[Newsbot]

Title: ISIS: Former Commanders Take Increasingly Dim View of War
Category: Military
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-09-01 07:47:39

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

The total number of ISIS battlefield deaths claimed by U.S. officials has jumped, from 6,000 in January 2015 to 45,000 last month�a bloodbath for an enemy force estimated to number about 30,000.

Anybody else see problems with the math here? They apparently killed 45K out of a force of 30K. Definitely the Vietnam body count syndrome again. The one where generals like Westmoreland claimed US infantryman as the greatest shots of all time and instructed his subordinates to use the formula that, if you shot at the enemy you obviously hit and killed him whether there was a body found or not.

So now the question becomes. What are the real numbers of ISIS deaths because the numbers we're getting are utter bullshit that sounds like it's geared more for an election claim than a true assessment of the damage being done to an entrenched enemy.

[andyt]

ISIS does seem to be on the run, losing territory. The problem is that Iraqi troops aren't really motivated to fight, and the lack of equipment the Kurds have to fight with. So what's the answer, send in Western troops? I doubt that will turn out well. The West is basically in a bind here, It doesn't want to strengthen Iran and allow it to take over Iraqi territory, because that gets Israel all upset, and we can't have that. The West also wants to be allies with both Turkey and the Kurds, which just isn't going to end well. Russia has no such qualms, is happy to cosy up to Turkey and Iran.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

$1:

The total number of ISIS battlefield deaths claimed by U.S. officials has jumped, from 6,000 in January 2015 to 45,000 last month�a bloodbath for an enemy force estimated to number about 30,000.

Anybody else see problems with the math here? They apparently killed 45K out of a force of 30K. Definitely the Vietnam body count syndrome again. The one where generals like Westmoreland claimed US infantryman as the greatest shots of all time and instructed his subordinates to use the formula that, if you shot at the enemy you obviously hit and killed him whether there was a body found or not.

So now the question becomes. What are the real numbers of ISIS deaths because the numbers we're getting are utter bullshit that sounds like it's geared more for an election claim than a true assessment of the damage being done to an entrenched enemy.

MQ Sg

The article is poorly written. Googling the 45k figure, that appears to be the total cumulative kills to date, over the past 2 years.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing. 'Wall' the area off, allow nothing in or out. After a while, they will stop having a common enemy to fight, there will be no 'great Satan' to rally against and use to recruit new fighters.

After a time, they will run out of supplies and weapons and the will to fight.

In the short term, the atrocities will be terrible. But over the long run, the body count and costs will be lower. And there will be one less group hostile to the west in the world.

[2Cdo]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing. 'Wall' the area off, allow nothing in or out. After a while, they will stop having a common enemy to fight, there will be no 'great Satan' to rally against and use to recruit new fighters.

After a time, they will run out of supplies and weapons and the will to fight.

In the short term, the atrocities will be terrible. But over the long run, the body count and costs will be lower. And there will be one less group hostile to the west in the world.

Great idea but our "leaders" seem to want to import thousands from this region.

[DrCaleb]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing. 'Wall' the area off, allow nothing in or out. After a while, they will stop having a common enemy to fight, there will be no 'great Satan' to rally against and use to recruit new fighters.

After a time, they will run out of supplies and weapons and the will to fight.

In the short term, the atrocities will be terrible. But over the long run, the body count and costs will be lower. And there will be one less group hostile to the west in the world.

Great idea but our "leaders" seem to want to import thousands from this region.

The need to help is in human nature. We see people in desperate circumstances and feel the need to help them. You and I are no different. The trouble comes in figuring out who really needs help, and who just wants to cause more mayhem.

All the stories I've seen on the refugees we've taken in so far makes me think we chose wisely. The only trouble we've had on the radical front have been with the radicals created by themselves, not the people we've helped.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

ISIS does seem to be on the run, losing territory. The problem is that Iraqi troops aren't really motivated to fight, and the lack of equipment the Kurds have to fight with. So what's the answer, send in Western troops? I doubt that will turn out well. The West is basically in a bind here, It doesn't want to strengthen Iran and allow it to take over Iraqi territory, because that gets Israel all upset, and we can't have that. The West also wants to be allies with both Turkey and the Kurds, which just isn't going to end well. Russia has no such qualms, is happy to cosy up to Turkey and Iran.

The West has troops in the region small units of special forces including Canada's JTF2 supporting the Kurds who are taking the fight to ISIS who are as of right now with Iraqi forces fighting to take back Mosul.

Apocalyptic scenes as fleeing ISIS fighters bomb Iraqi town's pipelines leaving rivers of oil and streets on fire

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/apocalyptic-scenes-fleeing-isis-fighters-8755738
_______________

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing. 'Wall' the area off, allow nothing in or out. After a while, they will stop having a common enemy to fight, there will be no 'great Satan' to rally against and use to recruit new fighters.

