MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Is the war against ISIS a war that is needed officially?
- Thread starter dper726
- Start date
bigdeee973
Member
Al-Qaeda last year ISIS this year...Westside slammers next year or whenever the CIA has fox news change the name again
ISIS FORCES THAT NOW CONTROL RAMADI ARE EX-BAATHIST SADDAM LOYALISTS
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/03/isis-forces-exbaathist-saddam-loyalists/
The fall of Ramadi, capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, to the Islamic State last month has frayed nerves in Washington, but what few appear to grasp is that ISIS’s May offensive has given Ramadi back to its former owners — the ex-Baathist Sunni terrorists known as the Former Regime Loyalists. The FRLs, as they’re called, were Saddam Hussein’s most ardent followers, the same fighters whom the United States fought non-stop for eight years. Their resurgence has implications not just for the United States but for ISIS itself. For while these forces may fly the ISIS flag today, their ultimate plans for Iraq are quite different than those of the “caliphate.”
ISIS’s roots in Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party are deep — many of the group’s most devoted commanders, advisers and fighters started out as Baathists. The ex-Baathists essentially run ISIS, and their past is evident in the tactics they are using now.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/03/isis-forces-exbaathist-saddam-loyalists/
The fall of Ramadi, capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, to the Islamic State last month has frayed nerves in Washington, but what few appear to grasp is that ISIS’s May offensive has given Ramadi back to its former owners — the ex-Baathist Sunni terrorists known as the Former Regime Loyalists. The FRLs, as they’re called, were Saddam Hussein’s most ardent followers, the same fighters whom the United States fought non-stop for eight years. Their resurgence has implications not just for the United States but for ISIS itself. For while these forces may fly the ISIS flag today, their ultimate plans for Iraq are quite different than those of the “caliphate.”
ISIS’s roots in Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party are deep — many of the group’s most devoted commanders, advisers and fighters started out as Baathists. The ex-Baathists essentially run ISIS, and their past is evident in the tactics they are using now.
Will ISIS Inherit Damascus?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-buchanan • June 5, 2015
Who rises if Assad falls?
That question, which has bedeviled U.S. experts on the Middle East, may need updating to read: Who rises when Assad falls? For the war is going badly for Bashar Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since Richard Nixon was president. Assad’s situation seems more imperiled than at any time in this four-year civil-sectarian war that has cost the lives of some 220,000 soldiers, rebels and civilians, and made refugees of millions more.
Last month, ISIS captured Palmyra in central Syria, as it was taking Ramadi in Iraq. A coalition, at the heart of which is the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, seized Idlib province in northern Syria and is moving toward the coast and Latakia.
Half of Syria has been lost to ISIS, the Nusra front, and other jihadist and rebel groups. All of Syria’s border crossings with Iraq have been lost to ISIS. All of the border crossing with Turkey, excluding Kobani, have been lost to ISIS or rebels linked to al-Qaida. Syria’s border with Lebanon is becoming a war zone. Some 100 Russian military advisers are said to have pulled out of Syria, suggesting Vladimir Putin may be reconsidering Russia’s historic investment.
Indicating the gravity of the situation, Syrian sources claim 7,000 to 10,000 foreign Shiite fighters, Iraqi and Iranian, have arrived to defend Damascus and launch an offensive to recapture Idlib. Israel’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Yair Golan, who headed the Northern Command, was quoted this week, “The Syrian Army has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.”
Israeli sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, Assad’s indispensable ally, is warning that the real threats to the Shiites of Lebanon are ISIS and the Nusra Front. Fighting between Hezbollah and Syrian rebels is taking place along the Lebanese-Syrian border.
Assad has been written off before, only to survive those who predicted his demise. But given the balance of forces and the way in which the tide of battle is turning, it is hard to see how his regime and army can long resist eventual collapse.
