What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

You may be right ENT and I can not say you are wrong since I do not know for sure.

In all my years in the pharmacy business, I never asked a drug rep where they obtained their raw material for opioid type drugs. I do know that there were several occasions that we could not obtain morphine, meperidine and other opiods due to the lack of raw materials. In fact, if you go on the FDA drug shortage list right now, you will see many drug shortages due to lack of raw materials.

---

Shortages happen because the production is so localized,, it's easy for rain at the wrong time of the year to ruin the Tasmanian crop and the production houses are legally bound to not stockpile more than 8 months supply.
For this reason they have started poppy farming on the mainland this year. On a vast scale.

Opiate farming and production is probably the most regulated industry on earth next to nukes, I just don't see how a company like Glaxo could get away with producing say twice as much finished product as their known raw material intake would allow for.

Mexico, China, Russia may be markets,

Anyway, IS are after the loot, guns for drugs and oil.

Who's buying/supplying?

Who're the main armaments manufacturers involved in ME/Caucasus unrest?
Who's making the money?
Vested US/coalition interests in Afghanistan now lead to this;



Our View: ISIS in Afghanistan means we can't pull troops out
Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:00 am

Plans to cut the number of U.S. forces remaining in Afghanistan nearly in half by year's end, withdrawing the rest next year, are off the table.

The White House concedes it will pursue slower-paced troop reductions, though exact numbers haven't been given.

ISIS, the Islamic State or Daesh, as it is also called, has extended its reach into parts of Afghanistan.

The presence is still small and not coordinated with the primary sources of extremism there, the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida. Except that some former factions of those groups have now pledged themselves to ISIS.

Until recently, ISIS has confined most of its activities to Syria and Iraq. But extremist groups in other places, such as Libya, have begun aligning themselves with ISIS, the most extreme of them all.

Until ISIS and other sources of strife have been destroyed or driven out of Afghanistan for good, the U.S. must maintain a strong and effective presence.

Excerpted from;
Our View: ISIS in Afghanistan means we can't pull troops out - Fayetteville Observer: Editorials

^^
Aĺl gòod and well Necron, but hospitals are not allowed to buy foreign drugs to treat patients. All supplies must come from an American source.

A couple of years back, common chemotherapy medications could not be obtained for many patients due to a shortage. Just another way the drug companies have a strangle hold on American hospitals and pharmacies. Believe me, I thouht many times how nice it would be to obtain medications from Canada or Mexico, but the FDA would not allow it. In all my years in hospitals, there was only one time I saw the FDA allow foreing meds to be used. That was when there was a Propofol shortage which was used extensively in intensive care patients for sedation. German Propofol was allowed to be used in US hospitals for a short period of time. We had to revert to older, less controllable drugs like dilaudid and diazepam for IV sedation.

If you are talking about illegal drugs, then your argument holds true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsnub

Most Afghan opium goes directly to the Russian black market were heroin addiction is rife.

---

What most of 6,400 tons of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

a) By diminishing the Afghanistan illegal drug trade, it should also diminish ISIS is what I am hearing then.

b) Not really part of the legitimate pharmaceutical business or Big Pharma, IMO.

---

a) That's the assumption.

b) True.

From a US DOS "briefing". :confused:

Daily Press Briefing - March 18, 2015



"QUESTION: So members of the Syrian military are claiming they shot down a U.S. drone over Latakia. Is there any official clarification from the Syrian Government about that? Are they really claiming they shot this down? The Pentagon hasn’t been able to confirm that it was, in fact, shot down. Do you have anything on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can confirm, as I’m sure you may have from the Pentagon, and certainly they’d be the lead on this, that yesterday U.S. military controllers lost contact with an unarmed remotely-piloted aircraft operating over northwest Syria. The Department of Defense is looking into the incident, will provide more details when available. Obviously, I don’t have more in terms of the Syrian Government’s comments or public comments or what they may mean.
QUESTION: Right. Because people see it as a little odd, because Syria – the Syrian military has taken sort of a passive approach to U.S. air presence in the region. So it would come as a surprise to you, would it not, if they had in fact shot this out of the sky?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t have any confirmation at this point. As you know, the Department of Defense would be the ones who would issue that. Of course, we’ll continue to look into the incident and the circumstances surrounding it, and we, of course, reiterate our warning to the Assad regime not to interfere with U.S. aerial assets over Syria.
More on Syria?
QUESTION: Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Iraq? Sure.
QUESTION: Well, just --
MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead, Justin.
QUESTION: Then you’re issuing a warning not to do that, so if it’s --
MS. PSAKI: We would reiterate. It’s something we’ve done many times.
QUESTION: You – okay. So if they did in fact shoot it down, what does – what comes with that warning?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Justin, there’s no confirmation of that, so I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole with you."

