ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

[capcc76]

Herein lies the problem. Perhaps they need to find some real men who will stand their post, do what they are paid to do and protect their citizens. Disgraceful cowards apparently want others to do everything for them.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/collapse-of-iraqi-army-a-failure-for-nations-premier-and-for-us-military/2014/06/12/25191bc0-f24f-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

At the small-unit level, once they start getting hit, they are abandoning post, both Sunni and Shia, on a scale we never anticipated. Whats a surprise is how rapidly its been occurring and the degree to which you see total collapse of large elements of Iraqi forces, leaving behind probably hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/collapse-of-iraqi-army-a-failure-for-nations-premier-and-for-us-military/2014/06/12/25191bc0-f24f-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

Our Army continuously trains; that wasnt in their DNA, Barbero said. We set up all these training bases. We built ranges and encouraged them to do live fire. And it just didnt take, for whatever reason. Im not saying were stainless in this. Obviously we could have done some things better.

Barbero said he was in Iraq a month ago, and Iraqi military officials assured him that the ISIS threat was contained. I know no Iraqis saw this coming, he said.

Edited June 17, 2014 by capcc76

[shadmo63]

Well democracy is not in their DNA either, just like Thailand.

I have a better idea. Find a brutal mad murderous paranoid dictator, put him in charge and get the flock outta there.

[Steely Dan]

Yeah sure. US foreign policy is responsible for the Sunni and Shia conflict that started in the year 632.

You hit the nail on the head, even if Islam were the only religion on Earth the Sunni and Shia would be knocking seven lumps of **** out of each other. To argue that Western intervention is wholly responsible for this requires a special brand of delusion twinned with self flagellation.

[boomerangutang]

Situation with this mob looks very serious. Might be time to stop bitching over who is most responsible for the current lamentable situation and start considering what, if anything, can or should be done about it. This doesn't mean ignoring recent and historical causes, but probably not a good to spend 90% of the time blaming BlairBush or ObambaBengazi.

In my house it's "you made the mess, you clean it up".

If a gang of six year olds plugged up the toilet and let shit flood out all over the floor, there would probably be some adults involved with cleaning up - at least with directing the operation.

[shadmo63]

Situation with this mob looks very serious. Might be time to stop bitching over who is most responsible for the current lamentable situation and start considering what, if anything, can or should be done about it. This doesn't mean ignoring recent and historical causes, but probably not a good to spend 90% of the time blaming BlairBush or ObambaBengazi.

In my house it's "you made the mess, you clean it up".

If a gang of six year olds plugged up the toilet and let shit flood out all over the floor, there would probably be some adults involved with cleaning up - at least with directing the operation.

Yes but in this case the adults decided to re-plumb the toilet when it wasn't even broken. Unfortunately they did not know the first thing about plumbing, but believed they did, even declaring the previously not broken toilet fixed after their first attempt. Despite continuing unsuccessful efforts to fix the now blocked toilet the adults are still trying to blame the six year olds for the mess.

[Credo]

The point, however, is that it is a toilet.

[iancnx]

Situation with this mob looks very serious. Might be time to stop bitiching over who is most responsible for the current lamentable situation and start considering what, if anything, can or should be done about it. This doesn't mean ignoring recent and historical causes, but probably not a good to spend 90% of the time blaming BlairBush or ObambaBengazi.

In my house it's "you made the mess, you clean it up".

In fairness media reports state that the US Administration has been putting pressure of the Shiite government in Iraq for a number of years to implement reconcillation policies and actions to address Sunni disenfranchisement. The near complete lack of political will by the Iraq government for reconcillation appears to have had a major contribution to the current state of affairs.

True. Hence the reluctance by the US to assist the Maliki regime ATM until they get their political house in order. If they were to be seen supporting Maliki at this time, that would be frowned upon and seen as supporting the Shia's by ALL Sunnis in the region. And in turn would promote more radical hostility towards the US.

At last we are starting to see a responsible USA government policy in the middle East.

Your last sentence is without doubt the most hilarious, and yet totally devoid of all intellect that I have ever come across. Do you truly believe? Ok it was a wind up and I fell for it.... Right?

[boomerangutang]

US's NPR now reports ISIS is the richest terrorist group in history. It has accumulated a half billion dollars worth of cash and gold, from banks in cities it's overtaken.