Arrayed against him are not only the Nusra Front and ISIS, which are attracting recruits from abroad, but also Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs, who have been clandestinely aiding Sunni rebels we regard as terrorists. Though the Turks have a half-million-man army, 3,000 tanks, 1,000 military aircraft, and are 60 miles from the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria, our NATO ally refuses to move. Turkey’s president sees Assad as an ally of Iran.
The Israelis, too, see Assad as an ally of Iran and a greater enemy than an ISIS or Nusra Front with no army to threaten Israel. They have been aiding Syrian rebels on the Golan. Israeli ambassador Michael Oren said in 2013, “We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Fine, but the “bad guys” Ambassador Oren prefers have on their hands the blood of 3,000 Americans.
It is difficult to see where the Assad regime and army, under attack within and without, will get the recruits to defend that half of Syria they still hold, let alone reunite the country.
So, again, the question: What happens when Assad falls? Who will protect the Christians he has sheltered? Who will protect the Shiite minority? Who will halt the massacres when they come? And who will seize power in Damascus?
Right now the rival claimants would appear to be the Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaeda that brought down our twin towers, and ISIS, the death cult famous for the barbarity of its executions. According to the New York Times on June 4, ISIS is “emerging as a social and political movement,” preparing to govern its caliphate.
Interviewed by CBS News, Gen. David Petraeus said the United States is “probably losing” the war to ISIS, and we need more U.S. troops in Iraq or we run “the risk of losing the fight.”
Now consider what the general is saying:
America should send her best and bravest back into Iraq to defeat ISIS, while Turkey, the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs, and Israel are helping bring about the defeat of a Syrian army that has been battling ISIS for years. Our “friends” in the Middle East have no problem with us fighting and dying to drive ISIS out of Iraq, while they try to bring about the fall of Assad in Syria, which would constitute a triumph for ISIS.
A collapse of Assad’s army could give ISIS control of Syria. Our “friends” don’t mind this happening because it would be a defeat for Iran and the Shiite Crescent, their enemies, even if it meant a victory for ISIS and al-Qaida, our enemies.
It is time we stopped letting other nations pick the enemies for us to fight. And as our “friends” are looking out for themselves first, last, and always, let us Americans begin to do the same.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-buchanan • June 5, 2015
Who rises if Assad falls?
That question, which has bedeviled U.S. experts on the Middle East, may need updating to read: Who rises when Assad falls? For the war is going badly for Bashar Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since Richard Nixon was president. Assad’s situation seems more imperiled than at any time in this four-year civil-sectarian war that has cost the lives of some 220,000 soldiers, rebels and civilians, and made refugees of millions more.
Last month, ISIS captured Palmyra in central Syria, as it was taking Ramadi in Iraq. A coalition, at the heart of which is the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, seized Idlib province in northern Syria and is moving toward the coast and Latakia.
Half of Syria has been lost to ISIS, the Nusra front, and other jihadist and rebel groups. All of Syria’s border crossings with Iraq have been lost to ISIS. All of the border crossing with Turkey, excluding Kobani, have been lost to ISIS or rebels linked to al-Qaida. Syria’s border with Lebanon is becoming a war zone. Some 100 Russian military advisers are said to have pulled out of Syria, suggesting Vladimir Putin may be reconsidering Russia’s historic investment.
Indicating the gravity of the situation, Syrian sources claim 7,000 to 10,000 foreign Shiite fighters, Iraqi and Iranian, have arrived to defend Damascus and launch an offensive to recapture Idlib. Israel’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Yair Golan, who headed the Northern Command, was quoted this week, “The Syrian Army has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.”
Israeli sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, Assad’s indispensable ally, is warning that the real threats to the Shiites of Lebanon are ISIS and the Nusra Front. Fighting between Hezbollah and Syrian rebels is taking place along the Lebanese-Syrian border.
Assad has been written off before, only to survive those who predicted his demise. But given the balance of forces and the way in which the tide of battle is turning, it is hard to see how his regime and army can long resist eventual collapse.