So no official consequences to have to deliver?

So much for US clarity on it's warnings regarding sovereign nations rights and responsibilities!

Will the DOS or the Pentagon continue with the "talk" :rolleyes: or will they "walk the walk"?

Hypocrites.

It was stated today by NBC News that ISIS is now the "World's Richest Terror Group."

Is there any way to completely black out news stories about ISIS? Since they thrive on being in the news, it may put the first nail in their coffin if the world could agree to this achievable goal.

Would this be feasable, or would freedom of the press interfere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

and we, of course, reiterate our warning to the Assad regime not to interfere with U.S. aerial assets over Syria.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Hypocrites

---

Quite incredible, really . . . They are invading another nation's airspace and have the gall to complain if their drone gets shot down

F me dead . . . incredible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

It was stated today by NBC News that ISIS is now the "World's Richest Terror Group."

---

I heard that as well and have yet t figure out how exactly they get their figures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

and we, of course, reiterate our warning to the Assad regime not to interfere with U.S. aerial assets over Syria.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Hypocrites

---

Quite incredible, really . . . They are invading another nation's airspace and have the gall to complain if their drone gets shot down

F me dead . . . incredible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

It was stated today by NBC News that ISIS is now the "World's Richest Terror Group."

---

I heard that as well and have yet t figure out how exactly they get their figures

---

Cash assets of banks they have captured, known USD assets in military bases they have captured, estimate of oil assets in areas under their control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Hypocrites.

---

Common sop.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necron99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

It was stated today by NBC News that ISIS is now the "World's Richest Terror Group."

---

I heard that as well and have yet t figure out how exactly they get their figures

---

"Cash assets of banks they have captured, known USD assets in military bases they have captured, estimate of oil assets in areas under their control?[/quote]"

Not too much coming from oil, shaky supply and dodgy dealers, hard to sell.


You forgot Afghan opium and hash.

Dubai sends/funnels cash to IS.

Awaiting for the major blowback to happen.

Hundreds of millions stolen from the Iraqi Central Bank plus oil sales plus donations from rich Arabs plus opium sales all add up to a pretty good chunk of change. Even though the numbers are estimates, it is admitted that ISIS has a fair amount of money.

It is also costing them a pretty penny to finance the war, but their monetary position is strong. It still amazes me that ISIS can sell off the stolen oil, but there are plenty of buyers on the black market.

ISIS was estimated to make $1.5 million < $3.6 million a day from oil @ $40 a barrel Nov 2014.

Erratic supply, semi functioning infrastructure slows sales and cause prices to fluctuate erratically.

It's a buyer's market, if transport's no problem.

ISIS sells cheap oil to its enemies, Turkey, the Kurds and Assad's Syria.

So what gives?

Another source of IS revenue is extortion.....I forgot about that.

I do not think they are interested in embargos, but rather the cash that the oil brings.

Maybe they think they will take it all back at some point.:rolleyes:

IS estimated to make < $1 billion /year from opium/heroin trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

plus opium sales all add up to a pretty good chunk of change.

---

Where's the proof of income from drug sales, Rick? Have you got a link to an article where someone makes the claim?








.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I do not think they are interested in embargos, but rather the cash that the oil brings.

Maybe they think they will take it all back at some point.:rolleyes:

---

I think that IS long term strategy is to control the oil fields which are largely in northern Iraq and in Kurdistan.

So the main struggle for oil will be with the Kurds, there.

Oh, Jordan and Iran are also buying up the IS oil.

