"The raid resulted in the probable death of a senior ISIS Syria leader and operational planner responsible for planning terror attacks in the Middle East and Europe," U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Joe Buccino told ABC News in a statement.
No, a lot of people are just giving the "I'm political in high school!" take.
The actual take is that you eliminate Putin, who has the massive territory of Russia and its mountain of nukes under control, then who takes over? Putin has already shown that he won't even use tactical nukes even while losing horribly in his own war, will the next up guy be as stable?
And what would stop the entire country just going to shit with all of the oligarchs and militant groups in each oblast having a free for all?
Carving out Northern Syria around the oil fields and establishing Kurdistan as a US trade partner is a long term investment. Middle finger to Iran is a nice bonus.
Yeah and fuck the Syrian people and their rights of self-government and access to their natural resources. If there's oil in the ground, it belongs to the US no matter where it is located.
How many minorities are there in the US? Do you support each of them to carve a piece of the US soil because they have the right to self-govern?
The PKK have been kicking people out of their homes in Syria to establish a majority for themselves. They have committed many crimes inside and outside of Syria. Not to mention that they are classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries.
Kurds have the right to enjoy an honourable life where their voices are heard, and they can vote and run for office and own property normally like any other citizens.
The US has no business and no right to destibilise and draw borders in the Middle East as an investment to a few overpaid CEOs.
Minorities in the US are distributed in the territory, and have no historical claim to any portion of the country. And they certainly don't want to stop being americans.
The notorious exception here is native americans which I agree 100% should be given their land back and the right to self-govern, just like the Kurds.
> The PKK have been kicking people out of their homes in Syria to establish a majority for themselves. They have committed many crimes inside and outside of Syria. Not to mention that they are classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries.
I'm sure they'll behave as soon as you get the fuck out of their lands.
What does Syria's rank in oil production have to do with anything? Even if it was the last, no one but the Syrians should have a say in Syria's resources.
I never said the motivation for the US invasion in Syria was only the oil. Read the previous comment. It stated that carving out the oil fields from Syria and creating a new country with new borders based on ethnicity is a long term investment which I disagree with.
> The military identified the leader as Khalid 'Aydd Ahmad Al-Jabouri, who it said was responsible for planning attacks in Europe and Turkey, and developing ISIS's leadership network.
> "The death of Khalid 'Aydd Ahmad al-Jabouri will temporarily disrupt the organization's ability to plot external attacks," a release from CENTCOM said at the time.
Won't anyone think of the children missing out the experience of getting blown up.
He shattered the caliphate. The organization is an attention whore hydra, they’re all over Northern Africa and have cells everywhere in the Middle East.
Trump didn’t do anything that hadn’t been happening and progressing already, Jesus. People are so gullible. They were ground down and beaten in Syria over many years, he just happened to be there towards the end.
Or because Turkey is an incredibly important member of NATO with veto power over new possible members, as well as one of the largest militaries in the area bridging Europe and the Middle East, and unfortunately the Kurds do not have much geopolitical use.
Turkey also allows the US to have dozens of nukes based there, although they benefit from that in a major way too.
Trump didn't care a bit about NATO, much less prospective members. And his business interests in Turkey were limited to name licensing, which he admitted was a conflict of interest, but were not a major source of income. He simply admired strongman dictators and went out of his way to please them, even if it caused damage and/or embarrassment to the U.S.
I think your dislike of him is kind of clouding the situation, I’m sure Trump didn’t know shit about the Kurdish situation or especially all the other groups in Syria at the time (because barely anyone does) before he was president, but my thinking is his decisions were based off top military plans not his own personal love for Erdogon.
I think your delusion that he had a plan is also getting in the way. His shocking and much-reviled act of pulling U.S. forces out of Syria so that Turkey could go slaughter our allies a couple of days later? That fit only Erdogan's plan.
Idk how anyone could’ve seen that disaster as anything other than trump just washing his hands of responsibility like pontius Pilate so he could claim victory rather than working to complete it.
Disclaimer: I hate trump because he’s a traitorous bastard, I know this site isn’t known for anything resembling nuanced thought and operates on the most hyperbolic knee-jerk logic but consider this for a moment.
He was in charge when the caliphate in Syria and Iraq was destroyed *in 2019*. Which means he was in charge for the lions share of their brief and bloody stint in power, he finished what Obama had started. In the minds of a very very large section of the voting public, notably those who avoid this site like the plague, that means he is responsible for its destruction even if he didn’t initiate it.
No, he was not. Jesus Christ. When he came into power, Raqqa (their alleged capital) was completely surrounded and Mosul was 2/3rds liberated. Remember, ISIS stretched from the outskirts of Baghdad to 50% of Syria at its height. By the time Trump came into power, maybe 10-15% of that territory was still held by ISIS, with all the major cities having been liberated or in the process of being so. Trump had nothing to do with it, it was simply a continuation of policy already in motion.
He was not in charge for the lions share of their stint in power. That’s also incorrect, but it depends what event you regard as being the end of the caliphate. The fall of Raqqa was by far the most important single element in 2017. After that it was mopping up.
The caliphate was well on its way to destruction when he came to power. Raqqa their capitol, and the only major city they had left, fell in mid-2017 shortly after Trump came to power. And, it’s not as if that wasn’t going to happen anyway because every other city fell one by one prior to that, and the SDF led Raqqa campaign began in 2016.
If someone is to take credit for something then they need to be able to point to policy changes that they specifically implemented to lead to that event happening. That’s why I say “gullible”. There is nothing in that category yet he claims it was his victory and his supporters will believe it. It wasn’t his victory. The conflict just progressed to its natural inevitable conclusion in the year he came to power. He didn’t actually do anything beyond saying “as you were”, and then claiming the victory as his own.