Arrayed against him are not only the Nusra Front and ISIS, which are attracting recruits from abroad, but also Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs, who have been clandestinely aiding Sunni rebels we regard as terrorists. Though the Turks have a half-million-man army, 3,000 tanks, 1,000 military aircraft, and are 60 miles from the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria, our NATO ally refuses to move. Turkey’s president sees Assad as an ally of Iran.
The Israelis, too, see Assad as an ally of Iran and a greater enemy than an ISIS or Nusra Front with no army to threaten Israel. They have been aiding Syrian rebels on the Golan. Israeli ambassador Michael Oren said in 2013, “We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Fine, but the “bad guys” Ambassador Oren prefers have on their hands the blood of 3,000 Americans.
It is difficult to see where the Assad regime and army, under attack within and without, will get the recruits to defend that half of Syria they still hold, let alone reunite the country.
So, again, the question: What happens when Assad falls? Who will protect the Christians he has sheltered? Who will protect the Shiite minority? Who will halt the massacres when they come? And who will seize power in Damascus?
Right now the rival claimants would appear to be the Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaeda that brought down our twin towers, and ISIS, the death cult famous for the barbarity of its executions. According to the New York Times on June 4, ISIS is “emerging as a social and political movement,” preparing to govern its caliphate.
Interviewed by CBS News, Gen. David Petraeus said the United States is “probably losing” the war to ISIS, and we need more U.S. troops in Iraq or we run “the risk of losing the fight.”
Now consider what the general is saying:
America should send her best and bravest back into Iraq to defeat ISIS, while Turkey, the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs, and Israel are helping bring about the defeat of a Syrian army that has been battling ISIS for years. Our “friends” in the Middle East have no problem with us fighting and dying to drive ISIS out of Iraq, while they try to bring about the fall of Assad in Syria, which would constitute a triumph for ISIS.
A collapse of Assad’s army could give ISIS control of Syria. Our “friends” don’t mind this happening because it would be a defeat for Iran and the Shiite Crescent, their enemies, even if it meant a victory for ISIS and al-Qaida, our enemies.
It is time we stopped letting other nations pick the enemies for us to fight. And as our “friends” are looking out for themselves first, last, and always, let us Americans begin to do the same.
TANGO.ECHO.KILO
Member
if they weren't already dirty, plenty of boys laced their boots up when they tried a move on Ramadi. Like it or not, we're in it, been it in for a long time...best you can do is support our men/women and pray they make it home to their loved one when the work is done... period
I believe supporting them includes speaking up when they are sent into harm's way for the wrong reasons.
Longer than most people realize. The "work" will never....be done!
anonymous_475692
Member
I agree with this 100%
How do you propose we fight them besides the way we already are? We are already fighting them now. Operation Enduring Freedom.
Fighting them now... and losing.
We can keep muddling through with special operations and air support, the rest is up to the gulf states. Let the Iraqis hold their own territories, if they don't want to do it let them suffer the consequences. Our boys don't need to die on the ground for those cowards, they should be able to beat back insurgents with the amount of support and training we have provided. If they throw down their guns and run away every time they have to for toe-to-toe with insurgents we need to stop providing them with weapons and resources that the IS can get their hands on. These people are nothing like the Afghanis, they are yellow and will flee across the Middle East to get away from the IS no matter how much they are at an advantage. Should have armed the Sunnis instead.
Last edited:
The mexican cartels have been smuggling in isis militants for a little while now. Its no doubt they are already here...attack them abroad and at home before the infestation become strategicly organized
anonymous_475692
Member
honestly Im not really sure, what do you think?
I think our special operators and field agents have everything under control. Don't buy into the right wing nut ball hype. The IS aren't invading the United States through the Mexican border, that is a hoax.
Last edited:
US Strikes ISIS Fighters to Protect al-Qaeda Town in NW Syria
ISIS Fighters Publicly Beheaded in Azaz
Jason Ditz, June 08, 2015
Up until the past few days, US airstrikes in Syria have come in two forms, the ones aimed at directly aiding Kurdish factions against ISIS, and the kind meant to just cause damage to ISIS without an eye toward aiding anyone. Monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is now reporting the first US strikes in aid of a “non-Kurdish” faction in Syria.
