ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Clivex defending Saudi Arabia?

Trump at the gates of the White House?

Warbler using <5,000 words in a post?

Track's not mentioning Harchibald?

It's a world gone mad.
 
Dunya News is Pakistans largest Urdu language news media outlet (I couldn't tell you if this is reliable, or a propoganda piece because I honestly don't know, although I'd imagine they publish stuff that the government approves of - otherwise they go the Turkish route!!)

Today they report that Saudi Arabia has officially begun the process of forming a "NATO like alliance" to protect against terrorism, with the view to bringing in 21 countries (oblivious to the amount of terror that they export, and religious maddrasas they set up in other countries). Something we learned last week was seen been Obama as "complicated" from a remarkable exchange between himself and Turnbull (Australia)

Well clearly they were never going to present the formation of such a bloc as anything other than this were they?

In any event, I'm sure a regional military alliance forged through religion, and Sunni Wahhabism at that, will be nothing other than a force for peace and the promotion of harmonious tolerance. How could it possibly be anything else?

http://dunyanews.tv/en/SpecialReport/327404-Saudi-Arabia-proposes-a-NATOlike-military-allianc

In the last couple of years Saudi Arabia also moved to have atheists categorised as terrorists too

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
 
Last edited:
And now Russia is withdrawing from Syria (or scaling right back) - urm.... didn't see that one coming I'll be honest. Not sure what to make of it. There's certainly no shortage of reports suggesting that the ISIL leadership has long since left Raqqa and headed over the border into Turkey, but perhaps we're moving to the enxt stage of a federated settlement before killing off the caliphate itself? who knows?
 
You would have to consider Euro2016 in France a major target for these maggots?
 
Last edited:
In the last few days the first signs are appearing that ISIL is breaking. The SAA have seemingly captured Palmrya

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syrian-army-recaptures-city-palmyra-isil-160327063713862.html

Intelligence from radio intercepts is suggesting that ISIL fighters are becoming demoralised as they're losing ground in the face of overwhelming fire power. Reports have been coming through for months now that their leadership and more capable fighters have been withdrawn and are relocating elsewhere (Libya, Mosul, and Europe)

The Americans could probably start the Mosul operation next month but are fearful of what follows. They need to establish who does what first

In Geneva the peace talks have hit a slight snag when the western backed rebel groups have called for the murder of all Kurds! - apparently - I should say I haven't seen this reported first hand, so suspect there might be a bit of spin on it. The Kurds have however announced that their own land gained through the war is now autonomous of Syria (which was clearly foreseeable)

The consensus seems to be that Raaqa could fall before the year is out, albeit I've got a sneaking feeling it could come much sooner. Once a fighter unit breaks it can quickly turn into a rout. The signs are there that ISIL is fracturing
 
Warbler said:
In the last few days the first signs are appearing that ISIL is breaking. The SAA have seemingly captured Palmrya
Click to expand...
No thanks to America or the West!
Well done the SAA and Russia; Russia seemingly the only world nation fully committed to wiping out the rodents of ISIS.
As for the SAA army -- western civilisation's first, and possibly last, line of defence against ISIS -- the clown William Hague wanted to bomb them not so long ago.

But, maybe it's still a bit early to break out the celebratory champagne. ISIS might be having setbacks in Syria, but they are growing in strength elsewhere. Libya is almost their's now.
If they're losing in Syria, they are winning in Europe so far. Two european capitals traumatised in the space of three months with undoubtedly more to follow.
 
icebreaker said:
But, maybe it's still a bit early to break out the celebratory champagne. ISIS might be having setbacks in Syria, but they are growing in strength elsewhere. Libya is almost their's now.
If they're losing in Syria, they are winning in Europe so far. Two european capitals traumatised in the space of three months with undoubtedly more to follow.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead during a 6 year conflict, its certainly no time for Champagne in my mind.
Human life is worth less than a tin of tuna these days...
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
No thanks to America or the West!
Well done the SAA and Russia; Russia seemingly the only world nation fully committed to wiping out the rodents of ISIS.
As for the SAA army -- western civilisation's first, and possibly last, line of defence against ISIS -- the clown William Hague wanted to bomb them not so long ago.