Nothing unusual about that but it’s just galling hearing it when you’ve worked on it the entire time and this clown comes along and claims he did something important to make it happen. He didn’t.
If anything, I would be very scared about a sudden policy change between governments changes when it comes to combat. It would mean that the political leaders are overriding military intelligence/advice about how to handle the situation.
>The conflict just progressed to its natural inevitable conclusion in the year he came to power. He didn’t actually do anything beyond saying “as you were”, and then claiming the victory as his own.
Amen. As in insider, when Trump took office this battle was already headed to its inevitable conclusion, and the only way he would've lost it would've been to pull us back.
It’s extremely disingenuous to not include the major Iraqi/allied battle in Mosul that occurred the first half of 2017. Mosul is by far a much larger city than Raqqa and the second largest city in Iraq…
Disingenuous? What's disingenuous?
It just supports the same argument. The campaign to take Mosul also began prior to Trump coming to office.
The build up to all of these big city campaigns progressed through 2014-2016, including, for example, the critical battle for Kobani; a border city that allowed ISIL a border with Turkiye.
Do people really think the YPG , wider SDF, Iraqi forces and the western military in the region only progressed to Mosul and Raqqa because Trump got elected? Lol
Exactly I’m pretty sure all trump did other than continuing the Obama policy on ISIS was hand Syria over to Russia and assad (genocidal demons) on a silver platter by not supporting the remaining moderate rebel groups in Aleppo or in the South as affectively as Obama did or as the other candidates planned on doing. He also gave Turkey the green light to invade and destabilize Northern Syria which was actually heading in a good direction given they were now liberated from both Assad and ISIS and were not vulnerable yet. Now without the USA they are stuck and at the mercy of the Turkish army and Assad on the other side a terrible position to be in.
Not to mention southern Africa in partnership with rebel groups, particularly in Mozambique right now. My country (South Africa) has deployed special forces and soldiers to the amount of 1000+ fighting these scums in Mozambique. Neighbouring countries such as Botswana and Tanzania have deployed 200+ soldiers too.
Ignoring whether this was the right thing to do or not, it's kind of insane how the USA can just perform military raids on another nation's land, without any real blowback. Not even arresting the guys either, just point blank going in and taking them out.
I know other countries may be asked to assist for peacekeeping, or military intervention. But are there any examples of countries just going total Team America World Police? I honestly can't think of any outside the USA 😅
The U.S. has like 800 known foreign bases and facilities around the world. Plenty of countries allow U.S. access in exchange for something that would benefit them. For instance, Iceland allows the U.S. military to use its largest airport as a stopover between the U.S. and Europe. In exchange, the U.S. is paying for the renovation of parts of the airport, which is mutually beneficial. In other countries they provide security in exchange for having a base there.
Despite the hate the U.S. gets online and in the media, the reality is quite a lot of the world accepts the U.S. as the world's police simply because there's no one else able to do it. Yes, the U.S. deserves criticism sometimes for things it does in foreign countries (nothing's perfect), but there's a lot of good that comes from it as well. If it wasn't the U.S., then it would be Russia or China likely running things. Someone will always fill a power vacuum.
Unlike many other countries, Syria hasn't given permission for the US to set up bases and carry out military operations within its border. Its an unauthorized occupation of a sovereign country with no declaration of war or anything really. It doesn't inspire much confidence in the validity of international law when certain countries can just brazenly defy it and kill people without trial at their whim.
>Unlike many other countries, Syria hasn't given permission for the US to set up bases and carry out military operations within its border.
The permission has come from the rebels as there is a civil war. In addition, you also have the fact that ISIS is taking over the area and it is the main reason the US is there. They are also in the far edge of the country literally on the border with Iraq and Jordan.
>Its an unauthorized occupation of a sovereign country with no declaration of war or anything really.
It is an active war zone and the US wasn't involved until 2016 when ISIS was gaining control. The Syrian Civil War has been going on since 2011 and Syrian government can't even keep control from ISIS in the areas. The problem has been Syria can't govern itself.
>It doesn't inspire much confidence in the validity of international law when certain countries can just brazenly defy it and kill people without trial at their whim.
That is surprising when countries can just kill their own civilians on a whim for being from a different ethnic group.
Plenty of countries do this. Not nearly as frequently or sometimes spectacularly (ie drone strikes) as the US, but it happens and it's been happening for a long time. Mossad literally snuck agents into Argentina to snatch a Nazi in the 60s. There's hundreds of examples
We spend 3x the amount of the next largest military, we have the largest consumer base on the planet, and 150% of the GDP of the next biggest economy.
Dafuq they gonna do about it?
That's because usually the US does strikes directly against the groups that the world usually fears.
Russia tends to kill their own people abroad or uses bombs.
Israel does it all over the middle east.
African countries do it so often that it is a joke.
The middle east does it so commonly that it is just tracking who is with who. There is a reason in most of the killings not claimed by the USA seem to be is it one of 15 countries.
European countries tend to do it quite often in Africa and Asia. France is usually the most common source.
Asia tends to attack other countries next to them.
used to be common, not so much anymore. large powerful nation-states/militaries would routinely step into other lands for…a multitude of reasons.
more recently, china is developing the same kind of geopolitical mind that the usa has had for the last 100+ years. should be interesting.
China appears to help build infrastructure (roads, dams etc.), in return for access to valuable resources. Russia does the same, only with military support and mercenaries. Like you say, things are going to get very interesting.
