ISIS...Islamic State Victims

clivex said:
I was correcting a wildly incorrect statement. That's all
Click to expand...
I am assuming that the wildly incorrect statement was my "No thanks to America or the West" comment?
If so, I am wondering what is so erroneous about it. America and the West has at every turn tried to stymie the Syrian government's battle efforts against rebel/jihadi/isis/fsa/whatever groups trying to overthrow the Syrian state; America has poured hundreds of millions dollars of support into islamic militia's running amok throughout the country; your own Foreign Secretary wanted to airbomb the legitimate Syrian army in support of "moderate" rebels.

So yes, the Syrian army's retaking of Palmyra and other regions back from ISIS is to their and Russia's commendation alone. America or the West cannot claim any credit for it.
 
Grasshopper said:
Fair enough.

General points still stand though.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? Since when did i state anything contrary to those points?

this thread is awful. We had the outright lie that the Syrian uprising never happened and was a figment of the imagination of a quarter of a Million or so .. And no one says a word. We get predictions that Isis are goung to make landings in European beaches and no one calls the NHS mental health unit

Why don't you actually pick up on the genuinely crap statements rather than those that are in your imagination
 
Last edited:
Because I did not know who had the more accurate research, and couldn't be arsed to check for myself, because - as was the main thrust of my post - the statistics are/were wholly meaningless anyway.

I honestly don't remember anyone on here denying that the Syrian uprising happened.

As for ISIS turning-up on European beaches, why go to all that trouble, when you can be detained by Turkey, reported to the relevant authorities in Holland and Belgium, and avoid even being questioned by either Government as you arrive back in Europe; leaving you free to go about planning your atrocity without any establishment interference?
 
They are two real examples. No need to debate them. the point is clear

the stats were only meaningful in contradicting an incorrect statement.

for the fcking nth time
 
Last edited:
Good.

so whats labours view on this now? A few long faces in corbyns team I expect. At least one advisor is certainly very pro hardline Islamist and has praised their actions

do they still believe that this progress would have been made by changing their bank account PIN numbers..
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
No. And you know full well it isnt ice

This is extremely tiresome
Click to expand...
Then I honestly don't know what the "wildly "inaccurate" comment of mine that you are referring to might be. That is the unvarnished and absolute truth, Clive mate.
If you were to clarify it for me, then I will willingly address it .......................... and if wrong will unhesitatingly hold up meh hands and admit it. :)
 
Lets leave it at that but i just dont agree with your statement that russia is the only state interested in defeating isis. They have pulled out haven't they? And they have not technically taken any more ground than other forces. I probably overdid the point in truth

Im wondering how this will play out when it gets close to an end game. Not an invitation for 10000 word military strategy posts but theres an awful lot of filth to deal with.

in fairness they should be able to assist quite helpfully. The bulldozers they used for burying alive should still be available.

More seriously, do we want the brainwashed scum making its way back here? this includes the women too.

Also for all those (one in particular) that love to point the finger at the US and UK for driving their muslims to ISIS, the two biggest contributors per million of population in the west are nicely cuddly Sweden and Belgium
 
Last edited:
Even with the total collapse of the Caliphate, sufficient numbers of ISIS cu*nts will evade capture and find their way back home, to represent an ongoing threat to those communities for the foreseeable future. We simply won't be able to kill enough of them, before they start to disperse.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
And they have not technically taken any more ground than other forces. I probably overdid the point in truth
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say you "overdid" it Clive, you just used out of date information, which is all I ever pointed out in the first place, albeit when I suggested this you did accuse of me posting "more lies" and that you'd "certainly take the economists figures over those here with a virulently anti American pro Putin stalinist dictators agenda"

I take it you've researched this a bit now and realise that the figures the Economist were using do indeed date to a press conference given on January 5th, 2016, by Col Steve Warren, about a week after the Iraqi's retook Ramadi and possibly Anbar province in the process (Anbar might be significant). There is a reason for labouring it slightly though as it exposes something else. This is how Reuters reported it for NBC

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-lost-40-percent-territory-iraq-20-percent-syria-coalition-n490426

Warren clearly makes an attributable statement here though

"We believe in Iraq its about 40%, and Syria is harder to get a number, we think its around 20. Taking together Iraq and Syria, they lost 30% of the territory they once held"

Now revisit the on-line version of the Economist, which looks to have been ammended in light of new information recieved and reassessed

