ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[rvg]

...the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.

Yeah, they're pretty good at depopulating controlled territory.

[AE Bravo]

Thought this was interesting: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-version11.pdf

Skip the beginning the good stuff is omitted. Page 5 - C is where it's at. Should be common knowledge now, just found it surprising myself.

[Sarmatian]

I don't think this is true, the rebels are extremely fractured and don't hold as much territory as ISIS does but they are still a major force. According Wikipedia the FSA has between 40-50 thousand fighters, the Islamic Front has between 40-70 thousand, and there are several other smaller rebel factions. ISIS has between 31,500 to 100 thousand fighters. And according this map, the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.

1) You need to be aware how many population centers and strategic areas they are actually in control of.
2) Those are all various rebel groups put together. There are dozens of them and they very often aren't friendly to each other.

[Husar]

Crandar posted an interview in the Backroom video thread a couple weeks ago where the journalist who was actually there says the FSA seems to be a non-factor that is overrated in the West and usually just runs away, so I'm not sure why some people are still somewhat fixated on them. I assume most of the moderate intelligent Syrians are on their way to refugee camps because they don't have a death wish to get involved in this mess. And if they can't decide for a side to support, why should I? I know much less about their country and the people than they do.

If Pegida were to start a civil war against the salafists and the biker gangs and catholic militias got involved while the army split up into supporting Merkel for Chancellor for life and a neo-nazi splinter army, plus a Gerhard Schröder in charge of Cossack mercenaries, I would also rather leave than join any of them even if there were another small faction with similar values to mine.

Which leads me to believe that there still isn't really any good option. The Kurds will be eradicated by Erdogan and may not be so nice after all.
Any rebel group that may have somewhat supportable values is probably too small to win this without sending them the US Marines as backup and the only really strong factions seem to be the proper Syrian army, who now got strong Russian backup and ISIS who are an army of supermen where each of their fighters can make up for ten fighters of any of the other factions (maybe they DO have god's blessing after all?).

There are also allegations (by Kurdish people I guess) that Erdogan is the one selling ISIS' oil for them, so maybe NATO is actually propping up ISIS to take control of the region.
This could also be supported by the fact that the US-led bombing campaign has not managed to stop ISIS yet and there seem to have been no terror attacks on the Muslim countries that are partaking in it. Is ISIS an inside job? How can their fighters be so strong? Am I Glenn Beck or am I just asking the right questions? You may find out in my next post if I decide to write one.

[AE Bravo]

So you didn't know Turkey coordinated with ISIS on more than one occasion? Like when they went to recover that Ottoman tomb in IS territory?

Here, take this L sir.

[Husar]

So you didn't know Turkey coordinated with ISIS on more than one occasion? Like when they went to recover that Ottoman tomb in IS territory?

Here, take this L sir.

I think whether that was actual cooperation or mutual "acceptance" since ISIS do not want to fight the Turkish military (yet) is not entirely established. But that Erdogan was treating ISIS with a lot of restraint and was basically just watching them was quite obvious. I haven't seen a reliable report of actual cooperation so far.

[Tuuvi]

1) You need to be aware how many population centers and strategic areas they are actually in control of.
2) Those are all various rebel groups put together. There are dozens of them and they very often aren't friendly to each other.

I know that, that's why I said the rebels are "extremely fractured" and why I mentioned that there are several other smaller rebel factions. The rebels hold territory just outside of Aleppo and Damascus, they are still a threat to the regime and they are not insignificant. Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?

[Tuuvi]

http://po.combatfootagearchive.com/Visit%20Anbar.mp4

[Sarmatian]

Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?

It is a big question if the airstrikes have been focusing more on rebels other than extremists.

[Brenus]

I know that, that's why I said the rebels are "extremely fractured" and why I mentioned that there are several other smaller rebel factions. The rebels hold territory just outside of Aleppo and Damascus, they are still a threat to the regime and they are not insignificant. Why do you think the Russian airstrikes have been focusing more on the rebels than on ISIS?

Well. perhaps the answer is why the USA & EU were keener to go for regime change than to fight ISIL. Geopolitic.