Iran and Russia take a load of Afghan heroin, so does USA, black tar heroin there, West Coast, all of that is financing IS.

All the fields guarded by US military.

Where the rest of the opium crop goes is into dodgy processing and released on the black market to pharmaceutical chemists.

It could be interesting to forensically audit some of those European/ME drug houses. India and China have their own supplies of O.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

plus opium sales all add up to a pretty good chunk of change.

---

Where's the proof of income from drug sales?

---

Ya mean like a receipt? :smileylaughing:

Just contain IS. they will fracture into splinter groups and turn on them selves eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

plus opium sales all add up to a pretty good chunk of change.

---

Where's the proof of income from drug sales?

---

Ya mean like a receipt? :smileylaughing:

---

T'was funny. Type of question an idiot would ask.

Anyway, ISIS eradication...has to be big fuk off bombs dropped on their bonces imho

or maybe drop a big bag of Smarties soaked in LSD.
and then go in there blasting Pink Floyd albums or Led Zepp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pompeysbroke

Anyway, ISIS eradication...has to be big fuk off bombs dropped on their bonces imho

---

So many targets though, DC, NY, LA, London, Brussels, Berlin, Jerusalem........ The Russians would want a UNSC resolution and you know that's not going to be passed.

Seeing how collateral damage has become less and less a concern, nukes might be the answer.

But then there would be general world sentiment to contend with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pompeysbroke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

plus opium sales all add up to a pretty good chunk of change.

---

Where's the proof of income from drug sales?

---

Ya mean like a receipt? :smileylaughing:

---

T'was funny. Type of question an idiot would ask.

---

Or a card carrying EDL supporter. Muslamic Rayguns :smileylaughing:

Petraeus Sides With Netanyahu Against Obama: Iran, Not ISIS, Is The Real Enemy.

It's a no-brainer, man :yup:

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

So now you know why Petraeus really got the boot, he suffers from “truthfulness”, a fatal flaw for staying in the world of Barack Obama.

"Don’t just rely on Benjamin Netanyahu’s passionate advice to Congress on his way to reelection that Iran is our arch enemy. Now we have the counsel of retired general David Petraeus, who gave a remarkable interview this week to the Washington Post. Petraeus agrees with Netanyahu: Iran, not ISIS, is the real enemy.

His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.” The general adds, “Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.” (Italics mine.)

Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq."

National Review

Iraq's population is majority Shia. The Iraqi government is mainly Shia. The Iraqi government backed Shia militias were a problem for some Iraqi Sunnis when Nouri al-Malaki was PM. That was why he was pushed out. But those militias were Iraqi backed Shia militias.

Anyway, Petraeus is speculating that if the situation changes and something happens in the future, that something will be worse for Iraq and the region than ISIS. In other words, an imaginary future situation would be worse for Iraq than Islamic State. I wonder how he came to that conclusion! It's an opinion but not one based on fact.

In my opinion, the longer ISIS is in Iraq, the more the Iraqi government will feel the need for militias and foreign military support. So, Iraq’s long-term stability is very much dependent on solving the problem of IS in Iraq. It also seems to me that the long-term stability of other countries in the region will also be affected by the future of IS.

I believe that if the British government just offered them all amnesty; free housing in Luton; citizenship, and a little bit of sharia law so they can abuse their women, this whole affair would be over in short order. Serious lack of understand about what these people really want.....Caliphate my ass......:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koman

I believe that if the British government just offered them all amnesty; free housing in Luton; citizenship, and a little bit of sharia law so they can abuse their women, this whole affair would be over in short order. Serious lack of understand about what these people really want.....Caliphate my ass......:)

---

Put 'em in Skegness.

Would improve the local population. :yup:

I went to Skegness in the 1960s and thought it rather nice. It must have changed since then, like everything else.

With Muslim violence against each other and others, Sunni Moslems instigate most of it.

ISIS are Sunni.

They are killing all apostates, Shia, Kurds, Sufi, any non-Sunni.

They follow the Sunnah, reputedly stories of Mohammed, their interpretations and their application to daily life, the basis of Sharia law and second in importance to the Koran.