"In the past 14 months IS is thought to have lost a quarter of its territory"

I suspect that some campaign group has approached the Editor and pointed out that they're reporting factually incorrect information in the print version? The Economist will face these kind of challenges every week. The first one is easy to resolve. You ask the journo where they sourced the 40/20 figure from, and they confirm it was Steve Warren from Jan 5th, 2016. You're perhaps entitled to expect them to realise they were writing about gains made since then in this article, and perhaps realise that the Syrian figure has increased by 10% for Palmrya and Aleppo, and should now read 30%. So you perform the same crude calculation Warren did in January and role the two campaigns together and report 35% in total (30 + 40 / 2 = 35 etc)

The Economist (to their credit) hasn't done this though, they've reported "a quarter" (25%). In other words a net loss of 5% from the figure given out by the US military in January during a period that covered a 10% gain. Why?

It seems possible (I'll let you decide) that the same campaign group who've challenged the original report has also been able to persuade the Economist that the 40% of land lost in Iraq includes the desert region of Anbar, which would account for half it in one fell swoop. The problem is that when ISIS captured Ramadi and laid claim to Anbar the Americans didn't accept it. By their definition therefore, ISIS can't have lost something if they never had possession of it. Until that it is Ramadi gets recaptured and then the America account alters to include Anbar and doubles the amount of land lost without having to fire a single shot for it (propoganda and the fog of war etc)

When the Economist went to press with their January figures, the more accurate representation would have been Iraq 20% and Syria 30%. This could alter the narrative though as Obama was under pressure in the US in late 2015 as the land lost reporting had developed into something of a public scoreboard. If the Economist now reports this new assessment they'll have the State Department burning their phone down pretty quickly and frankly the Editor could do without it. Instead he rolls the two figures together and comes to 25% which he then puts into his on-line version and reports it as a "quarter of its territory" and moves onto his next deadline

There is a get out card though which involves the land captured in Syria by the YPG which was done with American assistance, but a lot this occurred prior to the Russian involvement. It's not completely clear to me where the accounting timeline starts. That the Economist specifically mention 14 months in their update, does lead you think its a year + February and March 2016. But Warren seemingly sets the ticket at May 2015 saying they haven't gained an inch of territory since Ramadi (I suspect he's making this comment specific to Iraq)



 
Last edited:
This is seriously weird.

Listen. once and for all the figures were published on Friday last week, not jan. With maps.

And yes i would take them over you. ok?

And i dont give a fck if they are a bit out either way. It was merely to illustrate that it isnt all Russia success against isis
 
clivex said:
Also for all those (one in particular) that love to point the finger at the US and UK for driving their muslims to ISIS, the two biggest contributors per million of population in the west are nicely cuddly Sweden and Belgium
Click to expand...

I'm slightly surprised you want to flag the biggest contributors to ISIS per head of population as an indicator, but am inclined to ask why you narrow the parameter to the west? Could it be that there is one country (the one who you keep telling us is a shinning beacon of success for the arab spring) that dominates the statistics otherwise (no one close to them). Since you invoke two biggest countries, it might also be worth naming the second biggest contributor as Saudi Arabia as well

Also I think you're being incredibly disingenuous (even by your standards) to tag "driving their" muslims into this. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. The UK has reasonable out-reach programmes in fairness (unlike continental Europe) who tend to adopt much more of a policy of 'here's your basics now get on an integrate'. It's always a tough one though from a policy perspective. Spend money on integration programmes (where there's never any gurantee of success anyway) and you quickly get accussed of pandering to minorities

The US isn't really a comparison at all given how small their muslim population and how selective they are in cherry picking who is allowed in. The Atlantic is a pretty natural barrier to have in the way

Their muslim population is less than 1% and less gross than both Germany and France. The vetting process takes about 18-24 months to complete. Last time I checked they'd admitted something like 2,174 in the latest round and are baulking heavily at taking 10,000.

I know there is a popular belief in America that Europe has an "integration problem" and that they believe they're infinitely better at these things. The problem really is that the migrants we're getting come with very little more than the clothes they're wearing on their back, they're poorly skilled, poorly educated, and that's provided they even speak the language of their host country. America is welcome to take a random number of these any time they volunteer to, but they don't.