I think USA & EU think ISIL not real danger... Too extremist, it will collapse by itself, and still in need of Western Technology/medicament/goods, so it will tamed itself to become an "Saudi Arabia", potentially. Not a place to leave yourself, but you can trade with. So, they focused on letting ISIL to grab as much as lands and population to enslave as possible, then wait for the change. But Assad was on the way, so, they aimed at him. A little bit of bombing ISIL (not too much), a bit a money and weapons to "moderate" opposition they knew will end in ISIL hands, looking the other way when Crucifixion, burning people alive and women sold to slavery, campaigning against destruction of all temples, well, routine.
Then Putin racked the game. Bombing and helping Syrian Army, not good. Even worst, look that he got result.
And just after the public admission that there is in fact no more moderate opposition, and 1,000,000 refugees who had enough to wait to be sold to ISIL by USA & EU lack of real action (as it was not the plan anyway), walking into Europe.
So whom Putin is bombing?

[Viking]

the public admission that there is in fact no more moderate opposition

Huh?

So whom Putin is bombing?

The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria after Russia started bombing should provide some clues.

[Brenus]

"The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria" Fact?

"Huh?" Can't find the approximately the 25 soldiers left trained by US money... So more in now cut, and weapons parachuted, don't know really where, but it might be in the rightist hands.

[Viking]

"The fact that IS has been gaining rather than loosing ground in Syria" Fact?

Yes. I've seen no independent confirmation that IS is on the back foot anywhere in Syria.

"Huh?" Can't find the approximately the 25 soldiers left trained by US money... So more in now cut, and weapons parachuted, don't know really where, but it might be in the rightist hands.

The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.

[Husar]

Well, that settles it, with backing from Erdogan and Putin, ISIS is there to stay.

[Sarmatian]

Yes. I've seen no independent confirmation that IS is on the back foot anywhere in Syria.

So you naturally assumed that the opposite must be true.

Taking into account that you have no idea what ISIS is actually in control of, their command structure, their production capabilities, their combat readiness, number of troops, supplies, weapons, reserves, money.....

...how would you even know if they're on the back foot or not?

The rebels trained by the US aren't the only 'moderates' in Syria. Have never been.

Oh, please do share...

[Viking]

So you naturally assumed that the opposite must be true.

Or, it could just possibly be based on the news item right there.

...how would you even know if they're on the back foot or not?

When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.

Oh, please do share...

These seem pretty moderate..

Of course, just because people join islamist groups doesn't mean that they are islamists. If the US can extract non-islamist elements from such groups, they'd have more people to provide arms to.

[Sarmatian]

Or, it could just possibly be based on the news item right there.

Possibly, but not certainly.

When no news reports say that they are on the back foot, chances are it is because they are not on the back foot.

There are plenty of news reports that do say that.

You have to understand one thing - reporters don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about. 99% of the "reports" are actually statements from a military representative. That's why you have practically all western newspapers parroting -> Russian attacks don't target extremists, are wrong, counterproductive, doomed to fail and make Jesus cry; while Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.

These seem pretty moderate..

They also seem like they need a brain transplant.

Of course, just because people join islamist groups doesn't mean that they are islamists. If the US can extract non-islamist elements from such groups, they'd have more people to provide arms to

That's not terribly hard since after 3 years of training and arming, more than a billion of dollars, US managed to get 4 (yes, four) people armed and ready to fight ISIS.

The sad thing is if they manage to get 5 in the next three years, that's a 25% increase in performance.

[CrossLOPER]

Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.

Well you can't have human conflict if all humans have been obliterated. Humans that are not named Assad, that is.

[Viking]

There are plenty of news reports that do say that.

From where? RT? PressTV?

You have to understand one thing - reporters don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about. 99% of the "reports" are actually statements from a military representative. That's why you have practically all western newspapers parroting -> Russian attacks don't target extremists, are wrong, counterproductive, doomed to fail and make Jesus cry; while Russian newspapers are all about -> Russian strikes are like, super effective, they kill only baddies and extremists will soon been defeated.

Some reporters do have a clue about what they are talking about. One of the biggest problems is that reports of regime advances appear to be coming from areas where IS has no presence.