US military says it could do some 'surgical strikes' if the rebels are traveling along roads and such, but once they spread in to occupied cities, it's near impossible to strike them from the air, because of concerns about civilian casualties.

[folium]

US's NPR now reports ISIS is the richest terrorist group in history. It has accumulated a half billion dollars worth of cash and gold, from banks in cities it's overtaken.

US military says it could do some 'surgical strikes' if the rebels are traveling along roads and such, but once they spread in to occupied cities, it's near impossible to strike them from the air, because of concerns about civilian casualties.

ISIS "richest terrorist group in history"...perhaps not.

Pablo Escobar, leader of the Medellin Cartel, offered to pay off Colombia's national debt of $50billion when he was considering a second career in politics.

Classic insurgent/"terrorist" groups that would make the Forbes rich list for unpleasant folk would include the heroin selling Taliban, the Iranian funded/drug-running/zakat raising Hizbollah, and the coke-running, Venezuelan-funded FARC. Honourable mentions would also go to Slab Murphy's drug-running, fuel smuggling, extortion racket funded PIRA/Continuity IRA, and Somalia's qat-running, extortion racket, Eritrean funded al Shabaab.

So much for idealism amongst insurgents.....

[Chicog]

Escobar was something else.

"According to Roberto Escobar, one of Pablo's closest brothers, at a time when their estimated profits were circling $20 billion annually "Pablo was earning so much that each year we would write off 10% of the money because the rats would eat it in storage or it would be damaged by water or lost."

If that weren't enough to drop your jaw, Roberto adds that the cartel spent as much as $2,500 every month on rubber bands to "hold the money together."

[Johpa]

Depends what you mean by "Saudi's".

Is it:

(I) Members of the Al Saud family who run the country.

(II) Wahabi/Sunni Saudis.

(III) Shi'a Saudis.

Just about everyone involved in running the nation-state of Saudi Arabia is related to the Al Saud clan. The Al Saud clan is inextricably linked to the Wahabi/Salafist movement. The Al Saud clan was backed up by the followers of Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab and that enabled that clan to become the dominant clan supported by other lesser clans. In exchange for the local political backing, the Al Saud's allowed Wahabism to be the accepted and state sponsored form of Sunni Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Imagine oil being found underneath the Appalachian Mountains and the small snake handling church congregations of Appalachia becoming by far the wealthiest Christian church on the planet. That is approximately what happened to the world of Sunni Islam with the assistance of western oil interests.

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

The western powers coveted the oil in the oil rich region where the Saud clan was dominant and that tipped the balance of power in the Peninsula and as compensation, the western powers gave the other major clan, the Hashems. rule over the newly created nation-states of Transjordan and Iraq. It worked in Jordan, a region very close to the Hashem home region, but it did not work too well in Syria and Iraq which were far from the Hashems home region.

Make no mistake, the Saudi Wahabis, mostly members of the Al Saud clan, are the primary financiers behind the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Just look around Southeast Asia to see the change in behavior of the Muslim population, easily noticeable by those like myself who have been visiting for decades. That change was caused by Wahabi financed madrasas, Islamic schools that teach a far more fundamentalist form of Islam than was previously practiced in Southeast Asia. It was the Wahabists who led the creation of the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was no coincidence that the Al Saud's western sycophants amongst the US oil interests in Houston were the real backers of "Charlie Wilson's War". The Mujahadin morphed into Al Quaida which has now morphed into ISIS, but is still financed by the Wahabis who get their funds from the sale of oil and their political freedom in the west from their unholy alliance with Houston based oil companies, including their deep financial relationship with the Bush family, part of that being through the Carlyle Group. Those snake handlers in Houston let us all get bitten.

[boomerangutang]

a 'drug cartel' is not necessarily a 'terrorist organization.'

If we want to stretch the definition of terrorist, we could include the Mafia (US's or Italy's), Japan's military in WWII, the Nazis, Stalin's goons, and Mao's forces in the mid-20th century.

If we stick with a definition of terrorist organization as something like; 'a non-governmental militia which takes up arms against establishment or governments' then it keeps the discussion from straying too far afield.

[folium]

a 'drug cartel' is not necessarily a 'terrorist organization.'