The strikes, which began on Friday, were meant to blunt an ISIS offensive against the city of Azaz, which is held by a coalition of Islamist rebels that is dominated by al-Qaeda. Eight were killed in the airstrikes, and 20 wounded.
That was just the tip of the iceberg, however, as the Islamists reported they were “tipped off” about ISIS positions in advance, and captured a large number of them over the subsequent days, publicly beheading a number of captive ISIS fighters.
The rebel faction, which again is al-Qaeda dominated, also released a video showing a battalion of US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels who are fighting alongside them firing US Tow missiles against ISIS targets outside of Azaz.
Azaz is considered a hugely valuable city because it is on the main highway between the city of Aleppo and the major Syria-Turkey border crossing. ISIS controls much of the border east of Aleppo, while al-Qaeda holds the border region in Idlib up to this part of Aleppo. Other crossings are held by Kurdish factions.
ISIS Fighters Publicly Beheaded in Azaz
Jason Ditz, June 08, 2015
Up until the past few days, US airstrikes in Syria have come in two forms, the ones aimed at directly aiding Kurdish factions against ISIS, and the kind meant to just cause damage to ISIS without an eye toward aiding anyone. Monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is now reporting the first US strikes in aid of a “non-Kurdish” faction in Syria.
The strikes, which began on Friday, were meant to blunt an ISIS offensive against the city of Azaz, which is held by a coalition of Islamist rebels that is dominated by al-Qaeda. Eight were killed in the airstrikes, and 20 wounded.
That was just the tip of the iceberg, however, as the Islamists reported they were “tipped off” about ISIS positions in advance, and captured a large number of them over the subsequent days, publicly beheading a number of captive ISIS fighters.
The rebel faction, which again is al-Qaeda dominated, also released a video showing a battalion of US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels who are fighting alongside them firing US Tow missiles against ISIS targets outside of Azaz.
Azaz is considered a hugely valuable city because it is on the main highway between the city of Aleppo and the major Syria-Turkey border crossing. ISIS controls much of the border east of Aleppo, while al-Qaeda holds the border region in Idlib up to this part of Aleppo. Other crossings are held by Kurdish factions.
A lot of FSA rebels joined Jabhat Al-Nusra because they were stuck fighting Assad, ISIS, and al-Nusra (AQIS) at the same time. Regional countries around Syria have wanted al-Nusra to abandon its ties with Al-Qaeda so that they can "legally" fund al-Nusra. Al-Nusra's leadership also wants to sever the group from its al-Qaeda affiliation. The group is set on not only toppling Assad, but also destroying ISIS. I would venture to say that al-Nusra is responsible for most of the the success that the FSA has claimed in Syria because they are the ones who are actually carrying out the operations. The FSA publicly claims the victories but it is actually al-Nusra who is putting in the work.
Last edited:
Should al-Nusra shed its skin as a terrorist organization, regional states may decide to actively start funding them to fight against both Assad and ISIS. And as it stands al-Nusra seems to be more than willing to actually combat ISIS, effectively. Al-Nusra will never buy into the "caliphate" ISIS is selling and the two groups will be at war until one side is destroyed. Al-Nusra, if provided with regional funding and U.S. tactical support, may prove to be a real threat against ISIS.
It's just terrorist/freedom fighter musical chairs. It's the same damn people with the same goals and ideologies. There's not one organization, faction or country in the whole region that gives a fuck about US interests, and that includes Saudi Arabia and Israel.
ISIS brought to you by: NBC, Foxnews and the Military Industrial Complex and it's 1984 Perpetual war.
"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
1984 Orwell
"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
1984 Orwell
"We are at war with ISIS. We have always been at war with ISIS" : )
Similar threads
- Sticky
