Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

No-one really created them. They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

I am assuming the "creation" part should be "modified to sustained, expanded" etc. subsequent to the last 30 years. Or we are going back to the Muslim creator.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

I am assuming the "creation" part should be "modified to sustained, expanded" etc. subsequent to the last 30 years. Or we are going back to the Muslim creator.

Well if you want to be really tenuous, it all started when the CIA put Saddam in charge.

Or go further back to the Battle of Karbala.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

No-one really created them. They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

They were formed before the invasion of Iraq but when Bush sacked the Iraqi army many of them, now unemployed, went to IS which turned it from a lose group of militants into a trained fighting force.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-f...did-ISIS-begin

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

No-one really created them. They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

They were formed before the invasion of Iraq but when Bush sacked the Iraqi army many of them, now unemployed, went to IS which turned it from a lose group of militants into a trained fighting force.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-f...did-ISIS-begin

Thank you for confirming what I said.

Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

No-one really created them. They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

They were formed before the invasion of Iraq but when Bush sacked the Iraqi army many of them, now unemployed, went to IS which turned it from a lose group of militants into a trained fighting force.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-

begin

Thank you for confirming what I said.

Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population.

Yes Harry you were right but only up to a point.

What would have happened to a fledgling IS had Bush not invaded Iraq and disbanded the Iraqi army is only conjuncture but as you see from that link the remnants of Saddam's army helped transform it into an entity that was capable of taking over large lumps of land and being the threat to the world that it is today.

So Bush must take some of the blame for without the input from the Iraqi army it is unlikely it could have grown as it did.

Oh and it would seem that if Baghdadi is dead one of Saddam's officers will be the one to take over.

If Baghdadi is dead, next IS leader likely to be Saddam-era officer | Reuters

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Klondyke

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

No-one really created them. They first formed as a defence against the Iraqi Shi'a.

They were formed before the invasion of Iraq but when Bush sacked the Iraqi army many of them, now unemployed, went to IS which turned it from a lose group of militants into a trained fighting force.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-

begin

Thank you for confirming what I said.

Shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad), which was made up mostly of non-Iraqis.
Although Zarqawi’s rhetoric was similar to bin Laden’s, his targets were quite different. From the start, Zarqawi directed his malevolence at fellow Muslims, especially Iraq’s majority Shiite population.

Yes Harry you were right but only up to a point.

What would have happened to a fledgling IS had Bush not invaded Iraq and disbanded the Iraqi army is only conjuncture but as you see from that link the remnants of Saddam's army helped transform it into an entity that was capable of taking over large lumps of land and being the threat to the world that it is today.

So Bush must take some of the blame for without the input from the Iraqi army it is unlikely it could have grown as it did.

Oh and it would seem that if Baghdadi is dead one of Saddam's officers will be the one to take over.

If Baghdadi is dead, next IS leader likely to be Saddam-era officer | Reuters

The way Saddam treated the Shi'a, payback was inevitable when he fell.

And persecuted muslims seem to have a habit of going all terrorist, let's face it.

Interpol circulates list of 173 IS group suspects - France 24

Go back a little further.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Go back a little further.

OK amphibians emerging from the primeval ooze.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

amphibians emerging from the primeval ooze

leave the alt-right out of this...

As this is about getting rid f ISIS lets take a little look at where they get their weapons :

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-...ons-iraq-syria

A snip from that site :

We’ve found ISIS use of arms and ammunition from at least 25 different countries – a large proportion were originally sourced by the Iraqi military from the USA, Russia and former Soviet bloc states.
The huge scope reflects decades of irresponsible arms transfers to Iraq, coupled with the failure to install oversight mechanisms during the US-led occupation after 2003.
Slack controls over military stockpiles and endemic corruption by successive Iraqi governments have added to the problem.
Among ISIS’s arsenal are portable air defence systems, guided anti-tank missiles and armoured fighting vehicles, as well as assault rifles like the Russian AK series and the US M16 and Bushmaster.

Thats the historical aspect lets look at their supply today :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ms-trade-syria

A snip from that one :

Since 2012, BIRN and OCCRP say, €806m worth of weapons and ammunition exports were approved by the eastern European countries to Saudi Arabia, citing national and EU arms export reports and government sources.
Jordan secured €155m worth of export licences in this period, the investigators say, while the UAE acquired €135m and Turkey €87m, bringing the total for those four years to just under €1.2bn.
In a confidential document obtained by BIRN and OCCRP from November 2013, a senior official at Serbia’s defence ministry revealed concerns that deliveries to Saudi Arabia would be diverted to Syria.
Jeremy Binnie, the Middle East arms expert for the publication Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “The militaries of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE and Turkey use western infantry weapons and ammunition, rather than Soviet-designed counterparts. It consequently seems likely that large shipments of such materiel being acquired by – or sent to – those countries are destined for their allies in Syria, Yemen and Libya.”

l

I appears from that article that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are the main conduit for arms to ISIS it also puts puts most of the blame on Eastern Europe and tries hard not to mention the USA but who is the biggest supplier of weapons to the Saudi Arabia, UAE and Jorden.