If we want to stretch the definition of terrorist, we could include the Mafia (US's or Italy's), Japan's military in WWII, the Nazis, Stalin's goons, and Mao's forces in the mid-20th century.

If we stick with a definition of terrorist organization as something like; 'a non-governmental militia which takes up arms against establishment or governments' then it keeps the discussion from straying too far afield.

The Medellin Cartel was not your usual cartel. It was one of the co-founders and chief financier of the MAS, which perfectly fits your definition of a non-governmental militia taking up arms against the establishment or government. Equipped with state of the art military grade hardware, it also boasted its own fleet of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, and was trained/"assisted" by Israeli, Brit and S.African mercenaries/advisors, see below:

http://www.democracynow.org/2000/6/1/who_is_israels_yair_klein_and

Once MAS became a direct threat to the Colombian government it was taken down with support from the US and rival organization, the Cali Cartel...

[capcc76]

a 'drug cartel' is not necessarily a 'terrorist organization.'

If we want to stretch the definition of terrorist, we could include the Mafia (US's or Italy's), Japan's military in WWII, the Nazis, Stalin's goons, and Mao's forces in the mid-20th century.

If we stick with a definition of terrorist organization as something like; 'a non-governmental militia which takes up arms against establishment or governments' then it keeps the discussion from straying too far afield.

What? Some will just say anything to be argumentative. Mexican drug cartels completely operate in a terrorist fashion. They are perhaps the worst of the worst and operate unabated. They burn people alive in barrels, dismember them alive, beat them with baseball bats breaking as many bones as possible before death and behead most of their victims. They commonly place mutilated and dismembered body parts in public places, parks, public steers and in public markets to create terror and intimidate those that may consider rising up against them. In may of 2012, the torsos, hands, feet, heads, legs, and arms all dismembered of 49 people were found on a Mexican highway for all to see. They commonly hand tortured victims from bridges with norcomanta warning others of what could happen to them. If you don't pay, they don't just kill you. They torture and kill your whole family and burn down your house.

Mexican cartels had executed the judges, prosecutors and cops in the majority of smaller towns/areas. Citizens have been forced to arm themselves and set up check points to try and protect themselves as there is no law or authority to do so. Mass graves are common place and the vast majority of disappearances and murders are never investigated because people are afraid.

Chapo Guzman was worth several billion and was once placed on the Forbes richest list, but this created controversy people from Mexico viewed it as glorifying drug traffickers.

Due to political correctness and sensitivity issues regarding such labels in Mexico, government have hedged on calling a spade a spade, but when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . it is a dang duck.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-department-mexican-drug-cartel-activity-consistent-terrorism

State Department: Mexican Drug Cartel Activity Is ‘Consistent With’ Terrorism

http://globalsecuritystudies.com/ODonnell%20Mexican%20Cartels.pdf

The Mexican Cartels: Not Just Criminal but Terrorist

A general definition of terrorism is the systematic use as well as threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change. Terrorism in Mexico is usually drug-related violence, from 2006 to 2012, such violence is said to have caused between 60,000 and 100,000 deaths in the country

[folium]

a 'drug cartel' is not necessarily a 'terrorist organization.'

If we want to stretch the definition of terrorist, we could include the Mafia (US's or Italy's), Japan's military in WWII, the Nazis, Stalin's goons, and Mao's forces in the mid-20th century.

If we stick with a definition of terrorist organization as something like; 'a non-governmental militia which takes up arms against establishment or governments' then it keeps the discussion from straying too far afield.

What? Some will just say anything to be argumentative. Mexican drug cartels completely operate in a terrorist fashion. They are perhaps the worst of the worst and operate unabated. They burn people alive in barrels, dismember them alive, beat them with baseball bats breaking as many bones as possible before death and behead most of their victims. They commonly place mutilated and dismembered body parts in public places, parks, public steers and in public markets to create terror and intimidate those that may consider rising up against them. In may of 2012, the torsos, hands, feet, heads, legs, and arms all dismembered of 49 people were found on a Mexican highway for all to see. They commonly hand tortured victims from bridges with norcomanta warning others of what could happen to them. If you don't pay, they don't just kill you. They torture and kill your whole family and burn down your house.