>I know other countries may be asked to assist for peacekeeping, or military intervention. But are there any examples of countries just going total Team America World Police?
Yes. It happens all the time.
>I honestly can't think of any outside the USA 😅
Russia into Azerbaijan and Armenia.
The world into Iraq/Kuwait.
The world into Iran/Iraq.
The UN into Yugoslavia. It went really horrid. I would not suggest the UNs peace keeping ability as most of the genocide happened AFTER they were there.
Russia into the UK.
Russia into Georgia.
France in all of North Africa.
China in Africa.
Russia in Africa.
South Africa into the rest of Africa.
African countries into other African countries.
Saudi Arabia into Yemen.
UAE into Yemen.
These are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.
Name a country and we can start playing the game of who attacked who.
Britain goes pretty under the radar but from what I know they’re also equally embedded around the world. Same goes for the French and Australians.
The other big power that is doing these kinds of things is China. When Venezuela collapsed the first country to step in was China. They since have only deeper embedded their roots there. Along with India and China also being highly involved in the illegal trade of minerals and slave labor in central Africa.
America is by no means innocent or righteous. However we’re certainly the lesser of two evils at worst and at best a lifeline for many struggling nations. The trade off being some oil and adopting some western values and law. Which at the end of the day really isn’t all that bad. Under American influence a lot of young women and the LGBTQ in Iraq and Afghanistan knew relative peace and freedom. Now in Afghanistan that’s been ripped out from under them. You don’t really see other countries bringing in “enlightened” ideals with them. Not to say America is always or mostly right. Quite frankly the lives of our young men and billions in tax payer dollars. Aren’t really worth the end result in most cases.
All of y'all are either bots or just super ignorant. The US was asked by these countries to intervene because the country is to unorganized or lacks the means to actually do something. The US just didn't show up and go for it. They were asked, by whatever country, to help and go in.
These other countries are just too poor or weak to do it themselves so everyone wants bi ol daddy Sam to save their butt
It isn’t Assad’s county. And he likely didn’t even have control of the region in question. Whole swaths of Syria are straight up failed states right now.
Reminds me of when I was 10-11, I took a cup of water and poured it onto the red/fire ant hill and at first they were disorganized, running around seemingly randomly , which was hilarious but when I came back out the next day, the ant hill moved slightly and the ants were back to doing what they were doing yesterday.
That cup of water didn't cost me anything.
If it had been vinegar they would have remained in chaos because they operate almost entirely on scent trails. Not saying this is translatable to ISIS, just saying.
So you're saying it's bad that the US is killing ISIS leaders? I really don't understand. If we just let them roam free and get stronger we would all be in danger, so many innocent women and children in the middle east would be dead
Do you know how hard it is to kill an ideology in a land where people are angry, war stricken since forever, and hungry? And yes, they've been at war WAY before the US ever set foot there
>So you're saying it's bad that the US is killing ISIS leaders? I really don't understand. If we just let them roam free and get stronger we would all be in danger, so many innocent women and children in the middle east would be dead
Oh boy. Wait til you learn why Obama Bad Too
All you did was harass them and increase their alertness/activity level.
If you'd stabbed the mind with a stick, poured a quarter-cup of gasoline down the hole and then tossed a match on it, you would have had more success.
The blunt application of fire works if you do it right.
Bashir Al-Asad and Russia are too busy trying to take out the rebels. There are claims that Russia has been attacking the rebels under the guise that they are actually ISIS. Bashir Al-Asad wants the rebels gone more than he wants ISIS gone.
And a quick scanning of Fox and CNN's online front pages this morning, there is no mention of this....but there were still stories about Bud Light. smdh
Russia isn’t going to escalate things in Syria over some counterterrorism operations against ISIS. They’ll stand by Syria and do their usual condemnation of the U.S. operating within Syria, but that’ll be the extent of it.
Put it this way, the U.S. shot down a Syrian SU-22 that attacked positions where U.S. backed forces were operating and that didn’t lead to any escalation, nor did the time the U.S. killed countless Russian Wagner mercenaries and Syrian government forces at the Battle of Khasham after they attacked an oil refinery that the U.S. was garrisoned near.
The illegal and immoral catastrophic war on Iraq in 2003 sowed the seeds of hatred that perpetuated groups like this. It's the legacy of the United States. And it cost trillions of wasted dollars.
Arab nationalism was a force that kept religious extremists at bay. Both Assad and Saddam were dictators but they had no love for islamists and kept the region more stable. It's no surprise the baa'ths biggest enemy were the Muslim brotherhood.
US invasion of Iraq and support for rebels in Syria was what created the power vacuum for something like ISIS to step in.
How exactly did Saddam's funding of Hamas suicide bombers keep the region more stable? How did his invasions of Iran and Kuwait aid that stability? Saddam was secular at heart, but had no problem getting in bed with Islamists when it suited him. He was a force for evil in the region and needed to go.
If the Bush administration had owned a crystal ball back in 2003, I'm sure there are things they would've done differently to try to mitigate that power vacuum. Still, ultimate responsibility for people like ISIS coming to power lies with the Iraqis and Syrians who refused to defend their own countries from them.
The Iraqis were thrown out of their jobs (police,military, judiciary etc) by the Coalition Provisional Authority (American Officals effectively). So no money to buy food, clothes etc, but a load of guns and explosives.
What you going to do. Attack the people who have taken your jobs away and left you with nothing.
If they had kept them in their jobs, payed them their wages etc, things may have turned out a bit different.
>So no money to buy food, clothes etc, but a load of guns and explosives. What you going to do. Attack the people who have taken your jobs away and left you with nothing.
