive question.
 
Revenge, pure and simple.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for just a moment. Of course it is monstrous to burn anyone alive. But the Jordanian pilot could also have burned people alive during his sorties with coalition forces. ISIS is said to have lost 6000 people to recent coalition actions. So ISIS took revenge by burning him in turn. Now the cycle of revenge is continued by execution of prisoners. Please explain why burning people alive is okay for the coalition, but not for the enemy? How is the cycle of revenge to be broken? Thank you for indulging a potentially naive question.
Wouldn't the initial blast of the bombs have killed them instantly? They aren't using napalm or firebombs luckily.
 
Revenge, pure and simple.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for just a moment. Of course it is monstrous to burn anyone alive. But the Jordanian pilot could also have burned people alive during his sorties with coalition forces. ISIS is said to have lost 6000 people to recent coalition actions. So ISIS took revenge by burning him in turn. Now the cycle of revenge is continued by execution of prisoners. Please explain why burning people alive is okay for the coalition, but not for the enemy? How is the cycle of revenge to be broken? Thank you for indulging a potentially naive question.
Just who had the Jordanian pilot burned alive? You started with "could also have" but then continued as if it were established fact.
For that matter, how much ordnance had the Jordanian pilot dropped? Where? Do you have hard facts, or are you making stuff up?
 

Latest Posts

Back