IS executes 17 people over 24 hours in Syria's Palmyra

[webfact]

IS executes 17 people over 24 hours in Syria's Palmyra
English.news.cn

DAMASCUS, May 22 (Xinhua) -- The Islamic State (IS) militants have executed at least 17 people since they took control over the ancient city of Palmyra on Wednesday, a monitor group said Thursday.

Some of the slain people were government forces along with people who are loyal to the government, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The London-based watchdog group said some of the executed people were beheaded by the terror group, following the large-scale offensive on Palmyra Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the Observatory said IS militants have taken full control of the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria.

Both the residential parts and the historic parts, which host 2,000-year-old monuments and temples, of Palmyra have fallen to the IS group, according to the London-based Observatory.

An airbase, a central prison and the intelligence headquarters are all in IS hands now, said the monitor group, which says it relies on a network of activists on the ground inside Syria.

About 100 government soldiers were killed Wednesday in the battles in Palmyra, the group reported, saying IS militants now control half of Syria.

Late Wednesday, Syria's official al-Ekbarieh TV said the Syrian National Defense Forces pulled out of Palmyra due to intense IS assaults after evacuating civilians from the city.

The IS offensive against Palmyra started on May 13. The group has since captured the towns of Sukhneh and Amiriyeh and the al-Hail and Arak oilfields.

Full story: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-05/22/c_134259589.htm

-- Xinhua 2015-05-22

[prakhonchai nick]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

[ezzra]

Only 17 people? they must be slacking on the job or that their sword went blunt?

And strangely enough, the western and the Arab world seem to be in an impotent state of mind letting ISIS free hands in over running vast territories.... but the world is very busy and very concern when it comes to the plight of the poor Palestinians and have a go at Israel any chance they have, what ISIS dose is not of their liberal hearted concern right now...

[simple1]

Can we get boots on the ground from troops that are champing at the bit to take shit out....There are zillions of trained guys out there wanting to make the world move on........

Problem is domestic politics doesn't support 'boots on the ground' and resulting casualties. Also reluctance to directly engage seems to be influenced by a lack of currently acceptable political entity to take over and govern re-conquered territory in Syria.

[NickJ]

It will come to boots on the ground.....when King-Jing Obama is humping his library and making millions on the Bill Clinton Memorial Speech Trail............

[Catoni]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

"Can't just go bomb them... can't put boots on the ground." The first Socialist President of the U.S,, Obama.... says no.

The Pentagon applied more than 125 times to the President when they had opportunities to strike... and Obama approved one (1).. just for show. The killing of the head of ISIS finances the other day...Abu Sayyaf and a dozen or so of his terrorist guards and capture of his wife.

The socialists in the west.. and there allies.... don't want to put an effective stop to ISIS for some reason...

The left seem to be more interested in discussing Global Warming/Climate Change then they are about Islamic extremist monsters that shoot people in the head and behead them with a dull knife just for being a different religion.... and sell off little Christian girls for sick sexual pleasure and then kill the child when they tire of them.

We need to kill them all.... they are a disease... they are monsters... I fear for the west... and anyone else who wishes freedom of religion and all the other freedoms...

The "progressive" left in the west.. .and their allies....even the one in the White House... are responsible for ISIS growing like it is...

Edited May 22, 2015 by Catoni

[vogie]

Only 17 people? they must be slacking on the job or that their sword went blunt?

And strangely enough, the western and the Arab world world seem to be in an impotent state of mind

letting ISIS free hands in over running vast territories.... but the world is very busy and very concern

when it comes to the plight of the poor Palestinians and have a go at Israel any chance they have,

what ISIS dose is not of their liberal hearted concern right now...

I would really like to give you a like, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[ggt]

But...But...US airstrikes may have killed two innocent children last year...

[OMGImInPattaya]

As long as they were non-atheists of any kind, it's a net gain for society.

Edited May 22, 2015 by OMGImInPattaya

[chuckd]

As long as they were non-atheists of any kind, it's a net gain for society.

Are you claiming it is OK to kill all the children as long as they are not atheist?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[hawksway]

This is the price paid for the execution of Saddam Hussein whose Sunni Generals plan and drive IS Forces forward.

When will the West understand the mentality of the Peoples of the Middle East who are fighting Holy Wars so cruelly. Once IS have totally conquered large sways of the Middle East and established the Caliphate, only then will the savagery subside and Nation building will begin. Perhaps the schism in Islam will change into inclusiveness.