Mexican cartels had executed the judges, prosecutors and cops in the majority of smaller towns/areas. Citizens have been forced to arm themselves and set up check points to try and protect themselves as there is no law or authority to do so. Mass graves are common place and the vast majority of disappearances and murders are never investigated because people are afraid.

Chapo Guzman was worth several billion and was once placed on the Forbes richest list, but this created controversy people from Mexico viewed it as glorifying drug traffickers.

Due to political correctness and sensitivity issues regarding such labels in Mexico, government have hedged on calling a spade a spade, but when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . it is a dang duck.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-department-mexican-drug-cartel-activity-consistent-terrorism

State Department: Mexican Drug Cartel Activity Is ‘Consistent With’ Terrorism

http://globalsecuritystudies.com/ODonnell%20Mexican%20Cartels.pdf

The Mexican Cartels: Not Just Criminal but Terrorist

A general definition of terrorism is the systematic use as well as threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change. Terrorism in Mexico is usually drug-related violence, from 2006 to 2012, such violence is said to have caused between 60,000 and 100,000 deaths in the country

And all this funded largely by US consumers of narcotics and largely armed by weapons bought in the US.

Nice little triangle trade:

drugs funneled from Latin America to USA

US consumers pay for drugs

proceeds used to buy weaponry and to run/bribe/subvert narco/virtual narco states throughout Latin America and Caribbean

US "War on Drugs" occasional successes pushes up prices, thus increasing profits, thus funding more arms sales and corruption of governments/police forces etc which requires more "War on Drugs" activity etc

meanwhile watch heroin sales from Afghan as the Taliban re-establish control as ISAF pulls out. Last two years have seen record poppy harvests as ISAF gave up even a pretence of drug eradication.

At least Iraq is not an areas renowned for coca or poppies, ISIS will just have to raise funds from the old established ways of emptying bank vaults, local taxes, proceeds from oilfields seized in Syria and Iraq, smuggled/looted antiquities and kidnapping foreigners etc. Seems they are not short of cash, see below:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power

[Exsexyman]

Situation with this mob looks very serious. Might be time to stop bitiching over who is most responsible for the current lamentable situation and start considering what, if anything, can or should be done about it. This doesn't mean ignoring recent and historical causes, but probably not a good to spend 90% of the time blaming BlairBush or ObambaBengazi.

In my house it's "you made the mess, you clean it up".

To quote Colin Powell's warning to G W Bush. "You break it, you own it". Absolutely sickening to see Blair, even now, refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for the anarchic mess Iraq has descended into. Thankfully he is getting slaughtered by all sides for his lies and self serving vanity. He gives the impression of being certifiably mad. If there was any justice in the world he and his sidekick G W Bush would be dangling from a rope in The Hague. Sadly that i9s only reserved for African leaders with black skin. Instead he was made Middle East Peace Envoy. What a joke. May as well put Gary Glitter in charge of 'Operation Yew tree!