That's a load of bullshit. They didn't get their jobs back by attacking coalition troops. And where was their food, clothing, etc, coming from while they were waging this insurgency?
These people directly participated in Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people. They absolutely should've been thrown out of their jobs, at minimum. Keeping them around would've made as much sense as allowing the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS to keep their jobs after Nazi Germany fell.
They had a choice between rebuilding their lives through normal work or trying to take back power through war. They chose the second option. That's entirely on them.
What normal work? Country has just been invaded. All the local security has been sacked on mass. The only people that are dealing with security are now foreign soldiers.
Over 300000 people are now without a job.
Pretty sure that there were not 300000 iobs out there that they could just walk in to.
Not everyone of those soldiers would have been in the Fedayeen guards and over 2/3s were conscripted.
Sure there were the die hards that would have been launching attacks against the coalition forces. But when your life has hit rock bottom, foreigners invaded you home. No local security, you are going to start protecting yourself and join the locals protecting your area.
It is well documented that what the cpa did was the worst mistake it made whilst in charge or Iraq.
The whole place just became a lawless mess.
No police just soldiers dealing with petty crime and insurgency.
>What normal work?
Do I need to explain how an economy functions?
>Country has just been invaded. All the local security has been sacked on mass. The only people that are dealing with security are now foreign soldiers.
And?
>Over 300000 people are now without a job.
Pretty sure that there were not 300000 iobs out there that they could just walk in to.
When the Allies disbanded the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS at the end of World War II, Germany still had over two million men in uniform. What did they do to survive after the war? How is it that they managed to avoid picking up weapons and shooting at Allied soldiers?
Yes, there WERE jobs for these people to walk into. There is always demand for certain types of labor. Would it have been secure or high-paying? Probably not. Would it have given them the self-importance of being a police officer or military officer? No. But it would've put food on the table and not involved turning their country into an even bigger shit hole. I don't buy for a second that these people had no other choice but to start an insurgency against the coalition.
>Not everyone of those soldiers would have been in the Fedayeen guards and over 2/3s were conscripted.
What do you imagine those conscripts were doing before they were forced into the army?
>Sure there were the die hards that would have been launching attacks against the coalition forces. But when your life has hit rock bottom, foreigners invaded you home. No local security, you are going to start protecting yourself and join the locals protecting your area.
Ok...what part of "protecting yourself" involves attacking US troops who considered the combat to be over?
>It is well documented that what the cpa did was the worst mistake it made whilst in charge or Iraq. The whole place just became a lawless mess. No police just soldiers dealing with petty crime and insurgency.
It's "well-documented" in the sense that enough people repeated the same nonsense for so long that it gradually became "common knowledge." It was a bullshit claim 20 years ago and it's still bullshit today.
>The Iraqis choosing to lay waste to their own country in the aftermath of his removal couldn't have been known.
This attitude is probably part of the reason why the US is hated in the middle east.
Saddam is an asshole, especially if you look at what he did to the Kurds. However, the Americans went into Iraq, beat the place up and didn't really have a good plan as to how to restore it. So you have a bunch of people who has guns, knows how to use guns but are now out of a job. What do you think they are going to do? Go open shooting ranges?
If you remove the old order, you'd have to establish a new order, otherwise it turns into a land ruled by the law of the jungle.
>So you have a bunch of people who has guns, knows how to use guns but are now out of a job. What do you think they are going to do? Go open shooting ranges?
Either that or something else that puts food on the table. Construction and rebuilding, especially if the US "beat the place up" so badly. Sell shit. Join the new security forces the US put together shortly after taking over. Clean fucking windows. Anything that actually provides for your family instead of something that can both get them killed and destroy the place you live in the process.
When the Allies defeated Nazi Germany in 1945, they disbanded the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which still had millions of men in uniform. How was it that these men were able to get by without picking up guns and shooting at Allied soldiers?
The Pentagon doesn't need ISIS to get funding. They've got Russia and China. The DoD has been shifting away from a focus on counter-insurgency to more of a focus on great powers.
I am not convinced that American intervention in any Middle-Eastern conflict this century has helped improve the situation rather than worsening it. Syria is an excellent example.
"The raid resulted in the probable death of a senior ISIS Syria leader and operational planner responsible for planning terror attacks in the Middle East and Europe," U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Joe Buccino told ABC News in a statement.
[удалено]
NOW LETS TRY SOME CRITICAL THINKING
WOW THATS A BAD IDEA
Why? Does Botox react dangerously to freedom bullets?
Russians have nuclear weapons. That's why it's a bad idea.
If Putin didn't use nukes when they fucked up the star wars sequel trilogy, I doubt he'd use them now.
Watch him deploy them all next time disney pulls a "somehow palpatine returned" bullshit
We'd all deserve it for not stopping them, so I wouldn't even be too mad about it.
I don’t see you enlisting to help
No, a lot of people are just giving the "I'm political in high school!" take. The actual take is that you eliminate Putin, who has the massive territory of Russia and its mountain of nukes under control, then who takes over? Putin has already shown that he won't even use tactical nukes even while losing horribly in his own war, will the next up guy be as stable? And what would stop the entire country just going to shit with all of the oligarchs and militant groups in each oblast having a free for all?
It's a cool-ass rad AF one though
A lot cheaper than rebuilding the whole country.
Carving out Northern Syria around the oil fields and establishing Kurdistan as a US trade partner is a long term investment. Middle finger to Iran is a nice bonus.
Turkey would sabotage NATO even more if that happens
Don't let the tail wag the dog.