Shia don't follow that particular set of rules, neither do other Muslim sects, relying more on the Koran and the mullah's fatwahs concerning its application to daily life.

Probably more progressive.

Given that Sunni doctrine and Shariah law go hand in hand with ISIS and most other radical Islamic jihadist groups, as self declared, also given that the majority of Muslims are Sunni, it might be expedient to support the Shia in their fight against Sunni.
That was the kick off point in Iraq, Where Saddam Hussein , a Sunni (minority in Iraq) was ousted by US backed Shia, the majority there then, with turmoil ever since as Shia started to leverage against the rest, Iran sitting quietly in the background supporting the deal, brokering oil and opium between ME oil states, its own oil supplies and China.

The entire world Sunni Muslim population is susceptible to manipulation and mind control through the Sunnah, dictated to them every Friday prayers by the then local imam, fierbrand, peacenick, jew-hugger or what, as Muslims can do whatever it takes to save their skins (as dictated to them through the Sunnah, tell lies, anything, as long as they're only deceiving kaffur, the non-Muslim, it's OK, in their book.

So this latest round of Sunni/Shia conflict, led by Sunni threatens others, who have no choice but to defend themselves.

It's not going to stop until the Sunnah is proven to be a load of bollocks and an instigator of conflict and repression, for that is what it is,

How to stop ISIS?

The Ummah is the consensus of Muslim doctrine.

If the Muslim consensus moves that way, extremism prevails.

Who's controlling ISIS, tacitly or openly?

The Ummah, the great Sunni consensus.

Contol the Ummah, or better yet, get the Ummah to direct itself to better endeavors, there may be peace, but I doubt that'll happen.

The Ummah is dictated to by the Imam, networking with all other Imams, globally, so a consensus move would mean shifting the mindset of every Imam around to stop ISIS.

According to this video, the USA already has a plan to deal with IS. They are just waiting for the right time to start.

The author of the video also proposes his own solutions to stop ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI


(Video published on August 29, 2014)

i would say to eradicate this evil IS
has to begin with education in the classroom when they are young
getting rid of the imams who preach hate to kids
it's gonna take years, maybe decades to clean it up.
there is no other way
as it's too deeply ingrained in their minds.
but what to do with Israel ? their no.1 enemy.
poverty is another massive obstacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billy the kid

i would say to eradicate this evil IS
has to begin with education in the classroom when they are young
getting rid of the imams who preach hate to kids
it's gonna take years, maybe decades to clean it up.

---

This is NOT going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billy the kid

it's gonna take years, maybe decades to clean it up.

---

You certainly make a lot of sense, more than the 'bomb-em' rent-a-crowd, wo don't seem to understand that by simply bombing people - with more and more civilian casualties you are creating further generations of radicals

That's so.

It's up to the Muslim clerics and scholars to stop authorizing xenophobic directives and suggestions to their followers, at both school and mosque.

Teaching kids from day one that Jews are monkeys and that Xtians and all others are to be slaughtered or enslaved in the name of a god is part of the root cause of Muslim conflict with all other creeds, religions and beliefs/doctrines.

Tolerance is essential for de-escalation of any conflict, a tolerance of differing views, but not a tolerance of violence in asserting one's views.

Triumphalism, an in-yer-face form of assertion of a group's validity and assumed legitimacy only creates a challenge to others and resentment from them.

The Orange Day marches in N.Ireland/Eire and UK stoked hugely violent reactions from Catholic/Republicans, and only more recently have less antagonistic expressions of beliefs been adopted.

So with Islam.

Peaceful religious expression is socially acceptable.

Arrogance and violence is not.

ENT, that is a good idea, but I think we all know it will not happen. Everyone would prefer a peaceful solution, but ISIS has ruled that out for the moment because of their violent actions and mindset.

It is next to impossible to change the Arab mind once they get going. I have tried in the past while working in Saudi and learned it is best to make things seem like their idea. The challenge is to make ISIS believe they are the ones deciding to be peaceful. What are the odds of that happening, and how does one accomplish that?

Many thoughts here about how to stop ISIS, but very few plans on how to accomplish those thoughts.