[OMGImInPattaya]

As long as they were non-atheists of any kind, it's a net gain for society.

Are you claiming it is OK to kill all the children as long as they are not atheist?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

If those are my only choices...then yes.

[charmonman]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

"Can't just go bomb them... can't put boots on the ground." The first Socialist President of the U.S,, Obama.... says no.

The Pentagon applied more than 125 times to the President when they had opportunities to strike... and Obama approved one (1).. just for show. The killing of the head of ISIS finances the other day...Abu Sayyaf and a dozen or so of his terrorist guards and capture of his wife.

The socialists in the west.. and there allies.... don't want to put an effective stop to ISIS for some reason...

The left seem to be more interested in discussing Global Warming/Climate Change then they are about Islamic extremist monsters that shoot people in the head and behead them with a dull knife just for being a different religion.... and sell off little Christian girls for sick sexual pleasure and then kill the child when they tire of them.

We need to kill them all.... they are a disease... they are monsters... I fear for the west... and anyone else who wishes freedom of religion and all the other freedoms...

The "progressive" left in the west.. .and their allies....even the one in the White House... are responsible for ISIS growing like it is...

I think I would qualify as one of the "leftists" you seem to so despise in that I believe in science and history. It was "boots on the ground" under W that led to the past decade plus of fiasco in the region in the first place, so I'm not entirely sure why you put the entire blame on Obama. I do agree that if you broke it, you've got to fix it, so I might agree that the US should put the so-called boots on the ground to try to kill as many of these fanatics as possible whatever the cost. The neo-cons created a complete <deleted> mess and Obama is struggling to clean it up, maybe not as effectively as he could but can you understand HE's not the enemy here, ISIS is?

[cookee68]

They have taken over half of Syria, why not wait until they have all of Syria, then Nuke them, always innocent people in times if warm cant be avoided

[bartender100]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

Answer can only be the US have another agenda, Palmyra is in the middle of nowhere, US must have been watching them approach and did nothing, who really knows, they still will not arm the Kurds, who could do the job if equipped

[asdecas]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

Historical evidence demonstrates again and again that bombing alone does not win wars; that requires a comprehensive strategy, of which bombing plays a part, but not a crucial part.

[winstonc]

The west saw it coming. Why didn't they bomb the bastards?

Even now if their spy satellites see them damaging the old sites, can't they send in the drones and bomb them all.

Is the West, like somewhere nearer to home just all talk?

Historical evidence demonstrates again and again that bombing alone does not win wars; that requires a comprehensive strategy, of which bombing plays a part, but not a crucial part.

your right gut theyv hardly started that have they sir..maybe the west is happy to have all arabs dead then its free oil time bonanza..

[Ulysses G.]

Only 17 people? they must be slacking on the job or that their sword went blunt?

And strangely enough, the western and the Arab world world seem to be in an impotent state of mind

letting ISIS free hands in over running vast territories.... but the world is very busy and very concern

when it comes to the plight of the poor Palestinians and have a go at Israel any chance they have,

what ISIS dose is not of their liberal hearted concern right now...

I would really like to give you a like, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

He is saying that the professional Israel-haters, who whine every time a Palestinian stubs his toe, seem in short supply on threads like this, when Muslims are killing Muslims wholesale.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[bartender100]

Thanks to the OP of this, well worth a watch if you think IS will roll over, Malaki has a lot to answer for

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

[JockPieandBeans]

IS Behead Civilians As '400 Killed In Palmyra'

It emerged as Syrian state television reported that 400 civilians in Palmyra - mostly women and children - had been killed by IS fighters.