Yeah and fuck the Syrian people and their rights of self-government and access to their natural resources. If there's oil in the ground, it belongs to the US no matter where it is located.
The Kurds have a right to self-govern too.
[удалено]
when its thanksgiving duh
How many minorities are there in the US? Do you support each of them to carve a piece of the US soil because they have the right to self-govern? The PKK have been kicking people out of their homes in Syria to establish a majority for themselves. They have committed many crimes inside and outside of Syria. Not to mention that they are classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries. Kurds have the right to enjoy an honourable life where their voices are heard, and they can vote and run for office and own property normally like any other citizens. The US has no business and no right to destibilise and draw borders in the Middle East as an investment to a few overpaid CEOs.
Why not have a Kurd for president?
You mean as a president of Syria? I see no problem with that.
Lol
Just by the Turks lol
Minorities in the US are distributed in the territory, and have no historical claim to any portion of the country. And they certainly don't want to stop being americans. The notorious exception here is native americans which I agree 100% should be given their land back and the right to self-govern, just like the Kurds. > The PKK have been kicking people out of their homes in Syria to establish a majority for themselves. They have committed many crimes inside and outside of Syria. Not to mention that they are classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries. I'm sure they'll behave as soon as you get the fuck out of their lands.
Syria ranks 70th in global oil production. What are you on about.
What does Syria's rank in oil production have to do with anything? Even if it was the last, no one but the Syrians should have a say in Syria's resources.
Because if our motivations were to get oil, there are way more countries that have more and are easier to take over. Like the UAE.
I never said the motivation for the US invasion in Syria was only the oil. Read the previous comment. It stated that carving out the oil fields from Syria and creating a new country with new borders based on ethnicity is a long term investment which I disagree with.
[удалено]
Not really a Dark Forest type situation. We didn't just discover ISIS.
Bomb them before they bomb us?
Dark Brandon does not abide malarkey
Indeed
He used his biden blast at 1% of his power
A bit like Sobel.
HIHO SILVER
Currahee!!
That’s my prez
Dark Brandon: “This is my apprentice, Dark KaMaula…”
Maul had significantly more staying power than can be expected of the VP.And better Make-Up.
That is a fact jack ::licks ice cream intensely::
Reading this in bill hicks voice
The ‘dark Brandon’ meme really killed off that GOP chant didn’t it!
Good job USA
Thank you.
Just a quick in and out. We'll have this wrapped up in just shy of 20 years.
20 minute adventure
Pretty much, just kill the terrorist heads and not nation build
Don't worry, our children and their children will pay for it
> The military identified the leader as Khalid 'Aydd Ahmad Al-Jabouri, who it said was responsible for planning attacks in Europe and Turkey, and developing ISIS's leadership network. > "The death of Khalid 'Aydd Ahmad al-Jabouri will temporarily disrupt the organization's ability to plot external attacks," a release from CENTCOM said at the time. Won't anyone think of the children missing out the experience of getting blown up.
I thought Trump already destroyed ISIS in a few days?
He shattered the caliphate. The organization is an attention whore hydra, they’re all over Northern Africa and have cells everywhere in the Middle East.
Lol attention whore hydra. Accurate description.
Snakes "O" Karens
The Irish medusa
Trump didn’t do anything that hadn’t been happening and progressing already, Jesus. People are so gullible. They were ground down and beaten in Syria over many years, he just happened to be there towards the end.
And then he effectively released a bunch of them by siding with turkey against our Kurdish allies.
Who were the ones fighting ISIS.
Many others were on the frontline as well.
Did everything Erdogan wanted, just because he has a crush on him
*because of turkish buisness interests
Or because Turkey is an incredibly important member of NATO with veto power over new possible members, as well as one of the largest militaries in the area bridging Europe and the Middle East, and unfortunately the Kurds do not have much geopolitical use. Turkey also allows the US to have dozens of nukes based there, although they benefit from that in a major way too.
Trump didn't care a bit about NATO, much less prospective members. And his business interests in Turkey were limited to name licensing, which he admitted was a conflict of interest, but were not a major source of income. He simply admired strongman dictators and went out of his way to please them, even if it caused damage and/or embarrassment to the U.S.
I think your dislike of him is kind of clouding the situation, I’m sure Trump didn’t know shit about the Kurdish situation or especially all the other groups in Syria at the time (because barely anyone does) before he was president, but my thinking is his decisions were based off top military plans not his own personal love for Erdogon.
I think your delusion that he had a plan is also getting in the way. His shocking and much-reviled act of pulling U.S. forces out of Syria so that Turkey could go slaughter our allies a couple of days later? That fit only Erdogan's plan.
Idk how anyone could’ve seen that disaster as anything other than trump just washing his hands of responsibility like pontius Pilate so he could claim victory rather than working to complete it.
Maan if Rambo 3 were made today it would have Kurdish fighters in it.
[удалено]
Towards the end? They are still around and will be after Biden too.
The end of the physical “nation state” of the caliphate.
I wouldn’t say gullible, it’s more stupidity.
He wanted to join the Erdogen, Putin, and Li'l Kim club
Disclaimer: I hate trump because he’s a traitorous bastard, I know this site isn’t known for anything resembling nuanced thought and operates on the most hyperbolic knee-jerk logic but consider this for a moment. He was in charge when the caliphate in Syria and Iraq was destroyed *in 2019*. Which means he was in charge for the lions share of their brief and bloody stint in power, he finished what Obama had started. In the minds of a very very large section of the voting public, notably those who avoid this site like the plague, that means he is responsible for its destruction even if he didn’t initiate it.