One of the groups Russia appear to be attacking is the Nusra front, who are hardly any better than IS. Yet, they are also hostile to IS, so it's likely not bad for IS that Nusra gets weakened.

In fact, foreign fighters originally headed for Nusra might go to IS instead, as they appear to have a lot of foreign fighters among them:

"the overwhelming majority of Al-Nusra members want to stay in Al-Qaeda, particularly foreign fighters who represent at least one-third of the organisation," said Romain Caillet, a French expert on jihadists.

http://news.yahoo.com/qaeda-syria-de...194745608.html

That's not terribly hard since after 3 years of training and arming, more than a billion of dollars, US managed to get 4 (yes, four) people armed and ready to fight ISIS.

The sad thing is if they manage to get 5 in the next three years, that's a 25% increase in performance.

The US abandoned their training program and switched to arming already existing groups. All they need to find is a small division of a rebel group that can be described as 'moderate' to get somewhere. Groups that pay their soldiers well and receive good arms will attract more fighters.

Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?

The Levant Front’s charter, released in June, called for the establishment of Islamic government with Sharia as the sole source of law. The group calls itself part of the Syrian Free Army, vehemently opposes both ISIS and al-Qaeda, and argues for the protection of Syria’s minorities. “The Levant Front is part of the Syrian revolution,” said Hassan Sheikh, a leader in the group. “Our main goal is to bring down the regime, and to achieve the aims of the people for a democratic civil state with multiple religions and sects.”

Salem, a former electrical engineer, says his group is “very moderate” and believes in a democratic Syria that is a home to Christians, members of the Alawite sect, which Assad belongs to, and the country’s Sunni majority. “We don’t have a problem with anyone who has not taken up arms against us,” he said, noting that his own mother was Christian.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaraga...-mu#.ffG4YvwEv

[Sarmatian]

From where? RT? PressTV?

Some reporters do have a clue about what they are talking about. One of the biggest problems is that reports of regime advances appear to be coming from areas where IS has no presence.

Get real. There isn't a single news organization that can afford to independently cover a war zone as large as Syria, or to research all armed groups involved and their relations with each other and foreign patrons. They rely on military intelligence for that.

One of the groups Russia appear to be attacking is the Nusra front, who are hardly any better than IS. Yet, they are also hostile to IS, so it's likely not bad for IS that Nusra gets weakened.

In fact, foreign fighters originally headed for Nusra might go to IS instead, as they appear to have a lot of foreign fighters among them:

Russia already stated they are fighting against extremists, not IS exclusively. Al Nusra isn't much better than ISIS and both (and many others) need to be defeated.

The US abandoned their training program and switched to arming already existing groups. All they need to find is a small division of a rebel group that can be described as 'moderate' to get somewhere. Groups that pay their soldiers well and receive good arms will attract more fighters.

That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.

This line has kind of proven false. US accused Russia of bombing Syrian moderates (FSA). Russia responded with "well, obviously your intelligence is different from ours. Tell us about FSA, how many soldiers they have, who are their leaders, what is their command structure, which territory they control. If they are indeed moderates, we are willing to contact them and coordinate with them."

There has been no contact from the US about FSA after that. Washington refused to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss it, and then refused to accept a Russian delegation.

Russia has so far made two very clear conditions on who they are willing to work with in Syria. They must be:
1) Made up of Syrians or be there with sanction of the Syrian government
2) Not extremists

It is getting pretty clear that FSA is a phantom structure.

Btw, is this more or less 'moderate' than George W. Bush?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaraga...-mu#.ffG4YvwEv

Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.

[Viking]

Get real. There isn't a single news organization that can afford to independently cover a war zone as large as Syria, or to research all armed groups involved and their relations with each other and foreign patrons. They rely on military intelligence for that.

A huge oversimplification (why does one single news organisation have to cover it all? why are you excluding independent journalists and analysts?). The are sources on the ground, verifiable social media reports (videos), IS' own propaganda videos etc.

Russia already stated they are fighting against extremists, not IS exclusively. Al Nusra isn't much better than ISIS and both (and many others) need to be defeated.

Thus far, they do not appear to be attacking IS much at all. It'll be interesting to see when/if that changes.

That implies that they are attracting mercenaries.

