John Fedup
The Bunker Group
For 24/7 monitoring, 25 agents are needed per suspect. The resources for this don't exist. Better to off them or put them in camps.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
2007yellow430
Active Member
This unfortunately is where we are heading. Keeping our government from going there will be difficult and we will have to be diligent.
Art
wittmanace
Active Member
As a more pragmatic and less emotive observation, it seems the choke point is the timely use and acting upon information ( analysis and use of available data), rather than data collection. Increasing powers regarding secret courts, surveillance etc doesn't seem to address this. If I recall correctly, a federal judge ruled that it was c
Early the case that US data collection was vast but so much so that it could only be plausibly used to look back through when one knows what one is looking for. The implication being that it cannot plausibly be used to prevent attacks etc. Personally, I think that if the information/data cannot be used to prevent these attacks and loss of life, is the loss of privacy etc worth it?
I cannot stand ideas of taking this out on refugees or minorities or increasing state powers to "off" people. Frankly I think this also increases problems exponentially.
The real question seems to be what can be done to make use of data and information faster, so it is actionable. That is a debate I do not see happening in the public domain ever.
Regarding boots on the ground, I have long been of the view that that has been Isis' aim with its atrocities and filming it all etc. I have to say that greater coordination and deciding what the real aim is in Syria and Iraq is critical. What is the aim in Syria? Removing Assad or defeating Isis?
Early the case that US data collection was vast but so much so that it could only be plausibly used to look back through when one knows what one is looking for. The implication being that it cannot plausibly be used to prevent attacks etc. Personally, I think that if the information/data cannot be used to prevent these attacks and loss of life, is the loss of privacy etc worth it?
I cannot stand ideas of taking this out on refugees or minorities or increasing state powers to "off" people. Frankly I think this also increases problems exponentially.
The real question seems to be what can be done to make use of data and information faster, so it is actionable. That is a debate I do not see happening in the public domain ever.
Regarding boots on the ground, I have long been of the view that that has been Isis' aim with its atrocities and filming it all etc. I have to say that greater coordination and deciding what the real aim is in Syria and Iraq is critical. What is the aim in Syria? Removing Assad or defeating Isis?
Are you serious? You think that governments should quietly kill or permanently secretly imprison everyone who's known to have any connection with (a friend, talked to, attends the same mosque/church/temple/synagogue as) a known extremist? That's a cure a thousand times worse than the disease. Do you have any idea of the scale of what you want, or how many innocents would be caught up in it for every dangerous person?
Civil rights & public safety are not opposites. They're linked, part of the same vision of society. You're saying that public safety is achieved by making large-scale arbitrary execution or imprisonment permissible. What's safe about that?
wittmanace
Active Member
I should have elaborated, sorry. I mean to say that the aims of fighting Isis as well as working towards the fall of Assad's forces at the same time just doesn't seem to be working. Neither is going well. If the limit is on what one is willing to do, or how involved one is willing to get, then it seems focusing on one would seem prudent. I personally question whether the appetite exists to get heavier on Isis as well as a longer target of Assad's fall.
Assad's forces and their allies seem to be the strongest opponent to Isis on the ground. Russia and Iran not working in close coordination with western efforts against Isis seems a missed opportunity regarding dealing with Isis, all round.
I would venture to say Isis is the number one enemy, would you disagree with this?
Out of interest, do you think going after Assad and Isis at the same time is feasible? Or is it more long the lines of what would be desirable, rather than realistically feasible? I guess the first question of those is a presumption on my part.
It's not known yet (& UK TV reports have been careful to reflect that) whether the the passports found belonged to attackers. There are various other possibilities, e.g. stolen passports.
The only identification officially confirmed is that of the French citizen, a 29 year old petty criminal of Algerian parentage, said by a brother to be estranged from at least some of his family.
wittmanace
Active Member
I heard the bbc report that the Egyptian passport belonged to a victim. They said that info came from the Egyptian government. I'm not sure if the latter point was a disclaimer of just citing their source, I couldn't tell form the tone. I don't mean that in an overly cynical way. Either way, it demonstrates the point about assumptions at this stage.
Because if you have multiple aims, there is a chance that they will come into conflict. In Syria this has already occurred. Fighting against Assad strengthens ISIS, and fighting against ISIS helps Assad. In a situation where "moderate rebels" don't really exist anymore, and the FSA has been caught using Alawis as human shields (I understand there is a reason for why this was done, but the reason does not matter, what matters is that no organization can behave in this manner and still be regarded as "moderate opposition", at this point they are terrorists). So while it's possible to have multiple goals, in Russian there is a saying. If you chase two rabbits you catch neither. This is where the US is today. Chasing two rabbits, bringing down Assad and ISIS, has gotten the US neither. It's resulted in a spectacular body count, a huge refugee flow, a stronger ISIS, and an Assad regime that now looks downright desirable compared to the alternatives.
