ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Dis86 · 18 Nov 2015 at 22:41

setter said:
I think you will find that those weapons and vehicles were left in the hands of the new Iraqi army. The army that turned tail and ran at the first sight of ISIS. Abandoning all their weapons and equipment in the process.

Glad you pointed it out before I did.
I do love how some people just cannot wait to blame the west!

setter · 18 Nov 2015 at 22:45

Dis86 said:
Glad you pointed it out before I did.
I do love how some people just cannot wait to blame the west!

Have a few friends who served in Iraq. Part of their duties was helping to train the Iraqi army and police forces. Basically they were if the opinion that as a military force they would be as useful as a wet lettuce as they simply weren't that interested.

Dis86 · 18 Nov 2015 at 22:47

setter said:
Have a few friends who served in Iraq. Part of their duties was helping to train the Iraqi army and police forces. Basically they were if the opinion that as a military force they would be as useful as a wet lettuce as they simply weren't that interested.

Which is precisely why they scattered. They don't want to fight their own basically.

Malevolence · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:07

setter said:
Have a few friends who served in Iraq. Part of their duties was helping to train the Iraqi army and police forces. Basically they were if the opinion that as a military force they would be as useful as a wet lettuce as they simply weren't that interested.

Did they mention their predilection for standing up in the face of direct fire and just randomly spraying bullets down range rather than taking any of the training on board and aiming with controlled shots/bursts? A mate of mine who was involved in training the ANA had this behaviour explained to him by one of the ANA commanders - apparently it's because they think Allah will guide the bullets. I **** you not!

IS do the same, in more than a few videos you see some gimp step out of cover and just unload a PKM.

Orionaut · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:16

setter said:
I think you will find that those weapons and vehicles were left in the hands of the new Iraqi army. The army that turned tail and ran at the first sight of ISIS. Abandoning all their weapons and equipment in the process.

Hands up everybody who would be willing to stand and fight against an enemy who would burn you to death in a cage if they caught you alive?

Also, Hands up everybody who would be willing to fight such an enemy once you knew that if you actually killed one you might actually end up in prison!

Thats why they know they will win!

:eek:

Werewolf · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:19

Dis86 said:
Which is precisely why they scattered. They don't want to fight their own basically.

Or more likely just didn't want to fight or were scared.

After the Iraq invasion and "rebuilding" effort joining the army was (as is the case in a lot of countries, including parts of the U.S.) often the only job they could get.
They aren't massively well paid, their leadership was, as I understand it pretty poor*, and their training not great.

Guess what happens when you put a poorly trained army, with bad leadership, no real wish to be in the army up against and armed force that appears to have better leadership, better training/more experience at fighting, no real fear of death and a reputation for being brutal?
The average solider in that army isn't likely to hang around, especially if they see their leaders high tailing it out of there, they're likely to think "well gosh, I'm not remunerated enough to stand here and attempt to halt the advance of the enemy whilst my commander is making a strategic withdrawal to the nearest coalition base".

It's the sort of lesson many armies learn the hard way, hopefully before losing the war.

*I think there was a lot of political appointees and nepotism in it despite what the coillition tried to do to stop it, and like pretty much every Western army up to the 19th and 20th century paid the price for it.

smelly_legend · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:20

Malevolence said:
Did they mention their predilection for standing up in the face of direct fire and just randomly spraying bullets down range rather than taking any of the training on board and aiming with controlled shots/bursts? A mate of mine who was involved in training the ANA had this behaviour explained to him by one of the ANA commanders - apparently it's because they think Allah will guide the bullets. I **** you not!

IS do the same, in more than a few videos you see some gimp step out of cover and just unload a PKM.

That's nuts. They basically think they are Rambo LOL.

The Funktopus · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:43

Well, when the UK intervened in Sierra Leone in 2000, the RUF were terrified of the British Army and the Royal Marines after their first few encounters because they were convinced they had 'more powerful shamans', as they killed RUF fighters with relatively few well aimed shots...

Nothing to do with tactics, training, the actual use of their weapon's sights, but 'more powerful black magic'.

Dj_Jestar · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:49

aka "That which is unknown".

Take a country of people who have had aggressive dictators for a few generations, with no outside information because of stringent control and propaganda from those dictators. Most of the occupants not even knowing they are in a country at all let alone which country, because all they've done all their lives is farm - no schools, either. "Invade" them with a modern army using equipment and vehicles they hadn't even dreamed of before, tell them "Join us, we'll pay you more money than you've ever thought of having, btw pls don't run when bad guys appear? kthx." and see what happens when bad guys do appear. You think they are suddenly going to be taken with national pride or something?

new boy · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:51

I wonder if the human race can ever move beyond religion?

I can see how it was useful in earlier centuries to keep people in line and to install basic morals in people, but its just a hindrance now...