After a time, they will run out of supplies and weapons and the will to fight.

In the short term, the atrocities will be terrible. But over the long run, the body count and costs will be lower. And there will be one less group hostile to the west in the world.

Wish you'd included a link, because it doesn't sound very feasible.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing. 'Wall' the area off, allow nothing in or out. After a while, they will stop having a common enemy to fight, there will be no 'great Satan' to rally against and use to recruit new fighters.

After a time, they will run out of supplies and weapons and the will to fight.

In the short term, the atrocities will be terrible. But over the long run, the body count and costs will be lower. And there will be one less group hostile to the west in the world.

Wish you'd included a link, because it doesn't sound very feasible.

I wish there was one, because I did look. Watch the newest episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, titled 'What makes a Terrorist?'.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The need to help is in human nature. We see people in desperate circumstances and feel the need to help them.

No, it's a value imparted to you by your culture that came out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

See the Parable of the Good Samaritan and realize that up until that point the idea of helping someone was limited to helping others of your family, tribe, religion, or kingdom. It was unheard of to help someone outside of your groups.

The Moslems have a radically different worldview with regards to charity and their language in the matter (by careful and deliberate omission) makes clear that charitable giving is performed in the order:

1. Take care of yourself first.
2. Then your family.
3. Then your extended family.
4. Then your tribe/clan.
5. And then other Muslims.

There is no language in their teachings on charity about helping non-Muslims. See for yourself on an authoritative Muslim site:

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1 ... _islam.htm

[BartSimpson]

Now to be clear: The Muslims have a far superior interpretation of hospitality than we do. Their acts undertaken under the notion of hospitality are too often misinterpreted as helping or aiding an infidel when in fact it is a matter of living up to their obligations as they make them in their own house. They also won't accept YOUR hospitality if their intentions towards you are harmful...but some will do this anyway and justify it under taqqiya and jihad.

For instance, an Afghan might say you are welcome in his home and he'll kill anyone who threatens you while you're in his home. But when you leave and his obligation to you is concluded it's not a surprise that he'll shoot you in the back as you walk away. This poses no moral dilemma to them.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The need to help is in human nature. We see people in desperate circumstances and feel the need to help them.

No, it's a value imparted to you by your culture that came out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

See the Parable of the Good Samaritan and realize that up until that point the idea of helping someone was limited to helping others of your family, tribe, religion, or kingdom. It was unheard of to help someone outside of your groups.

Fair enough. Many of my morals are influenced by my upbringing. I don't know where they all originate from.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Now to be clear: The Muslims have a far superior interpretation of hospitality than we do. Their acts undertaken under the notion of hospitality are too often misinterpreted as helping or aiding an infidel when in fact it is a matter of living up to their obligations as they make them in their own house.

That, I actually have experience with! I have a Iranian friend, and when he invites me over for lunch, his wife makes it a point to have a shaker of salt on the table. And yes, I know what that means in context.

When I say that I don't believe all Muslims are bloodthirsty savages, it's their example that I think of.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

So what's the answer, send in Western troops?

The analysis I heard from the guy who predicted the rise of ISIS was to do nothing.

Who? You mean Glenn Beck?

Just kidding (although that's where I heard the predictions during what was called the "Arab Spring").

We actually agree on the strategy of separating from the problem away and letting it destroy itself. Although I doubt we agree on how you'd do it.

You don't actually start doing nothing by doing nothing. You have to prepare the ground. Otherwise ISIS, the MB, the Wahabis and other barbarians at the gates and cultural or immigration jihadists within them are just going to pat you on the head, breeze by and take over.

So what's the first thing to do first? You know how ISIS and others are using Western communications systems for recruitment and anti-western propaganda?

That has to stop. No electronic communications in or out of terrorist locales such as Raqqa and Mosul. Why that hasn't that already happened? I have no idea.

Next we have to deal with Islamism by name. You have to be able to recognize and study the technique of the enemy, then deal with it. The enemy must be dealt with as an enemy. To do that you have to be allowed to name it.

Then you deal with Wahabi or Saudi Money and conscription to jihad through Mosque, or the fifth columnists of the Muslim Brotherhood and their aligned organizations. And by "deal," I mean banish them.

Also we must ignore the chicken little cries of a proposed global warming apocalypse. It's not coming. Ignore it. Yes, look for alternative energy, but also make it open and easy to get at any and all energy sources we know are already there. Disempower the enemy oil states financially.

None of this can be done however, because before you begin you must realize you're in a war and you have to be able call the enemy by name. Before that can be done though we have to deal with our inner Quisling who is preventing it. Who might that be? You tell me. If I start talking like this, who wants me to shut up?

[stratos]

$1:

That, I actually have experience with! I have a Iranian friend, and when he invites me over for lunch, his wife makes it a point to have a shaker of salt on the table. And yes, I know what that means in context.

Okay I'll ask. What the heck does the shaker of salt on the table mean?