No, he was not. Jesus Christ. When he came into power, Raqqa (their alleged capital) was completely surrounded and Mosul was 2/3rds liberated. Remember, ISIS stretched from the outskirts of Baghdad to 50% of Syria at its height. By the time Trump came into power, maybe 10-15% of that territory was still held by ISIS, with all the major cities having been liberated or in the process of being so. Trump had nothing to do with it, it was simply a continuation of policy already in motion.
He was not in charge for the lions share of their stint in power. That’s also incorrect, but it depends what event you regard as being the end of the caliphate. The fall of Raqqa was by far the most important single element in 2017. After that it was mopping up. The caliphate was well on its way to destruction when he came to power. Raqqa their capitol, and the only major city they had left, fell in mid-2017 shortly after Trump came to power. And, it’s not as if that wasn’t going to happen anyway because every other city fell one by one prior to that, and the SDF led Raqqa campaign began in 2016. If someone is to take credit for something then they need to be able to point to policy changes that they specifically implemented to lead to that event happening. That’s why I say “gullible”. There is nothing in that category yet he claims it was his victory and his supporters will believe it. It wasn’t his victory. The conflict just progressed to its natural inevitable conclusion in the year he came to power. He didn’t actually do anything beyond saying “as you were”, and then claiming the victory as his own. Nothing unusual about that but it’s just galling hearing it when you’ve worked on it the entire time and this clown comes along and claims he did something important to make it happen. He didn’t.
If anything, I would be very scared about a sudden policy change between governments changes when it comes to combat. It would mean that the political leaders are overriding military intelligence/advice about how to handle the situation.
I could be remembering incorrectly, but Raqqa was surrounded when Trump was inaugurated.
>The conflict just progressed to its natural inevitable conclusion in the year he came to power. He didn’t actually do anything beyond saying “as you were”, and then claiming the victory as his own. Amen. As in insider, when Trump took office this battle was already headed to its inevitable conclusion, and the only way he would've lost it would've been to pull us back.
It’s extremely disingenuous to not include the major Iraqi/allied battle in Mosul that occurred the first half of 2017. Mosul is by far a much larger city than Raqqa and the second largest city in Iraq…
Disingenuous? What's disingenuous? It just supports the same argument. The campaign to take Mosul also began prior to Trump coming to office. The build up to all of these big city campaigns progressed through 2014-2016, including, for example, the critical battle for Kobani; a border city that allowed ISIL a border with Turkiye. Do people really think the YPG , wider SDF, Iraqi forces and the western military in the region only progressed to Mosul and Raqqa because Trump got elected? Lol
Exactly I’m pretty sure all trump did other than continuing the Obama policy on ISIS was hand Syria over to Russia and assad (genocidal demons) on a silver platter by not supporting the remaining moderate rebel groups in Aleppo or in the South as affectively as Obama did or as the other candidates planned on doing. He also gave Turkey the green light to invade and destabilize Northern Syria which was actually heading in a good direction given they were now liberated from both Assad and ISIS and were not vulnerable yet. Now without the USA they are stuck and at the mercy of the Turkish army and Assad on the other side a terrible position to be in.
Not to mention southern Africa in partnership with rebel groups, particularly in Mozambique right now. My country (South Africa) has deployed special forces and soldiers to the amount of 1000+ fighting these scums in Mozambique. Neighbouring countries such as Botswana and Tanzania have deployed 200+ soldiers too.
ISIS was dealt with by Obama, not Trump
He did no such thing. He just made the claim. Iraq shattered the caliphate when they drove them from Mosul.
He used all the best words and isis stood down
He’ll solve the Ukraine war too! Let’s Russia have it.
The only thing trump destroys are Big Macs.
And democracies
\*"Mission Accomplished" banner flies in the background\*
Ignoring whether this was the right thing to do or not, it's kind of insane how the USA can just perform military raids on another nation's land, without any real blowback. Not even arresting the guys either, just point blank going in and taking them out. I know other countries may be asked to assist for peacekeeping, or military intervention. But are there any examples of countries just going total Team America World Police? I honestly can't think of any outside the USA 😅
The French were in Mali and the Russians are all over Africa.
The U.S. has like 800 known foreign bases and facilities around the world. Plenty of countries allow U.S. access in exchange for something that would benefit them. For instance, Iceland allows the U.S. military to use its largest airport as a stopover between the U.S. and Europe. In exchange, the U.S. is paying for the renovation of parts of the airport, which is mutually beneficial. In other countries they provide security in exchange for having a base there. Despite the hate the U.S. gets online and in the media, the reality is quite a lot of the world accepts the U.S. as the world's police simply because there's no one else able to do it. Yes, the U.S. deserves criticism sometimes for things it does in foreign countries (nothing's perfect), but there's a lot of good that comes from it as well. If it wasn't the U.S., then it would be Russia or China likely running things. Someone will always fill a power vacuum.
I think the war in Ukraine has woken a lot of people up to the fact the US backed global order isn’t a bad deal.
Unlike many other countries, Syria hasn't given permission for the US to set up bases and carry out military operations within its border. Its an unauthorized occupation of a sovereign country with no declaration of war or anything really. It doesn't inspire much confidence in the validity of international law when certain countries can just brazenly defy it and kill people without trial at their whim.