No, it implies that they are attracting fighters practising common sense. You are more likely to reach your goal of defeating Assad with a strong group than a weak; and the more money you are paid, the easier it is for you to take of yourself without having to rely on the structures of the group you fight with.

This line has kind of proven false. US accused Russia of bombing Syrian moderates (FSA). Russia responded with "well, obviously your intelligence is different from ours. Tell us about FSA, how many soldiers they have, who are their leaders, what is their command structure, which territory they control. If they are indeed moderates, we are willing to contact them and coordinate with them."

There has been no contact from the US about FSA after that. Washington refused to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss it, and then refused to accept a Russian delegation.

Russia has so far made two very clear conditions on who they are willing to work with in Syria. They must be:
1) Made up of Syrians or be there with sanction of the Syrian government
2) Not extremists

It is getting pretty clear that FSA is a phantom structure.

The FSA appears no less real than it did earlier (as per my link), although it seems to a great extent to be made up of islamists (which is different from extremists with most definitions). Russia does not appear to have much interest in discriminating between these categories.

Why the US is not interested in co-coordinating with Russia on the matter we can only speculate on. Maybe the US don't have any specific groups in mind, maybe they don't want to hand Russia this kind of information, maybe they realise how much rebel groups rely on each other because most individual groups are too weak on their own - who knows.

Any group that wishes to create a shariah state is most certainly not a moderate.

Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature. Actual application and interpretation of 'Sharia' can be done in different ways. None of which are good, but Assad isn't good, either. If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.

[Sarmatian]

A huge oversimplification (why does one single news organisation have to cover it all? why are you excluding independent journalists and analysts?). The are sources on the ground, verifiable social media reports (videos), IS' own propaganda videos etc.

Because they don't have the expertise, the means and the funds. They don't the satellites, air force or intelligence structure to do that. They don't have the experts who could analyze millions of satellite photos.

They can stumble upon something sometimes, or make a decent report about a single, small aspect, but for the bulk of information, they rely on what was provided to them by the authorities.

Read the articles, it's in there - "a state official said...", "an official report by...", "sources from a department...", "according to the intelligence data provided by..." and so on...

Social media ... You're having a laugh.

No, it implies that they are attracting fighters practising common sense. You are more likely to reach your goal of defeating Assad with a strong group than a weak; and the more money you are paid, the easier it is for you to take of yourself without having to rely on the structures of the group you fight with.

If it were so, there would have already been a strong group formed already. In reality it is much more sectarian. It's not so much about beating Assad but imposing your own order in Syria (or a part of it).

The FSA appears no less real than it did earlier (as per my link), although it seems to a great extent to be made up of islamists (which is different from extremists with most definitions). Russia does not appear to have much interest in discriminating between these categories.

Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.

Why the US is not interested in co-coordinating with Russia on the matter we can only speculate on. Maybe the US don't have any specific groups in mind, maybe they don't want to hand Russia this kind of information, maybe they realise how much rebel groups rely on each other because most individual groups are too weak on their own - who knows.

Maybe...

Maybe they don't have a strategy at all or their strategy is different from the one they espouse publicly.

Without knowing whether or not they intend to stone people to death and cut off people's hands, insisting that they are not 'moderate' seems premature. Actual application and interpretation of 'Sharia' can be done in different ways. None of which are good, but Assad isn't good, either. If they are sincere in their talk about democracy, then that democracy provides an opening towards a better state.

How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?

If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. Just don't troll, please.

[Viking]

Because they don't have the expertise, the means and the funds. They don't the satellites, air force or intelligence structure to do that. They don't have the experts who could analyze millions of satellite photos.

They can stumble upon something sometimes, or make a decent report about a single, small aspect, but for the bulk of information, they rely on what was provided to them by the authorities.

Read the articles, it's in there - "a state official said...", "an official report by...", "sources from a department...", "according to the intelligence data provided by..." and so on...

Again, I don't get what your argument is. No one is interested in every rock IS controls, but the greater trends. I am not basing the assumption that IS has not lost territory on what some spokesperson said, but on the lack of credible evidence showing the opposite.

Social media ... You're having a laugh.