No, I agree entirely.
I'm not sure that Assad is really the strongest opponent to Daesh, as by all accounts he's devoted little effort to fighting it, preferring to focus on other enemies, & even attacking them while they're fighting Daesh.
Whether going after both at once is feasible depends on how much effort states are willing to commit. I doubt anyone will do enough to go after both simultaneously.
I would prefer not to get into the weeds from a human rights standpoint. We all deserve certain unalienable rights IMO.
Now for the conflict in theater.
1. Why not let the Russians fight within the borders of Syria, they're already they're with an ever growing footprint.
2. Use a US/FR lead coalition to annihilate ISIS in Iraq. Again, I'd estimate 2 BCTs (one heavy, one light) plus a RGR BTN and a SEAL team. I don't believe this needs to be a division sized force especially given recent training and gains by the Iraqi Army. Coordinating with the Iraqi Army and supporinting Kurdish forces with air support etc.
3. Quds will need to transit home prior.
IMO I still don't see ISIS able to withstand a professional opponent. Russia from the west and a US coalition from the East.
Russian/Allied coordination will need to deconflict airspace
The hard part will indeed be the follow through. Those two brigade will need to remains in Iraqi for the unforeseen future for stability and training operations.
the concerned
Active Member
Wouldn't the best thing to do right now be convincing the Iraqi government to allow foreign forces to help out and secure the Irag/Syrian border to prevent isis from exploiting a open border to move forces back and forth
wittmanace
Active Member
Personally I think that much of what people are at times calling for in the press is bravado and posturing (the press and various opinion pieces, I don't direct this at anyone here). I think the reality is that escalation against Isis would have support in Britain, but not boots on the ground. I also think that directly going after Assad is something public opinion in Britain just won't support. Bravado and pride aside, I think we are very weary after Iraq and Afghanistan, and the prevailing view seems (to me, I may be wrong) to be that western intervention has allowed current circumstances rather than limited or helped reduce or delay or contain events. The result is that going after Assad is a very very hard sell. Blurring going after Assad and going after Isis seems ill advised from a political standpoint.
I think we are also, as a population, very weary of things like drone strikes and no fly zones. Libya has a lot to do with this I think, along with a weariness of legalities and normalisation of drone strikes. I can't find it now, but a piece in the daily mail recently touched on this in the jihadi John context.
Essentially, public opinion seems to allow for attacking Isis, but not Assad.
I think Iraq attacks ( air exclusively, maybe even limited SF) would be sellable to the public in Britain, but not Syria. The great fear seems to be the absence of a set time frame, unclear objectives (coming back to Assad and Isis again in part), unclear commitment and an horrendous lack of answers as to what the plan would be after that.....or what replaces Assad given the perceived sudden rise of Isis.
Finally, and a very politically incorrect thing for me to repeat perhaps, is that when I speak to people here in London about this, there seems to be a view that the people of the region don't want or 'appreciate' western efforts there. Essentially we would be putting targets on our backs, at our expense, without a likelihood of desirable outcomes..in that view. I can't back that up with polls, but I add that as my perception of popular views here. I may be wrong, but it is the sense I get.
I think we are also, as a population, very weary of things like drone strikes and no fly zones. Libya has a lot to do with this I think, along with a weariness of legalities and normalisation of drone strikes. I can't find it now, but a piece in the daily mail recently touched on this in the jihadi John context.
Essentially, public opinion seems to allow for attacking Isis, but not Assad.
I think Iraq attacks ( air exclusively, maybe even limited SF) would be sellable to the public in Britain, but not Syria. The great fear seems to be the absence of a set time frame, unclear objectives (coming back to Assad and Isis again in part), unclear commitment and an horrendous lack of answers as to what the plan would be after that.....or what replaces Assad given the perceived sudden rise of Isis.
Finally, and a very politically incorrect thing for me to repeat perhaps, is that when I speak to people here in London about this, there seems to be a view that the people of the region don't want or 'appreciate' western efforts there. Essentially we would be putting targets on our backs, at our expense, without a likelihood of desirable outcomes..in that view. I can't back that up with polls, but I add that as my perception of popular views here. I may be wrong, but it is the sense I get.
I cannot. It could just be a call up of reservists for training exercises. This has been done many times in the past, and often gets little traction in the press. If I hear something, I will post.
It's a conflict between three sides really. Assad has fought pretty hard against Daesh in the most recent weeks, defending Aleppo from them, and deblockading Kweiris. Coupled with Russian helos deployed to T4, I think Daesh is going to get more attention in the future, but for the time he's eliminating his weakest opponents, and those are the divided opposition groups. They've being bombed into the ground by Russia, and slowly rolled over by Syrian and Iranian forces. Likely the plan is to divide them, and negotiate with some while de-legitimizing and destroying the rest, allowing for a united front against Daesh. Let's not forget that suggestions have been made to the opposition to call a temporary truce with Assad, to defeat Daesh, and they were the ones to reject this, likely realizing that defeat of Daesh, coupled with increased Russian and Iranian aid to Assad, would leave the SAA as the strongest player in the field. Given their criminal ties, radical nature, and generally ugly behavior, there's a good chance that much of the non-Daesh opposition would be labeled as terrorists by even the most partial of observers.