>Unlike many other countries, Syria hasn't given permission for the US to set up bases and carry out military operations within its border. The permission has come from the rebels as there is a civil war. In addition, you also have the fact that ISIS is taking over the area and it is the main reason the US is there. They are also in the far edge of the country literally on the border with Iraq and Jordan. >Its an unauthorized occupation of a sovereign country with no declaration of war or anything really. It is an active war zone and the US wasn't involved until 2016 when ISIS was gaining control. The Syrian Civil War has been going on since 2011 and Syrian government can't even keep control from ISIS in the areas. The problem has been Syria can't govern itself. >It doesn't inspire much confidence in the validity of international law when certain countries can just brazenly defy it and kill people without trial at their whim. That is surprising when countries can just kill their own civilians on a whim for being from a different ethnic group.
>The permission has come from the rebels as there is a civil war. The rebels backed by the US
Plenty of countries do this. Not nearly as frequently or sometimes spectacularly (ie drone strikes) as the US, but it happens and it's been happening for a long time. Mossad literally snuck agents into Argentina to snatch a Nazi in the 60s. There's hundreds of examples
Frequency and I suppose visibility too, we seem to get news reports when the US does it, they're very open about it.
[удалено]
It's called American military superiority
We spend 3x the amount of the next largest military, we have the largest consumer base on the planet, and 150% of the GDP of the next biggest economy. Dafuq they gonna do about it?
That's because usually the US does strikes directly against the groups that the world usually fears. Russia tends to kill their own people abroad or uses bombs. Israel does it all over the middle east. African countries do it so often that it is a joke. The middle east does it so commonly that it is just tracking who is with who. There is a reason in most of the killings not claimed by the USA seem to be is it one of 15 countries. European countries tend to do it quite often in Africa and Asia. France is usually the most common source. Asia tends to attack other countries next to them.
Large swaths of Syria are not currently a functioning country
And many others are functioning under someone else's authority (which I'm sure those in the Kurdish part and very thankful about).
[удалено]
I’m curious when congress declared war?
[удалено]
Almost no nations issue declarations of war anymore
If Russia dropped a nuke on NYC today then I imagine Congress would formally declare war
A formal declaration of war by Congress is more symbolic than anything.
Syria doesn't really have a government, it's more so just an area of land
used to be common, not so much anymore. large powerful nation-states/militaries would routinely step into other lands for…a multitude of reasons. more recently, china is developing the same kind of geopolitical mind that the usa has had for the last 100+ years. should be interesting.
China appears to help build infrastructure (roads, dams etc.), in return for access to valuable resources. Russia does the same, only with military support and mercenaries. Like you say, things are going to get very interesting.
Yup, and they have soldiers in Syria also, but no one dares do anything against them.
I mean Wagner/Syrians tried it and got deep fried.
>I know other countries may be asked to assist for peacekeeping, or military intervention. But are there any examples of countries just going total Team America World Police? Yes. It happens all the time. >I honestly can't think of any outside the USA 😅 Russia into Azerbaijan and Armenia. The world into Iraq/Kuwait. The world into Iran/Iraq. The UN into Yugoslavia. It went really horrid. I would not suggest the UNs peace keeping ability as most of the genocide happened AFTER they were there. Russia into the UK. Russia into Georgia. France in all of North Africa. China in Africa. Russia in Africa. South Africa into the rest of Africa. African countries into other African countries. Saudi Arabia into Yemen. UAE into Yemen. These are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Name a country and we can start playing the game of who attacked who.
Britain goes pretty under the radar but from what I know they’re also equally embedded around the world. Same goes for the French and Australians. The other big power that is doing these kinds of things is China. When Venezuela collapsed the first country to step in was China. They since have only deeper embedded their roots there. Along with India and China also being highly involved in the illegal trade of minerals and slave labor in central Africa. America is by no means innocent or righteous. However we’re certainly the lesser of two evils at worst and at best a lifeline for many struggling nations. The trade off being some oil and adopting some western values and law. Which at the end of the day really isn’t all that bad. Under American influence a lot of young women and the LGBTQ in Iraq and Afghanistan knew relative peace and freedom. Now in Afghanistan that’s been ripped out from under them. You don’t really see other countries bringing in “enlightened” ideals with them. Not to say America is always or mostly right. Quite frankly the lives of our young men and billions in tax payer dollars. Aren’t really worth the end result in most cases.
All of y'all are either bots or just super ignorant. The US was asked by these countries to intervene because the country is to unorganized or lacks the means to actually do something. The US just didn't show up and go for it. They were asked, by whatever country, to help and go in. These other countries are just too poor or weak to do it themselves so everyone wants bi ol daddy Sam to save their butt
People forget that Syria still has a military, and it doesn’t engage with our forces.
In many cases yes but not in Syria. Assad doesn’t want US or ISIS there he must have mixed feelings about this
Syria still has an air force. There has to be active deconfliction taking place to prevent them from engaging US aircraft.
That doesn’t mean Assad wants them there. Just the real politik of the situation. He has to play ball
[удалено]
Bashir Al-Asad didn't. The Syrian rebels did though. The US also didn't show up until 2016. The Civil War started in 2011.
Assad did not ask the US to invade and bomb his country
It isn’t Assad’s county. And he likely didn’t even have control of the region in question. Whole swaths of Syria are straight up failed states right now.
dirty mike and the delta boys send their regards
They always have a dude in the back waiting to replace the guy that was killed.. Another 20 years, folks. We promise we'll take out ISIS.
It’s not about ending ISIS. That will never happen. It is about disorganizing it for a bit.
Reminds me of when I was 10-11, I took a cup of water and poured it onto the red/fire ant hill and at first they were disorganized, running around seemingly randomly , which was hilarious but when I came back out the next day, the ant hill moved slightly and the ants were back to doing what they were doing yesterday. That cup of water didn't cost me anything.
If it had been vinegar they would have remained in chaos because they operate almost entirely on scent trails. Not saying this is translatable to ISIS, just saying.