Al Qaeda were non existent in Iraq before Bush and Blair launched their lunatic invasion, just as they were non existent in Libya under Ghaddafi. Look at the state of the two countries now. After the inhabitants have had a taste of ISIS, who appear to be on a different level, if that's possible, they will look back on the Saddam and Ghaddafi days as a golden age. Whatever one may think of them personally, they kept a lid on Islamic extremists. The countries were contained, and they were stable. The truth is that these Middle Eastern countries, with all the different competing factions, need to be ruled with an iron fist. Thanks to the Western invasion, which destroyed their infrastructure, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents, committed war crimes like Fallujah, which has resulted in the mess we see today. For the Iraq invasion apologists to argue that Saddam had to go because he was a despot, and the West were acting to protect Iraqi citizens is simply not credible. Not any more. The West arm and do business with despots in the region when it suits them. They get invited to the White House, have tea with the Queen. It wasn't that long ago that Saddam was the West's friend, we were financing and arming him during the war with Iran. Declassified material from the CIA shows that we even helped him when he launched gas attacks on Iranians. Yet we are asked to believe that the West were concerned about the welfare of Iraqi and Libyan citizens. Humbug! It is simply not credible that the West 'miscalculated' regarding what the result of invading and toppling the governments in Iraq and Libya would be. It was blindingly obvious that there would be a vacuum and that vacuum would be filled by assorted Islamic militants, with access to arms dumps etc etc.The Western leaders must have known this, everyone else with half a brain knew it. The only one currently holding a line against the ISIS is Assad in Syria, trying to stop them overunning his country. Yet the US and UK governments are hell bent on overthrowing him as well, they are complicit in arming and training the Al Qaeda rebels, in the full knowledge of what will happen if Assad falls. Only a few months ago Obama and Cameron were desperate to attack Syria on behalf of these rebels. If they had got their way Syria would now be under the control of ISIS. Syria is a secular country, anyone who saw the footage last week of unarmed captured Iraqi soldiers with their hands tied behind their back, being made to kneel down in ditches, and were then cold bloodedly shot, will know the fate of Christians in Syria. They would get the same treatment from these butchers, as would many Muslims and anyone else who was not deemed sufficiently devout. And yet, knowing this, the US and UK administrations are clearly determined to have this scenario visited upon the people of Syria. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask the question. Why? What is the agenda here? Whose interests are being served by the Obama administration and their allies? Certainly not the ordinary people of Syria. Certainly not ours, especially those of us from Europe. The US is thousands of miles away and is unlikely to be affected, but this is all taking place practically on Europe's doorstep. We should rightly be extremely concerned. And Obama should be made to answer a direct question. ' Why do you appear so determined to facilitate the downfall of a secular government, and replace it with an assortment of armed, out of control Islamic militants'? 'Whose interests are you serving'?

[wellred]

From what I understand the Iraqi coalition forces were Shia majority and the sunnies hired al Queda to help them out. I remember reading how they then turned on al Queda in Anbar province with the help of the US.

Honestly I think they should just be left to it. I don't see what good can come out of assisting at any level. Yes the mess was created when they decided to get rid of the Iraqi army and Baath parties but what can they do now?

What happens if ISIS takes over the country and the oil too?

[simple1]

Situation with this mob looks very serious. Might be time to stop bitiching over who is most responsible for the current lamentable situation and start considering what, if anything, can or should be done about it. This doesn't mean ignoring recent and historical causes, but probably not a good to spend 90% of the time blaming BlairBush or ObambaBengazi.

In my house it's "you made the mess, you clean it up".

To quote Colin Powell's warning to G W Bush. "You break it, you own it". Absolutely sickening to see Blair, even now, refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for the anarchic mess Iraq has descended into. Thankfully he is getting slaughtered by all sides for his lies and self serving vanity. He gives the impression of being certifiably mad. If there was any justice in the world he and his sidekick G W Bush would be dangling from a rope in The Hague. Sadly that i9s only reserved for African leaders with black skin. Instead he was made Middle East Peace Envoy. What a joke. May as well put Gary Glitter in charge of 'Operation Yew tree!

Al Qaeda were non existent in Iraq before Bush and Blair launched their lunatic invasion, just as they were non existent in Libya under Ghaddafi. Look at the state of the two countries now. After the inhabitants have had a taste of ISIS, who appear to be on a different level, if that's possible, they will look back on the Saddam and Ghaddafi days as a golden age. Whatever one may think of them personally, they kept a lid on Islamic extremists. The countries were contained, and they were stable. The truth is that these Middle Eastern countries, with all the different competing factions, need to be ruled with an iron fist. Thanks to the Western invasion, which destroyed their infrastructure, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents, committed war crimes like Fallujah, which has resulted in the mess we see today. For the Iraq invasion apologists to argue that Saddam had to go because he was a despot, and the West were acting to protect Iraqi citizens is simply not credible. Not any more. The West arm and do business with despots in the region when it suits them. They get invited to the White House, have tea with the Queen. It wasn't that long ago that Saddam was the West's friend, we were financing and arming him during the war with Iran. Declassified material from the CIA shows that we even helped him when he launched gas attacks on Iranians. Yet we are asked to believe that the West were concerned about the welfare of Iraqi and Libyan citizens. Humbug! It is simply not credible that the West 'miscalculated' regarding what the result of invading and toppling the governments in Iraq and Libya would be. It was blindingly obvious that there would be a vacuum and that vacuum would be filled by assorted Islamic militants, with access to arms dumps etc etc.The Western leaders must have known this, everyone else with half a brain knew it. The only one currently holding a line against the ISIS is Assad in Syria, trying to stop them overunning his country. Yet the US and UK governments are hell bent on overthrowing him as well, they are complicit in arming and training the Al Qaeda rebels, in the full knowledge of what will happen if Assad falls. Only a few months ago Obama and Cameron were desperate to attack Syria on behalf of these rebels. If they had got their way Syria would now be under the control of ISIS. Syria is a secular country, anyone who saw the footage last week of unarmed captured Iraqi soldiers with their hands tied behind their back, being made to kneel down in ditches, and were then cold bloodedly shot, will know the fate of Christians in Syria. They would get the same treatment from these butchers, as would many Muslims and anyone else who was not deemed sufficiently devout. And yet, knowing this, the US and UK administrations are clearly determined to have this scenario visited upon the people of Syria. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask the question. Why? What is the agenda here? Whose interests are being served by the Obama administration and their allies? Certainly not the ordinary people of Syria. Certainly not ours, especially those of us from Europe. The US is thousands of miles away and is unlikely to be affected, but this is all taking place practically on Europe's doorstep. We should rightly be extremely concerned. And Obama should be made to answer a direct question. ' Why do you appear so determined to facilitate the downfall of a secular government, and replace it with an assortment of armed, out of control Islamic militants'? 'Whose interests are you serving'?