Hundreds of bodies were reportedly scattered in the streets of the city after it was seized by the ultra hardline group. Some had been beheaded.

http://news.sky.com/story/1489855/is-behead-civilians-as-400-killed-in-palmyra

[Steely Dan]

ISIS seem to be aiming to provoke Western ground forces with their ever escalating atrocities. Obama seems equally desperate to avoid doing so, possibly hoping for a Sunni-Shia religious war to break out. The trouble is I cant see the existing Sunni states avoiding capitulating o ISIS from within in such a scenario, which is why they are so reluctant to commit ground troops themselves to fight ISIS. Palmyra was originally a Christian city that Washington DC was modeled on, how fitting that the current occupant of Washington appears to be capitulating to the rise of a Caliphate, just as the Christian inhabitants of ancient Palmyra surrendered in order to save themselves.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/isis-targets-city-that-inspired-washington-d-c-for-destruction/

[Chicog]

ISIS seem to be aiming to provoke Western ground forces with their ever escalating atrocities. Obama seems equally desperate to avoid doing so, possibly hoping for a Sunni-Shia religious war to break out. The trouble is I cant see the existing Sunni states avoiding capitulating o ISIS from within in such a scenario, which is why they are so reluctant to commit ground troops themselves to fight ISIS. Palmyra was originally a Christian city that Washington DC was modeled on, how fitting that the current occupant of Washington appears to be capitulating to the rise of a Caliphate, just as the Christian inhabitants of ancient Palmyra surrendered in order to save themselves.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/isis-targets-city-that-inspired-washington-d-c-for-destruction/

I would have thought that it's stating the bleeding obvious that they want western troops to enter the fray. It hasn't worked out too well in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and the propaganda value of executing soldiers of the Great Satan is inestimable.

I say stay out of it and just make sure it is contained.

There is little else you can do without increasing the bloodshed, civilian or otherwise.

[Credo]

I have to agree with Chicog. There isn't much that can be done. If Western powers enter the fray, it might lessen the time that ISIS is around, but it probably won't less the ultimate number of deaths. Whether it is 10,000 people killed in 10 months or 10,000 people killed in 10 years, it will still be 10,000 people killed.

The difficulty with these situations is there is no way of predicting the outcome. Getting rid of one set of bad guys sometimes only leads to a new set of bad guys.

I think given the level of atrocities, many Muslims in Western countries might believe in their religion, but I don't think many would want this group on the door step to their homes.

[JockPieandBeans]

I have to agree with Chicog. There isn't much that can be done. If Western powers enter the fray, it might lessen the time that ISIS is around, but it probably won't less the ultimate number of deaths. Whether it is 10,000 people killed in 10 months or 10,000 people killed in 10 years, it will still be 10,000 people killed.

The difficulty with these situations is there is no way of predicting the outcome. Getting rid of one set of bad guys sometimes only leads to a new set of bad guys.

I think given the level of atrocities, many Muslims in Western countries might believe in their religion, but I don't think many would want this group on the door step to their homes.

And that is the Million $$ question.

The biggest Muslim majority in the UK is Sunni.

Just a guess, but if IS rocked up in the UK, I have no doubt about where their loyalties would lie, and I do not think it would be with the UK.

There is no easy answer. Tough decisions lay in wait in the near future.

[Steely Dan]

I have to agree with Chicog. There isn't much that can be done. If Western powers enter the fray, it might lessen the time that ISIS is around, but it probably won't less the ultimate number of deaths. Whether it is 10,000 people killed in 10 months or 10,000 people killed in 10 years, it will still be 10,000 people killed.

The difficulty with these situations is there is no way of predicting the outcome. Getting rid of one set of bad guys sometimes only leads to a new set of bad guys.

I think given the level of atrocities, many Muslims in Western countries might believe in their religion, but I don't think many would want this group on the door step to their homes.

And that is the Million $$ question.

The biggest Muslim majority in the UK is Sunni.

Just a guess, but if IS rocked up in the UK, I have no doubt about where their loyalties would lie, and I do not think it would be with the UK.

There is no easy answer. Tough decisions lay in wait in the near future.

You pointed at the crux of the matter. If you believe the number of Sunni Muslims sympathetic to ISIS to be tiny then it would indeed seem wisest to let the Middle eastern states tackle ISIS on their own, in said scenario Western boots on the ground would rightly be seen as a risk of boosting recruiting for ISIS.

If on the other hand the support for ISIS is significant and growing then time is of the essence or the 'strong horse' effect will have Muslims flocking to join ISIS. As it is the one fact that stands out a mile is that no local force seems up to the task of providing even sustained resistance to ISIS, let alone dismantling them as a fighting force.