America is really quite paranoid. I know how fond you are of using opinion polls as fact Clive (which they aren't) so I'll throw a few at you. In the wake of Paris, Gallup surveyed the electorate to see what the biggest issue in the forthcoming election was, the top answer was terrorism (16%). Last week Yougov produced a policy approval poll that showed that a majority agreed with Trump on a complete temporary ban on all muslims entering the country. Ted Cruz has also made capital with his proposal for muslim patrols

Another related area that's gaining traction in America now of course is that they're subsidising European welfare programmes through the provision of an American defence umbrella and want countries (particularly Germany, to pay them more for protection). Again, its becoming a hot button issue that Europe can afford these welfare programmes because America pays for it. Ironically, its their foreign policy that is placing them under increasing stress

They're asking us to pay them more to go an drop more bombs, which will likely increase the flow of refugees in our direction, which we then have to pay for a second time
 
Grasshopper said:
Even with the total collapse of the Caliphate, sufficient numbers of ISIS cu*nts will evade capture and find their way back home, to represent an ongoing threat to those communities for the foreseeable future. We simply won't be able to kill enough of them, before they start to disperse.
Click to expand...

yes. I don't know what the answer is.
 
Warbler said:
I'm slightly surprised you want to flag the biggest contributors to ISIS per head of population as an indicator, but am inclined to ask why you narrow the parameter to the west? Could it be that there is one country (the one who you keep telling us is a shinning beacon of success for the arab spring) that dominates the statistics otherwise (no one close to them). Since you invoke two biggest countries, it might also be worth naming the second biggest contributor as Saudi Arabia as well

Also I think you're being incredibly disingenuous (even by your standards) to tag "driving their" muslims into this. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. The UK has reasonable out-reach programmes in fairness (unlike continental Europe) who tend to adopt much more of a policy of 'here's your basics now get on an integrate'. It's always a tough one though from a policy perspective. Spend money on integration programmes (where there's never any gurantee of success anyway) and you quickly get accussed of pandering to minorities

The US isn't really a comparison at all given how small their muslim population and how selective they are in cherry picking who is allowed in. The Atlantic is a pretty natural barrier to have in the way

Their muslim population is less than 1% and less gross than both Germany and France. The vetting process takes about 18-24 months to complete. Last time I checked they'd admitted something like 2,174 in the latest round and are baulking heavily at taking 10,000.

I know there is a popular belief in America that Europe has an "integration problem" and that they believe they're infinitely better at these things. The problem really is that the migrants we're getting come with very little more than the clothes they're wearing on their back, they're poorly skilled, poorly educated, and that's provided they even speak the language of their host country. America is welcome to take a random number of these any time they volunteer to, but they don't.

America is really quite paranoid. I know how fond you are of using opinion polls as fact Clive (which they aren't) so I'll throw a few at you. In the wake of Paris, Gallup surveyed the electorate to see what the biggest issue in the forthcoming election was, the top answer was terrorism (16%). Last week Yougov produced a policy approval poll that showed that a majority agreed with Trump on a complete temporary ban on all muslims entering the country. Ted Cruz has also made capital with his proposal for muslim patrols

Another related area that's gaining traction in America now of course is that they're subsidising European welfare programmes through the provision of an American defence umbrella and want countries (particularly Germany, to pay them more for protection). Again, its becoming a hot button issue that Europe can afford these welfare programmes because America pays for it. Ironically, its their foreign policy that is placing them under increasing stress

They're asking us to pay them more to go an drop more bombs, which will likely increase the flow of refugees in our direction, which we then have to pay for a second time
Click to expand...

you really hate tunisia and the democratic movement there dont you? really really hate it... I will let others draw conclusions but it must really sicken you that they have not collapsed. thank god there are very few people around with your distaste for human rights and democracy

It is pretty obvious why i have limited the point to western europe. Does it really need explaining?

A brit hating poster or two on here regularly sneered that we had brought this upon ourselves. Ok? end of story.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
This is seriously weird.

Listen. once and for all the figures were published on Friday last week, not jan. With maps.

And yes i would take them over you. ok?
Click to expand...

Agggggh you are being deliberately stoopid

A publication date is neither here nor there. Its evidence of the date something was published. That's all. If you're publishing out of date statistics on that date, they don't automatically update as if by magic when you send them to print

Would you tell us which version of the Economist you believe? The print version or the on-line version of the same story which has since been ammended? They can't both be right because they contain different data (last time I checked). I even provided you the links and took the quote verbatim. I really don't know how much easier I could have made it for you? What's so weird?