But, maybe it's still a bit early to break out the celebratory champagne. ISIS might be having setbacks in Syria, but they are growing in strength elsewhere. Libya is almost their's now.
If they're losing in Syria, they are winning in Europe so far. Two european capitals traumatised in the space of three months with undoubtedly more to follow.
Click to expand...

well that's funny because Isis have lost 20% of their terrority in Syria and 40% in iraq

what was Russia's role in Iraq again ?

whilst no one would be in the slightest bit unhappy at seeing Isis wiped out by near enough anyone, few otehr than dictator fetishists and those blinded to putin and assads real intentions would be "breaking champagne" for those scumbags

as marble says, Assad is a mass murderer full stop

putin is the favoured leader of trump le pen farage corbyn and bedsit losers across the world

so ice.. Your comment is about as welcome as a Jew in the Labour Party &#55357;&#56841;
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
well that's funny because Isis have lost 20% of their terrority in Syria and 40% in iraq
Click to expand...
Lost 40% of territory in Iraq ? Wow, after six years of a trillion dollar offensive by America and a multi-national coalition force of seventeen different countries ! Not a great return on investment.

Meanwhile, Russia and the Syrian national army (which itself is fighting on many fronts against other jihadi groups supported by the West and Saudi's) has slamdunked ISIS in Syria in the space of six months.
 
Clives figures are out of date too (early Jan 2016) and don't include the collapse of the Aleppo front (Feb) or Palmrya and its western territory (Mar)

In fairness it is a little difficult to talk in percentages about land lost/ taken, as a vast majority of it isn't disputed (uninhabitable desert). Anbar provinece is a classic example. If you control Ramadi you can present yourself as controlling Anbar, which is a huge swathe of desert. It looks good on a map when you colour it in, but its of little strategic value

The nature of the war is that its not really accurate to talk in terms percentages though, but rather in terms of supply routes (roads in any other language) and the 25 miles corridor either side of them that can be used to attack supplies. Palmrya is significant as it opens up the route to Raaqa. Plamrya also has a heavy lift military airport

The peace talks amongst the rebel opposition have proven interesting too, with the western backed 'moderates' suggesting that Kurds should be exterminated. Russia & the US have been calling for the involvement of the Kurds, but Turkey is blocking it. The Kurds meanwhile have declared their own territory independent from Syria, something which Assad has challenged, and which Putin has warned him not to push his luck over.

As for the Free Syrian Army (remember them?) they were the ones who David Cameron said we should support as recently as December 2015, and that they were 70,000 strong. Well sadly for Cameron, so far as I can gather, they aren't participating because they were defeated 12 months ago and have broken up

http://www.ibtimes.com/four-years-later-free-syrian-army-has-collapsed-1847116

Russia's been the game changer, something widley acknowledged by anyone whose looked at this. To pretend otherwise is plain silly. There has to be a realistic probability that had they not stepped in, ISIL would have over run Damascus and western Syria this year and been perched on the Jordanian border. Heaven knows how many more refugees we'd have heading our way.
 
Last edited:
No they are not. They were in the economist yesterday. More lies

ice, regardless of that your first comment was incorrect. Full stop

the idea suggested that Russia was solely there to beat Isis is yet another lie of course as any true observer knows full well.
 
Last edited:
Yes they are. Ever wondered where the Economist sourced them from Clive?

Oh I'll do it for you. These figures were put out by the US in early January 2015 in response to criticsm Obama was facing about Russia making headway and the US action stalling. They were widely reported (and disputed) in the western media at the time. Here's an example from the Independent (please note the date of January 5th, 2016)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...onal-air-strikes-support-ground-a6797486.html

All you're reading I'm afraid is the same figure being reproduced 3 months later, but critically since then, the Aleppo front has fallen as too has Palmyra and the western approach (not the east as I'd said earlier in error)

Now then, I was prepared to be understanding, but as you've since decided to suggest I'm lying, I'm going to challenge you to explain to me how the Aleppo front and Palmrya were captured (perhaps you believe they haven't been?) and yet the figure of 20% has remained the same? These two breakthroughs were significant Clive. You see when you capture territory the percentage rises. Or are you going to try and suggest that the Independent are also lying (and I can source plenty of other media outlets both UK and US presenting exactly the same figure from the same week in January if you want - there's dozens of them).
 
Last edited:
Listen. Why don't you check your sources before stating my source is out of date. The arrogance of it. It was laid out yesterday. Based on this weeks events . Lump it or like it
 
Well even you can see that's palpable nonesense.