It is now emerging that Assad is doing the minimum to take on the likes of ISIS in order to support his narrative that he is holding onto power to counter terrorism; in the meantime millions of Syrian people are living in appalling circumstances. There are increasing reports that Assad is acquiring oil from ISIS.

Edited June 17, 2014 by simple1

[coma]

@ IANCXZ

What ? That they don't make a shitty situation even worse by going in blind and making even more enemies in the process ? Maybe you can lend your services and go in there and sort it out yourself if you are such an "intellect". You won't get me going back in there again, risking life and limb for no result and another useless US policy. Good luck to you sir.

[iancnx]

Coma.

This is misunderstanding it seems. Unfortunately some posts appear to have disappeared. Any one else experiencing this?

My point is I fail to see how any American (British) Foreign Policy can be seen as responsible given the glaring track record of failure. If the US were to pull out, go home and let Iraq get on with their civil war then that might be seen as not interfering and perhaps responsible. Parking a Carrier in the Gulf, armed to the teeth, ready to act as the global police is NOT responsible. Let's not start discussing the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing all in the name of US national security and the infamous axis of evil!

With respect, Could the Mods please give guidance here. Please indicate discussion about western foreign policy in the Middle East is directly and inextricably linked to this topic and posts should not be deleted as off topic?

[iancnx]

The US is considering drone strikes in Iraq and has sent more ships to the Gulf, as the UN said it was pulling its staff out of Baghdad following lightning advances by Sunni fighters in the north.

John Kerry, the secretary of state, on Monday said drone strikes were "not the whole answer" to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's campaign but added they they could be "one of the options that are important".

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/us-steps-up-military-preparations-over-iraq-20146161329646979.html

Important to who? And what is the US plan for the Kurds exactly?

[Ulysses G.]

Drone strikes are not going to help much against a whole army. That sounds more like pretending to do something than actually trying to solve any problems.

[Morch]

Drone strikes are not going to help much against a whole army. That sounds more like pretending to do something than actually trying to solve any problems.

ISIS is not an army.

If they were, the drones would be super effective.

Drones are just means to avoid USA casualties.

[Ulysses G.]

A lot of experts would disagree with you:

Armed drones may provide the administration with a cosmetic military solution for the ongoing crisis, affording the U.S. the opportunity to look tough and engage ISIS without endangering U.S. troops or creating the impression that we we’re re-fighting a war that we declared over in 2011. Unfortunately, armed drones by themselves would be relatively ineffective against an enemy like ISIS, the brutal offshoot of al-Qaeda, according to experts.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/06/pros-and-cons-us-drone-strikes-iraq/86482/?oref=d-channelriver

[Morch]

A lot of experts would disagree with you:

Armed drones may provide the administration with a cosmetic military solution for the ongoing crisis, affording the U.S. the opportunity to look tough and engage ISIS without endangering U.S. troops or creating the impression that we we’re re-fighting a war that we declared over in 2011. Unfortunately, armed drones by themselves would be relatively ineffective against an enemy like ISIS, the brutal offshoot of al-Qaeda, according to experts.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/06/pros-and-cons-us-drone-strikes-iraq/86482/?oref=d-channelriver

Disagree how?