At this point Assad is really hanging on a Russo-Iranian lifeline, and if they decided that Daesh is the enemy, he likely has little choice but to comply.
wittmanace
Active Member
I have to say that one thing that surprised me is the lack of reference to operation serval amongst the people coming with claims of responsibility. When it was clear it was an Islamist fundamentalist attack, though I heard there had been Syria references, I had thought that there would be references to serval directly or the Maghreb more generally. It is still early of course, but it is interesting to me.
I see that news now is that an attack in Istanbul was foiled, with the daily mail provisionally saying the attacks were planned in raqqa.
I'm not sure what to read into this. I was not under the impression that Isis was that geographically centred, in terms of where their terrorist operatives directed their allegiance. I'm not sure how to phrase that better. What I mean is to ask if it is becoming the case that Isis as a geographically defined state of sorts is their rallying call and allegiance centre? As opposed to a general idea as their rallying call and allegiance core. Or maybe I am reading too much into things at an early stage?
I see that news now is that an attack in Istanbul was foiled, with the daily mail provisionally saying the attacks were planned in raqqa.
I'm not sure what to read into this. I was not under the impression that Isis was that geographically centred, in terms of where their terrorist operatives directed their allegiance. I'm not sure how to phrase that better. What I mean is to ask if it is becoming the case that Isis as a geographically defined state of sorts is their rallying call and allegiance centre? As opposed to a general idea as their rallying call and allegiance core. Or maybe I am reading too much into things at an early stage?
Update.
Iranian General Suleimani speaking to the troops near Aleppo. Iranian soldiers, alongside the SAA, have been pushing south-west of Aleppo, and have reached the Damascus-Aleppo highway. It's likely that Idlib could be the next target for Assad's offensive.
Генерал Сулеймани под Ðлеппо - bmpd
Russian airstrikes continued over Nov 11th and 12th, with 107 sorties striking 289 targets. This gives us an average 144.5 targets per day. Interestingly enough, 234 were actual rebel positions. The majority of these strikes seem to be directed at rebel positions on or near the front line.
Продолжение операции ВКС РоÑÑии в Сирии 14 ноÑÐ±Ñ€Ñ - bmpd
Negotiations in Vienna have led to al-Nusra officially being recognized as a terrorist organization.
ВенÑкие переговоры - Colonel Cassad
The US promises to increase air strikes against ISIS, and improve coordination with France.
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: ÑØÀ óñèëÿò óäàðû ïî ÈÃ è êîîðäèíàöèþ ñ Ôðàíöèåé, îáúÿâèë Áåëûé äîì
France bombed Raqqa, dropping 20 bombs on the ISIS capital. They hit command posts, training camps, and munition stockpiles. This is the large French air strike of their current campaign, and involved 10 aircraft.
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ôðàíöóçñêàÿ àâèàöèÿ ñáðîñèëà 20 áîìá íà îáúåêòû "Èñëàìñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà" â ãîðîäå Ðàêêà
Iranian General Suleimani speaking to the troops near Aleppo. Iranian soldiers, alongside the SAA, have been pushing south-west of Aleppo, and have reached the Damascus-Aleppo highway. It's likely that Idlib could be the next target for Assad's offensive.
Генерал Сулеймани под Ðлеппо - bmpd
Russian airstrikes continued over Nov 11th and 12th, with 107 sorties striking 289 targets. This gives us an average 144.5 targets per day. Interestingly enough, 234 were actual rebel positions. The majority of these strikes seem to be directed at rebel positions on or near the front line.
Продолжение операции ВКС РоÑÑии в Сирии 14 ноÑÐ±Ñ€Ñ - bmpd
Negotiations in Vienna have led to al-Nusra officially being recognized as a terrorist organization.
ВенÑкие переговоры - Colonel Cassad
The US promises to increase air strikes against ISIS, and improve coordination with France.
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: ÑØÀ óñèëÿò óäàðû ïî ÈÃ è êîîðäèíàöèþ ñ Ôðàíöèåé, îáúÿâèë Áåëûé äîì
France bombed Raqqa, dropping 20 bombs on the ISIS capital. They hit command posts, training camps, and munition stockpiles. This is the large French air strike of their current campaign, and involved 10 aircraft.
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ôðàíöóçñêàÿ àâèàöèÿ ñáðîñèëà 20 áîìá íà îáúåêòû "Èñëàìñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà" â ãîðîäå Ðàêêà