Also strange that their on-line version (which can be edited much more quickly) doesn't mention either figure, and settles for a more abstract reporting. My best explanation is that someone was asked to write an update piece for an event of late March 2016, and linked it to a status report issued in early January 2016. They went to press with 40% and 20%, and someone has subsequently pointed it out. The on line edition has been edited to remove mentions of either figure, and resolved to use a description that's a little more ambigious instead, and doesn't assign territorial losses to either country.

"In the past 14 months IS is thought to have lost about a quarter of its territory".... "It is the biggest victory yet for the regime of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s embattled president, since Russia tipped the war in his favour. It also allows the Syrian government and its Russian ally to argue more convincingly that they are fighting jihadists, and not just mainstream Sunni rebels."

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21695752-jihadists-run-palmyra-falls-caliphate-pushed-back-iraq-and-syria

It's an old figure Clive honestly. It's more likely that the Economist don't contact the Russian Defence Ministry and say "look we're going to press in the next 48 hours and we need an update on the percentage of territory you've seized". It's much more likely that they dig out the latest US press release and run with that. BBC and Reuters both report the same figure on the same date quoting the same source incidentally

Basically I assume you accept that Palmrya has been recaptured by the SAA?
I assume you also accept that the western approaches had to be too in order to get there?
I assume you also accept that the Syrians broke through the Aleppo front in February, which is what led to Russia withdrawing and the ceasefire on the rebels allowing the regime to concentrate on ISIS?

So with all these territorial gains (and they're fairly sizeable), and no reported losses of any significance, how do you explain that the overall percentage of territroy gained is still 20%?
 
Last edited:
You might like to try using this tool to give you an idea just based on visual guessing. Now I should say at the outset, I'm not vouching for its accuracy, as there are at least three continuity errors in it that even I can see, which suggests that the BBC aren't maintaining the webpage 100%, but it'll give you an idea.

Put the slider on the first map over to the left which is labelled, "January 2015". You can clearly see ISIS holding significant 'purple' territory in Aleppo province, the central salient of Palmrya, and the Damascus pocket. Now slide it over to "December 2015" and you see all of these disappear. Visually I'd say that's more than 20%? I'd actually question it further as it seems to be indicating that Kobane and significant areas of the Turkish border area have fallen into ISIS hands? Which should be news to the Americans as this is their sector

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35231664

You might note incidentally that the webpage itself was also created on Januray 5th, 2016 and also uses the 40% and 20% figure. I suspect they've been updating the map and not the content, as we know that the Aleppo and Palmrya areas changed hands in the early part of 2016, a few months after this page was created. I am confused however as to why the BBC are showing the YPG and Americans losing territory in northern Syria? Is this is an error on the page managers part? or is it a conspiracy and the BBC are trying to tell us something against a D Notice? - we need to know!

Ironically, it would provide an explanation as to why 20% remains the figure, but it would also require us to believe that the YPG and the Amercians are having their asses served in the Kurdish areas and that no one knows about it. Urm... can't see it myself in truth
 
Last edited:
I'm really not at all interested. I would certainly take the economists figures over those here with a virulently anti American pro Putin stalinist dictators agenda. Anyone would

secondly even if the figure is a bit out either at it still means that ices stetement was completely wrong

end of story. No need to waste any more time on it
 
All this willy-waggling over percentages started with an inferred suggestion from Clivex, that Russia is achieving less in Syria, than the US-led coalition is achieving in Iraq.

For my money, you cannot make a comparison between the two conflicts, on a measure as simple as territory-gained, because the fight in Syria is so completely different to the one in Iraq. The US-led coalition is working hand-in-hand with the Iraqi Army, to defeat a common enemy in ISIS. The Russians have chosen to take sides in an ongoing Civil War; with ISIS merely one amongst many opponents.

Broadly-speaking, I would say that both the Coalition and the Russians have contributed positively to a momentum-shift against ISIS, in their respective theatres....something I hope continues.

FWIW, I don't think Russia will disengage in Syria, in any meaningful way. When Putin says something, it's usually the opposite that is true, and I'm sure he will be quite happy to leave a garrison or two on Turkey's southern-flank, under the pretence of providing support to Assad.
 
Grass dont get in the others habit of putting words in mouth

We know that's a big issue on thia thread

I implied nothing of the sort I was correcting a wildly incorrect statement. That's all
 
Back
Top