A former commander of the UK armed forces recently stated as much when he argued for at least 5,000 Western troops on the ground now to fight ISIS. Of course the mistakes following the removal of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddhafi make it politically very unpopular to intervene with ground troops. If I'm correct in my suspicions as to the support ISIS has then procrastination may lead to the majority of the worlds oil supply falling into the hands of evil supremacists.

http://www.debka.com/article/24619/No-army-in-Mid-East-is-challenging-ISIS-Iran-regroups-to-defend-S-Iraqi-Shiites-Assad-to-save-Damascus-

Edited May 26, 2015 by Steely Dan

[JockPieandBeans]

Steely

A former commander of the UK armed forces recently stated as much when he argued for at least 5,000 Western troops on the ground now to fight ISIS. Of course the mistakes following the removal of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddhafi make it politically very unpopular to intervene with ground troops. If I'm correct in my suspicions as to the support ISIS has then procrastination may lead to the majority of the worlds oil supply falling into the hands of evil supremacists.

I must take issue with said former commander. I did see this on the news. As I was watching him I really had to think where his head was at and what his motives were.

He called for 5000 Western troops to be deployed.

He clearly has little recollection of recent history as 5000 troops would have very limited effect and infact would probably be routed. I am not sure if he meant 5000 from the UK as part of a much greater coalition, but he certainly, in the interview that I saw, never mentioned coalitions.

I really do not know where he was coming from, but the mind boggles.

[Steely Dan]

Steely

A former commander of the UK armed forces recently stated as much when he argued for at least 5,000 Western troops on the ground now to fight ISIS. Of course the mistakes following the removal of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddhafi make it politically very unpopular to intervene with ground troops. If I'm correct in my suspicions as to the support ISIS has then procrastination may lead to the majority of the worlds oil supply falling into the hands of evil supremacists.

I must take issue with said former commander. I did see this on the news. As I was watching him I really had to think where his head was at and what his motives were.

He called for 5000 Western troops to be deployed.

He clearly has little recollection of recent history as 5000 troops would have very limited effect and infact would probably be routed. I am not sure if he meant 5000 from the UK as part of a much greater coalition, but he certainly, in the interview that I saw, never mentioned coalitions.

I really do not know where he was coming from, but the mind boggles.

In terms of scale I would agree with you entirely. I mentioned it in passing seeing it was the first I recall of anyone with ties to the Western military even suggesting the need for Western ground troops. Depressingly if we even get that far I suspect a half arsed effort would ensue. I really don't think our politicians have any comprehension of the current danger, the likes of Al Sisi in Egypt does.

[JockPieandBeans]

Steely

A former commander of the UK armed forces recently stated as much when he argued for at least 5,000 Western troops on the ground now to fight ISIS. Of course the mistakes following the removal of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddhafi make it politically very unpopular to intervene with ground troops. If I'm correct in my suspicions as to the support ISIS has then procrastination may lead to the majority of the worlds oil supply falling into the hands of evil supremacists.

I must take issue with said former commander. I did see this on the news. As I was watching him I really had to think where his head was at and what his motives were.

He called for 5000 Western troops to be deployed.

He clearly has little recollection of recent history as 5000 troops would have very limited effect and infact would probably be routed. I am not sure if he meant 5000 from the UK as part of a much greater coalition, but he certainly, in the interview that I saw, never mentioned coalitions.

I really do not know where he was coming from, but the mind boggles.

In terms of scale I would agree with you entirely. I mentioned it in passing seeing it was the first I recall of anyone with ties to the Western military even suggesting the need for Western ground troops. Depressingly if we even get that far I suspect a half arsed effort would ensue. I really don't think our politicians have any comprehension of the current danger, the likes of Al Sisi in Egypt does.

I do not necessarily think that Politicians do not have any comprehension of the dangers. I think that they are far more mindful of where it could lead to if they get involved Militarily. I do not think that the have the stomach to deal with what will eventually happen.

In the current climate of so many Home Office Departments being labelled unfit for purpose. I would like to see the Military deployed at home in a MACA Role and a limited MACC role. After all, the 1st commitment of the UK Forces is Home Defence.

[chuckd]

CNN is now reporting over 300 have been executed by those nice people from ISIS, many of them women and children.

Edit it: The count is now over 400.

Edited May 26, 2015 by chuckd

[JockPieandBeans]

CNN is now reporting over 300 have been executed by those nice people from ISIS, many of them women and children.

Weeeeell, these folk were not armed. Just about sums up these bunch of brainless cowards.....

Yes, well the IA legs it.

So the defence is left to paramilitary Militia's. Kinda sums it up.