The war on ISIS.

  • Thread starter mister dog
  • 3,128 comments
  • 132,788 views
Oops.
A bomb exploded on a bus shelter in Moscow just now. Three wounded reported.


Edit: no serious injuries, the bomb was very small. Doesn't seem to be a terrorist job.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you what is absolutely outstanding. Any person involved in this thread has the intelligence to know that SOMEONE was buying the oil that DAESH was selling, and also that if they were really bothered, then they would know who was buying it. They weren't bothered. Simple as that. Daesh suited them.

Since oil is a 'hardware' then there would be very few countries that it could pass through.

And if Turkey aren't the middlemen, then who is?
Agreed, but you have to look at where Turkey stands historically. From the crusades to 1918 [The best that I can come up with without consulting a history book], it has been the lands that make up the basis of Turkey that formed the basis of the Islamic Caliphate. In 1918, it dissolved as part of the end of World War I. Any fundamental muslim (and I use that term broadly) isn't going to forget that collapse.

Fast forward to today. We have a radical Islamic caliphate brewing on the border between Syria and Iraq that is expanding. Expanding to the point where our world leaders basically don't care what happens over there. Turkey stands to gain the most from that crisis because of the fact that the Turkish Prime Minister shares an Islamist point of view. Am I outright saying that he is supporting DAESH? No, but I am saying that he shares, in large part, the same ideology that drives ISIS.
 
Tukey is simply increasing their stock of oil, not actively selling it. It's "oil laundering", basically you would have companies on Turkey who produce and store oil, they can just report an increase in crude oil production once they get the barrels imported from ISIS. This is how I think they work, because no one on earth would buy ISIS oil without having first a cover up to hide it.

That the US and NATO want to keep fighting assad instead of getting rid of the ISIS problem, that's a different matter, and even then I don't get why is so hard to support the government in power, seeing that the weapons they gave to the FSA are the same weapons they are using to increase their territorial control.

At this point I wouldn't find it surprising to have proxy air battles between Syrian/Iranian/Iraqi/Russian forces fighting against NATO air assets in the region. The whole point of having Russia on Syria was to support the Assad government, if NATO or the UK start bombing Assad's assets, then Russia might find itself on the position of defending it's mayor regional ally.
 
A black box of the downed Su-24 was recovered and delivered to Moscow.

This was an operation of the Syrian special forces and army.

It's not open yet and it will be opened together with foreighn specialists.
No matter what information it will show, Russia will not change it's view on Turkey.

image24217270_d35e553ea54f886a81a070525507e7cf.jpg

image24217270_476453cdd5e2e30996995e9c263e4702.jpg
 
There is a huge difference between "The west" and "The Enemies of the Islamic State", this is of course semantics, however the important thing to know is that the "Jihad" was declared on the enemies of the Islamic State and not the west. One can't say that the US represents the west (as much as NATO would want it to), Russia is politically not the west yet they are threatened as well, so how do you explain that?

Russia is in The West as far as the cultural definition goes, I'm not sure why you'd think it isn't? I'm not sure anybody would say "The US represents the West" and, finally, one of Da'esh's main sympathisers in Africa (Boko Haram) has a name which means "No Western Education". You possibly need to do a lot more research.

Generalizing is what creates this whole issue, because you are assuming that they are generalizing a war against non-muslims, when in reality they have established a set of specific goals to protect or boost their ideology (the targets are picked depending on what they are trying to achieve ideologically, they didn't attack Paris on a Friday night just because).

Part of their war is against Muslims and many, many of their victims are Muslim. Please don't tell me what I'm assuming, in this case you've got it very wrong.

Then you are not reading me correctly, again people is under the assumption that the terrorists are Syrian...

No they isn't.

...when in reality is an international network of Jihadists, which increases the dispersion between Jihadists nationalities (given that even UK citizens joined ISIS, anyone can bomb anything at any time, given that a UK citizen could be on "Jihad" and can have access to anywhere in the US, that sort of thing).

Right, I think that's all pretty-much well known and has been for many many years. No disagreement there.

What makes you think that Germany is going to be attacked?

For starters the Hanover warning a few days after the Paris attack - that warning was based on credible evidence. Then there's the history of terror attacks in Germany by differing groups, of course.

You are calling rubbish on me, but I'm yet to see a terrorist attack happening on Germany, when that happens I will be proven wrong.

Cool, come back in 1972. And other years. Also take a closer look at the Hanover alert. Germany is a real and credible target.

But I know is not going to happen because ISIS is not interested on that. I hear this "threat" everywhere when in reality the targets are the least expected ones. The attacks on paris was a chained response dating from the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

As I said, I think you need to do more research into the whole situation although that's only my view.
 
Russia is in The West as far as the cultural definition goes, I'm not sure why you'd think it isn't? I'm not sure anybody would say "The US represents the West" and, finally, one of Da'esh's main sympathisers in Africa (Boko Haram) has a name which means "No Western Education". You possibly need to do a lot more research.
See the problem with generalizing.