Allow me to explain. A print version comes in hard copy. Once its printed, its content can't be altered. An on-line version can be edited when content errors get flagged. Honestly Clive, can you really not understand this? its dead easy

What it means is if you go to print with out of date figures (forget the publication date for a minute that's immaterial) and someone says your figures are wrong, and after investigation you accept that they are, you can alter an on-line version but you can't alter a print version
 
This is why posting here is not a good idea. Too busy for this . has to cease. However i will not be taken down like this

I will put this to bed now. Not for your benefit but because others might be reading this who may be convinced by your constant accusation that i dont know what im looking at

The economist is published weekly. The content is very current. usually to the very day before publication which was Friday last week
The online and printed version are still the same. That is it


Predicting the demise of IS is fraught with difficulty. But its opponents in Iraq and Syria now sound increasingly upbeat. Western and Russian bombers have pummelled the jihadists from the air, as local fighters push them back on the ground. Though its motto is to “remain and expand”, IS now seems unable to do either in the region. The “caliphate” is thought to have lost 20% of its territory in Syria and 40% in Iraq since its peak
 
clivex said:
Good.

so whats labours view on this now? A few long faces in corbyns team I expect.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Quaraytayn was liberated by the SAA aren't you? You are aware that these are the same people that David Cameron wanted to bomb off the battlefield aren't you?

There is another account (which sadly I can't authenticate to my satisfcation but will throw it in with that rider) that the so-called moderate opposition had the opportunity to liberate Quaraytayn earlier in the campaign and passed it up precisely because it was a christian village

Have you accepted yet Clive, that the SAA are actually your best bet for defeating ISIS in Syria if you aren't prepared to do it yourself and put the 30,000 troops in that Trump is talking about?
 
clivex said:
This is why posting here is not a good idea. Too busy for this . has to cease. However i will not be taken down like this
Click to expand...

Here's the links for the article titled "Palmrya falls as the Caliphate is pushed back in Iraq and Syria" and attributed to Makmour

http://www.economist.com/news/middl...ra-falls-caliphate-pushed-back-iraq-and-syria

Second paragraph

"In the past 14 months IS is thought to have lost about a quarter of its territory. The group’s latest setback has come in Palmyra, which the Syrian army recaptured on March 27th"

Now this doesn't preclude the possibility of two articles in the same publication contradicting each other of course (hadn't considered that)
 
Last edited:
There are two articles (both name check Palmrya so we have to assume are contemporary)

This is the one Clive's using (which I have to clearly conceed has a more recent publication date) by 5 days. It does repeat the 40/20 figure (as he said) but this figure first came into the public domain (as I suggested) on January 5th, 2016 (even if Sky News carry a piece attributed to Obama from December 2015 using the same figure). In fairness to Clive, (I don't like writing that) he did accept that there is a clear question mark as to how the same losses can be reported in January when we know that gains have been made between then and now, and hasn't disputed that on a matter of logical deduction

http://www.economist.com/news/middl...aliphate-pushed-back-iraq-and-syria-jihadists

Sadly that doesn't make him "stoopid" but then neither does it make me a liar
 
Warbler,
I must ask, and I ask in all sincerity and without a trace of intention of causing offense or distress ..................
Have you ever been diagnosed with maybe a minor form of OCD? For you do seem to me to be exhibiting the telltale signs of a Compulsive; you do seem to be obsessed with figures, graphs, pie-charts etc to the exclusion of seeing the bigger picture or debate. I'm no expert in the condition, but a workingman's awareness of it leads me to think that you might just borderline the traits of an Obsessive. Multiple posts about the "territory lost" percentage figure; thousands of words about it.

Instance, what does it matter a whit whether ISIS have been pushed back by 20% or 40%? Is it not enough that they ARE being pushed back..
Again, there is genuinely no malice intended in this post. I do hope you believe that.
 
Never been diagnosed, but then never been assessed

I did make the point in post #1591 though that accounting for territory in terms of percentage wasn't necessarily that helpful, anymore than its easy to do, and that the battles themselves are being fought 25 miles either side of supply lines (roads) and that a vast majority of the land mass isn't really of any strategic consequence other than propaganda
 
Warbler is a ******* brainbox of the highest order. If I was ever an MP I'd be asking for his advice :)
 
Last edited:
Intelligence and ability is knowing what to leave out, marble.

The smartest operators in any line of work are those that know what is important and what isnt.
 
Back
Top