US-Saudi Arabia seal weapons deal worth nearly $110 billion as Trump begins visit

Someone is going to tell me this one is an anti American, Russian site but it does make some very good points :

http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-d...trucks/5490040

So in conclusion the west is the main supplier of ISIS weapons from hand guns to tanks either by design or default.

Yes most of the weapons America shipped to the Middle East ended up in the wrong hands.

No they are not arming or funding ISIS deliberately. That's just a whackjob conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

No they are not arming or funding ISIS deliberately. That's just a whackjob conspiracy theory.

How The West Created ISIS

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sis-syria-iraq

US and Allies Created, Funded, Armed ISIS:
https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/05/09...ed-armed-isis/

Iran Didn?t Create ISIS; We Did | The Diplomat

We created Islamic extremism: Those blaming Islam for ISIS would have supported Osama bin Laden in the ?80s - Salon.com

...so: what goes around, comes around...'twas ever thus...

Now that Trump has stopped the (not so) secret arming of the Syrian rebels by the CIA the US needs ISIS as an excuse to keep pouring weapons into Syria.

The ultimate aim is still to oust the Syrian Govt and without ISIS there they have no longer got a reason to supply weapons to their so called allies meaning they have to come clean on the true reason or stop the supply.

As ISIS is being pushed out of Iraq a proportion of their fighters are moving into Syria to reinforce ISIS there.

https://southfront.org/isis-moving-h...iraq-to-syria/

There are those who say this a deliberate ploy by the US, whether that is true is not for me to say.

US Moving ISIS Fighters From Iraq To Syria To Topple Assad

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-oba...-assad/5587882


Russia and the Syrian air force are trying to stop this by bombing ISIS convoys as they move into Syria.

In 2016.



Then in May 2017.



And again in June 2017.



The question could be asked ; why isn't the US bombing these convoys as the leave Iraq ?

Instead we see :

Australian jets involved in US-led air strike which killed dozens of Syrian soldiers, Defence confirms - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australians bad but who gave then the co-ordinates to bomb ?

Then there was the shooting down of a Syrian plane that had just bombed ISIS positions which I would think everyone is aware of so I wont bother with a link.

OOPS something went wrong there but it can still be read, I hope.

Delete the s from https for the youtube url.

Originally Posted by birding

Russia and the Syrian air force are trying to stop this by bombing ISIS convoys as they move into Syria.

In 2016.



Then in May 2017.



And again in June 2017.

Sure brought the whackjobs out that, didn't it?

Our glorious leaders are so focussed on destroying the Islamic State that they cannot or will not pause to realise the best they could ever do is kill a few thousand more fighters and blow up Obama's tanks and other weapons. But they cannot destroy the entity, which has already been shipped worldwide. Hard truth for some, but wtf it's true anyway.

Originally Posted by jabir

the best they could ever do is kill a few thousand more fighters

it's a start...

Originally Posted by jabir

the entity, which has already been shipped worldwide

The entity needs a teat to suck from, cut that off and it will wither and die.

Originally Posted by tomcat

Originally Posted by jabir

the best they could ever do is kill a few thousand more fighters

it's a start...

Fair view, except for each thousand it spawns more than, and it troubles some that much of that growth is in western cities.

Best thing to do in a sinking boat with no other course is start bailing, it may feel useful but doesn't work when water's coming in faster than your cup can handle. And Europe seems slow to note the leak.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by jabir

the entity, which has already been shipped worldwide

The entity needs a teat to suck from, cut that off and it will wither and die.

True, except when the teat is faith, which the west is too 'civilised' to mess with.

The USA has now decided to try to use its influence in a more effective manner to get rid of IS.

But good luck trying to "get back the equipment" from the groups who don't do as they are told.


Syria war: US says coalition partners must only fight IS - BBC News


Syria war: US says coalition partners must only fight IS

The US has warned its coalition partners in Syria to focus exclusively on the fight against so-called Islamic State (IS) and not regime forces.

A Pentagon spokesman told reporters the US's aim in Syria and Iraq was to "fight ISIS, and fight ISIS only".

One rebel group has left a joint base after clashing with the regime.

Whether this latest announcement is related is unclear but on Thursday, a spokesman confirmed a group known as Shohada Al Quartyan, which was part of the US-led coalition in southern Syria, had split off after being told to focus on IS and not fighting against Mr Assad's government forces.

Coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon said they "unilaterally, without US or coalition permission or coordination" conducted patrols outside a specified zone and engaged in "activities not focused on fighting ISIS".

According to CNN, the group was part of the "vetted Syrian forces" - made up of opposition fighters - being trained and equipped by the coalition.

However, Col Dillon told reporters in Washington: "We have made it very clear time and again our goal in Syria and Iraq is to fight ISIS and fight ISIS only [and] we've asked [our partner forces] to be committed to that same mission.

"We had a partner force we were working with who wanted to pursue other objectives, and those objectives were not consistent with defeating ISIS. So we have since talked with them and made them know that we cannot support them if they want to pursue objectives other than defeating ISIS.

"We are no longer going to support this particular group because that is what they want to do."

He said they would try to get back the equipment the group, which operates in the Al-Tanf area, near the Jordanian border, was given.