Dis86 · 18 Nov 2015 at 23:59

Werewolf said:
Or more likely just didn't want to fight or were scared.

After the Iraq invasion and "rebuilding" effort joining the army was (as is the case in a lot of countries, including parts of the U.S.) often the only job they could get.
They aren't massively well paid, their leadership was, as I understand it pretty poor*, and their training not great.

Guess what happens when you put a poorly trained army, with bad leadership, no real wish to be in the army up against and armed force that appears to have better leadership, better training/more experience at fighting, no real fear of death and a reputation for being brutal?
The average solider in that army isn't likely to hang around, especially if they see their leaders high tailing it out of there, they're likely to think "well gosh, I'm not remunerated enough to stand here and attempt to halt the advance of the enemy whilst my commander is making a strategic withdrawal to the nearest coalition base".

It's the sort of lesson many armies learn the hard way, hopefully before losing the war.

*I think there was a lot of political appointees and nepotism in it despite what the coillition tried to do to stop it, and like pretty much every Western army up to the 19th and 20th century paid the price for it.

What you've described are things like the French and Dutch resistance, Greek partisans and...the home guard during the second world war.

The only difference being dedication to a cause because their enemies were occupiers.

Granted the home guard didn't get tested.

Mynight · 19 Nov 2015 at 00:01

Apparantly there's a meeting going on currently as to whether to reduce the schengun zone. Essentially kicking out most of the members and returning to the original version in an effort to impose stricter passport controls.

Even Swedens "closed" its borders :eek:

.

dowie · 19 Nov 2015 at 00:03

Dj_Jestar said:
aka "That which is unknown".

Take a country of people who have had aggressive dictators for a few generations, with no outside information because of stringent control and propaganda from those dictators. Most of the occupants not even knowing they are in a country at all let alone which country, because all they've done all their lives is farm - no schools, either. "Invade" them with a modern army using equipment and vehicles they hadn't even dreamed of before, tell them "Join us, we'll pay you more money than you've ever thought of having, btw pls don't run when bad guys appear? kthx." and see what happens when bad guys do appear. You think they are suddenly going to be taken with national pride or something?

not really relevant to Iraq though... maybe some place in Africa a few decades ago

Amp34 · 19 Nov 2015 at 06:29

gettothechopper said:
Because its risky - lose a chinny and you just lost 40 sf in one go, (ala 2011) you need rescue PJ helis, blocking forces (like rangers or sfsg), air cover, intel etc etc

it takes patrols, interrogations, meetings, signal intel, recon, forensics, raids etc to generate targets for more raids

To do all that you need many people on the ground (like Afghanistan / Iraq deployments) - which there is little appetite for

A good example being Black Hawk Down. That's the kind of messed up situation you could get in to, especially as the Isis leaders would be surrounded by supporters, unlike Bin Laden who was keeping a very low profile.

Amp34 · 19 Nov 2015 at 06:35

Mynight said:
Apparantly there's a meeting going on currently as to whether to reduce the schengun zone. Essentially kicking out most of the members and returning to the original version in an effort to impose stricter passport controls.

Even Swedens "closed" its borders .

I don't get this, weren't most of the attackers French and Belgian?

Mynight · 19 Nov 2015 at 06:45

Amp34 said:
I don't get this, weren't most of the attackers French and Belgian?

Yeah, all were Belgium or French with the exception of two unknown ones(I think there's a further two they haven't identified yet as well).

jonneymendoza · 19 Nov 2015 at 07:30

setter said:
I think you will find that those weapons and vehicles were left in the hands of the new Iraqi army. The army that turned tail and ran at the first sight of ISIS. Abandoning all their weapons and equipment in the process.

ahh i diddnt know that mate. Thanks for the info but what about when they gave it to the other army i syria that magically got into the hands of ISIS?

Van Diemen · 19 Nov 2015 at 10:15

enkoda said:
You cannot interpret the Quran.
It is the literal and unalterable word of God.

Unless you follow it to the letter you are not a true Muslim.
You cannot introduce concepts such as historical context because you are now questioning Allah.

So when the Quran says death to non-believers these "extremists" are simply doing what God has told them.

Your statement is totally false
Quranic science is all but knowing the historical context of verses.
Context is of the utmost importance.

enkoda · 19 Nov 2015 at 11:43

Van Diemen said:
Your statement is totally false
Quranic science is all but knowing the historical context of verses.
Context is of the utmost importance.

Please enlighten me as to which predominately Islamic nations activity endorse the questioning and subsequent criticism of the Quran?

I don't doubt that historical context may be discussed, but the Quran cannot be criticised. Try it in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, then see if you're still alive to continue the debate.

Terminal_Boy · 19 Nov 2015 at 11:47

Van Diemen said:
Quranic science

You typed that without any sense of irony, didn't you?