ISIS is not an army as such, no one is claiming that. Drones are means to avoid USA casualties - that's pretty much a consensus.

If ISIS forces were more concentrated, or if there was better intel regarding their training/staging camps, and given their relative lack of sophisticated air defense, drones would make an excellent weapon. Obviously, they learned they're lessons well and do not expose themselves to such attacks.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies deleted along with posts commenting on moderation.

[Ulysses G.]

Disagree how?

That drones would be effective against ISIS. They only carry 2 to 4 missiles - depending on the type of drone. and then have to fly back to base and reload. That is great for getting an individual terrorist, but these weapons are not very effective against something like 10,000 well-armed insurgents.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

There are many interconnected cause and effects but if you want democracy, you must accept freedom of religion. There are common denominators but they differ from person to person. I have my own little list based upon the way I see things but the big list IMO should always include the democratic basics, press, religion, assembly, speech, etc.. There are religions which I absolutely hate but you do not have a democracy if they are not one of the many choices.

[Morch]

Disagree how?

That drones would be effective against ISIS. They only carry 2 to 4 missiles - depending on the type of drone. and then have to fly back to base and reload. That is great for getting an individual terrorist, but these weapons are not very effective against something like 10,000 well-armed insurgents.

Those 10k or so insurgents are spread over a rather large area. Reports from the taking of Mosul suggest much lower numbers participating. It is not like there's a convoy of 10k heading for Baghdad.

Drones can carry more than one kind or armament. While the usual mode of operations is aimed at precision strikes (with more or less rate of success - let's not start this one), they can be used otherwise.

[rgs2001uk]

Depends what you mean by "Saudi's".

Is it:

(I) Members of the Al Saud family who run the country.

(II) Wahabi/Sunni Saudis.

(III) Shi'a Saudis.

Just about everyone involved in running the nation-state of Saudi Arabia is related to the Al Saud clan. The Al Saud clan is inextricably linked to the Wahabi/Salafist movement. The Al Saud clan was backed up by the followers of Mohammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab and that enabled that clan to become the dominant clan supported by other lesser clans. In exchange for the local political backing, the Al Saud's allowed Wahabism to be the accepted and state sponsored form of Sunni Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Imagine oil being found underneath the Appalachian Mountains and the small snake handling church congregations of Appalachia becoming by far the wealthiest Christian church on the planet. That is approximately what happened to the world of Sunni Islam with the assistance of western oil interests.

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

The western powers coveted the oil in the oil rich region where the Saud clan was dominant and that tipped the balance of power in the Peninsula and as compensation, the western powers gave the other major clan, the Hashems. rule over the newly created nation-states of Transjordan and Iraq. It worked in Jordan, a region very close to the Hashem home region, but it did not work too well in Syria and Iraq which were far from the Hashems home region.

Make no mistake, the Saudi Wahabis, mostly members of the Al Saud clan, are the primary financiers behind the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Just look around Southeast Asia to see the change in behavior of the Muslim population, easily noticeable by those like myself who have been visiting for decades. That change was caused by Wahabi financed madrasas, Islamic schools that teach a far more fundamentalist form of Islam than was previously practiced in Southeast Asia. It was the Wahabists who led the creation of the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was no coincidence that the Al Saud's western sycophants amongst the US oil interests in Houston were the real backers of "Charlie Wilson's War". The Mujahadin morphed into Al Quaida which has now morphed into ISIS, but is still financed by the Wahabis who get their funds from the sale of oil and their political freedom in the west from their unholy alliance with Houston based oil companies, including their deep financial relationship with the Bush family, part of that being through the Carlyle Group. Those snake handlers in Houston let us all get bitten.

Apart from a few guest workers, you won't find Shia's in the Arabian Peninsula.

I doubt if the Shia majority in Bahrain would agree with you, the same country the Saudis sent their troops into to protect the minority Sunni ruling family.

As for Saudi itself,

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/05/26/saudi-arabias-escalating-campaign-shia-muslims/

is just one of many links on the subject.