ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[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.