What is the definition of "the west", come to think of it, you are using one term to generalize several. By that definition I live in the west so I should be threatened, yet I'm not being threatened by ISIS or Islamists, because they have no interest in attacking a place like where I live.
Part of their war is against Muslims and many, many of their victims are Muslim. Please don't tell me what I'm assuming, in this case you've got it very wrong.
At which point did I said that Muslims are/are not going to be targeted.

This comes out of nowhere honestly.
No they isn't.
Of course they aren't, wait what did Trump said ...


Yeah, we should ignore US presidential candidates, right?
For starters the Hanover warning a few days after the Paris attack - that warning was based on credible evidence. Then there's the history of terror attacks in Germany by differing groups, of course.
Again, we are talking about Jihadists attacking targets, not Terrorism in Germany. You are right, there has been terrorist attacks on Germany, but you are taking it way out of context, because you are taking terrorism as an ideology rather than a proceeding.

We are talking about islamists here, not terrorism as a concept, I can agree that you know how it goes so this rebuttal comes out of context to me. The Hanover warning is that, a warning, under the banner of credible evidence which is largely confidential away from public opinion, an attack is different from a threat, regardless of how you put it.
Cool, come back in 1972. And other years. Also take a closer look at the Hanover alert. Germany is a real and credible target.
Again, generalizing ... 1972 = 2015. You are comparing 1972 communist guerrillas with 2015 islamist jihadists, so you already know the differences between them.
As I said, I think you need to do more research into the whole situation although that's only my view.
Says the person who's counter argument is a list of terrorist attacks that have nothing to do with Jihadism, only one stabbing on a random street in Berlin, sure it was a self proclaimed Jihadist, but that does not mean that it had an ultimate goal to accomplish on ISIS behalf.
 
As I said, I think you need to do more research into the whole situation although that's only my view.

Says the person who's counter argument is a list of terrorist attacks that have nothing to do with Jihadism, only one stabbing on a random street in Berlin, sure it was a self proclaimed Jihadist, but that does not mean that it had an ultimate goal to accomplish on ISIS behalf.

I think that you both are failing to look at the bigger picture here. Regardless of the fact that if it is ISIS, Al Queda, or insert affiliation here, the main point to all of this is that terror attacks across the globe have both gotten brazer and more deadly in scope. The attacks and car bombs that Israel sees every day will have nothing to what the west will be facing. The only reason why the Paris attacks were so successful in scope of deaths and general destruction is because those 9 that carried out the attacks were actually trained by ISIS. I dare say that if more people were involved in the San Bernadino shooting, we would have even more deaths at the hands of the two that carried out the attack. Keep in mind that the two shooters that carried out the California attacks was talking to not one, or two, but five men on the terrorist watch list by way of social media. Now granted that the California attacks were not ISIS ordered, but still it should drive the message home that ISIS does have a reach in this country.
 
Okay ... guess no one wants to mention the Russian plane downed by a "western" Ally.
I believe I said strategic ally, in the terms of the fight against ISIS. And I'm quite sure that if Turkey had an incident with ISIS, that would've never of happened.

Also, that has nothing in relation to the original topic.

You are not reading
You are not answering your own questions. Who are they targeting?

the targets that are to be attacked will be attacked.
Who are these targets? Who are these targets? Who are these targets?

The west? The Kurds? The Sunnis? The elder? Journalists? Politicians? Civilians?

Your point is invalid if you can't prove the basis of it.
 
My reaction to this:
  1. lol
  2. are you serious
  3. well... that could be kinda cool
  4. it ain't real
Indeed, but it's not the first article to spout that a large gang "supposedly" would not tolerate ISIS encroaching on their territory. ISIS would have to directly interfere with their trades though to even warrant attention. These gangs know they're not going to do anything unless on home soil.
 
The government forces took control of the entire city of Homs. #ХомсНаш (#HomsIsOurs)!

Four years of fighting. It's the Verdun of our time...
dcUWlRBG3W0.jpg
 
The government forces took control of the entire city of Homs. #ХомсНаш (#HomsIsOurs)!

Four years of fighting. It's the Verdun of our time...

Verdun was a battle though, in this case the Syrian government and the UN have brokered a ceasefire and a peaceful withdrawal. It doesn't appear that the UN had their peacekeepers fighting at all, they appear to simply be supervising the withdrawal. The "evacuation" has been going on for several days now and this can only be good news for the residents caught up in the siege (three years!).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35048404
 
The finance chief of so-called Islamic State has been killed in air strikes by the US-led coalition, a US military spokesman has said.

Muwaffaq Mustafa Mohammed al-Karmoush, aka Abu Salah, and two other senior leaders were killed in the strikes which took place in "recent weeks".

No further details were given.

The coalition has been carrying out air strikes against IS militants in Iraq and Syria for over a year. One recently also killed an IS leader in Libya.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35064400
 
There's always word of these "senior leaders" getting themselves killed, but it never seems to change things much...
 
I wonder how many Toyota pickups have been destroyed by now, and if it's a large enough number, would Toyota order a recall to see why they all mysteriously disintegrate into lots of tiny pieces.

Stats show that the fault occurs most often when parked near embassies/mosques/checkpoints. Definitely worth looking into.
 
Back