YouTube videos, primarily. They can be geolocated. Fake videos do exist; but I am not aware that this is a huge problem (and do not typically focus on location anyway, AFAIK). Biggest problem is establishing that the date is correct.

Categorically dismissing such evidence is silly. They are one small part of the toolkit.

If it were so, there would have already been a strong group formed already.

That's in part because strong groups are forming: those with more resources cannibalise those with less.

Anyone trying to bring shariah laws to a secular country is an extremist.

But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?

Maybe...

Indeed.

How can anyone be talking about democracy and shariah law at the same time?

Why - what's the problem? How can anyone talk about death penalty and democracy at the same time? (is it democratic to kill potential voters?) How can anyone talk about voting restrictions and democracy at the same time? (aren't people under 18 humans too?)

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. The most important thing is that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country. There's no inherent reason sharia laws, like any other laws, cannot be amended or abolished by a democratically elected parliament.

[CrossLOPER]

Why - what's the problem? How can anyone talk about death penalty and democracy at the same time? (is it democratic to kill potential voters?) How can anyone talk about voting restrictions and democracy at the same time? (aren't people under 18 humans too?).

Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law? Your best defense of this is

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy.

You are right. There is no perfect democracy. Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.

[Viking]

Do you honestly think that those things are comparable with full-scale introduction of shariah law?

They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

Clearly, we should just do whatever since we can't live up to perfection.

Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.

[AE Bravo]

YouTube videos, primarily. They can be geolocated. Fake videos do exist; but I am not aware that this is a huge problem (and do not typically focus on location anyway, AFAIK). Biggest problem is establishing that the date is correct.

Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.

But does every islamist want to introduce sharia?

Absolutely.

What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

Seeing as how rebel movements denounce these as desecration of Sharia I don't see how they can be reconciled. There is no framework for Sharia, just fragments you either follow or you don't, no middle ground to the Salafi.

"Moderate" rebel movements in Syria = myth. Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!

[Viking]

Videos prove nothing, anyone can dress up in a hockey mask and throw an orgy saying this is IS it's not that difficult. I can link you to how happy the people of Mosul are since they've been liberated by the Islamic state, whoopwhoop. Youtube videos are to be categorically dismissed yes and it's silly to bring them up in a discussion, leave that shit to facebook.

Again a silly simplification. If a video contains fighting with tanks exploding, how many people would be able to upload dozens of such videos with perfect CGI and sound effects? If you can can geolocate it and the date seems right, then that town is almost certainly being fought over in the physical world, too.

Absolutely.

If we go by that definition, then not everyone labelled an Islamist here might be islamist after all..

rebel movements

Well, that was specific. Just above, I was talking about the Levant Front. See if you can dig up some dirt on them.

Also don't link to Buzzfeed dude!

Yeah, linking to an article written by someone who has been a Pulitzer finalist several times for coverage of the Middle East is probably no good idea.

[CrossLOPER]

They are not supposed to be comparable. What they all have in common is that they in principle are incompatible with democracy; yet we don't stop labelling countries practising such things as democracies.

So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?

Maybe in some parallel reality this comment will make sense.

Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".

[Viking]

So the definition of what qualifies as a "democracy" should be made more accessible? Does that mean that Russia is A-OK? Zimbabwe?

It's not about being "OK" - democracy should be a neutral (technical) term that describes how the government is, in effect, chosen. I've already indirectly defined democracy (crudely) as "[...] that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".

The greater the part of the population can have a say, the more democratic. Rigged votes are not democratic because they bar the population from having a say. Oppressing political opposition is not democratic since it limits the choice.

Once moral judgements are made part of what constitutes a democracy (like requiring 'human rights'), the definition will likely become fleeting and change according to common opinions on how a state should be run.

Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".

Just stop reading all kinds of weird things between the lines.

[Sarmatian]

that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".

That's not crude, that's wrong.

You just defined pre Civil War America as a democratic state, because the "sizeable" majority had a say in who controlled the country.
If there's a country where slavery is legal, it would be totally democratic, if a "sizeable" majority still has a say. Or, if you want, the old "two wolves and a sheep voting what's gonna be for dinner" democracy.


Go back to the drawing board.