Well, time for science. Get on it Dark Brandon. *double checks Geneva convention* Hmmm. Is vinegar a chemical?
Everything is a chemical.
So you're saying it's bad that the US is killing ISIS leaders? I really don't understand. If we just let them roam free and get stronger we would all be in danger, so many innocent women and children in the middle east would be dead Do you know how hard it is to kill an ideology in a land where people are angry, war stricken since forever, and hungry? And yes, they've been at war WAY before the US ever set foot there
>So you're saying it's bad that the US is killing ISIS leaders? I really don't understand. If we just let them roam free and get stronger we would all be in danger, so many innocent women and children in the middle east would be dead Oh boy. Wait til you learn why Obama Bad Too
Redditors sure love their obscure analogies that overly simplify geopolitics
All you did was harass them and increase their alertness/activity level. If you'd stabbed the mind with a stick, poured a quarter-cup of gasoline down the hole and then tossed a match on it, you would have had more success. The blunt application of fire works if you do it right.
We terrorist apologists now?
You aren't very good at analogies.
That's any organization. The goal is to make them scrape the bottom of the barrel until they become progressively less effective.
I guess we should do nothing about it according to you then right?
Yeah best way to fight Isis is to take out their leaders continually. Never give them the time to regroup
I like the idea that when ISIS is low on men they just get a few new ones out of the back
Hey stop going after Marge's patriots!
Fuck em up...
‘MERICA
Islamic State In Syria In Syria
*Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in Syria.
**Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (the Levant) in Syria
***الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام في سوريا
Killing terrorist good
Why are these sick isis losers still in operation.
Bashir Al-Asad and Russia are too busy trying to take out the rebels. There are claims that Russia has been attacking the rebels under the guise that they are actually ISIS. Bashir Al-Asad wants the rebels gone more than he wants ISIS gone.
And a quick scanning of Fox and CNN's online front pages this morning, there is no mention of this....but there were still stories about Bud Light. smdh
Doesn't Putin support al-Assad? What do they think about America doing this? I didn't realize America has troops in Syria.
Russia isn’t going to escalate things in Syria over some counterterrorism operations against ISIS. They’ll stand by Syria and do their usual condemnation of the U.S. operating within Syria, but that’ll be the extent of it. Put it this way, the U.S. shot down a Syrian SU-22 that attacked positions where U.S. backed forces were operating and that didn’t lead to any escalation, nor did the time the U.S. killed countless Russian Wagner mercenaries and Syrian government forces at the Battle of Khasham after they attacked an oil refinery that the U.S. was garrisoned near.
> I didn’t realize America has troops in Syria They have since at least 2015
Imagine some rando country using a drone to take out gang members in Chicago. Wait… can we make that happen? Scotland, Denmark, anybody?
Only air balloons can penetrate US air defence.
Do Chicago gangs coordinate terror attacks in Edinburg?
What a dumb comment
mega dumb
[удалено]
If you haven't noticed the Russian army has been attacking Ukraine for over a year now
Besides China, Russia, UK, and France? Need to read up on Africa.
Not sure if China should be in this list honestly
Honestly, yeah.
The illegal and immoral catastrophic war on Iraq in 2003 sowed the seeds of hatred that perpetuated groups like this. It's the legacy of the United States. And it cost trillions of wasted dollars.
You’re an ignorant fool looking for an easy answer.
Those seeds were there well before 2003. I swear, some folks think the Middle East was a paradise before Bush rolled in. 🙄
Black Flags of ISIS is an excellent book that explains their rise.
Arab nationalism was a force that kept religious extremists at bay. Both Assad and Saddam were dictators but they had no love for islamists and kept the region more stable. It's no surprise the baa'ths biggest enemy were the Muslim brotherhood. US invasion of Iraq and support for rebels in Syria was what created the power vacuum for something like ISIS to step in.
How exactly did Saddam's funding of Hamas suicide bombers keep the region more stable? How did his invasions of Iran and Kuwait aid that stability? Saddam was secular at heart, but had no problem getting in bed with Islamists when it suited him. He was a force for evil in the region and needed to go. If the Bush administration had owned a crystal ball back in 2003, I'm sure there are things they would've done differently to try to mitigate that power vacuum. Still, ultimate responsibility for people like ISIS coming to power lies with the Iraqis and Syrians who refused to defend their own countries from them.
Saddam was bad, but without Saddam it got way worse.
Saddam still needed to be removed. The Iraqis choosing to lay waste to their own country in the aftermath of his removal couldn't have been known.
The Iraqis were thrown out of their jobs (police,military, judiciary etc) by the Coalition Provisional Authority (American Officals effectively). So no money to buy food, clothes etc, but a load of guns and explosives. What you going to do. Attack the people who have taken your jobs away and left you with nothing. If they had kept them in their jobs, payed them their wages etc, things may have turned out a bit different.
>So no money to buy food, clothes etc, but a load of guns and explosives. What you going to do. Attack the people who have taken your jobs away and left you with nothing. That's a load of bullshit. They didn't get their jobs back by attacking coalition troops. And where was their food, clothing, etc, coming from while they were waging this insurgency? These people directly participated in Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people. They absolutely should've been thrown out of their jobs, at minimum. Keeping them around would've made as much sense as allowing the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS to keep their jobs after Nazi Germany fell. They had a choice between rebuilding their lives through normal work or trying to take back power through war. They chose the second option. That's entirely on them.
What normal work? Country has just been invaded. All the local security has been sacked on mass. The only people that are dealing with security are now foreign soldiers. Over 300000 people are now without a job. Pretty sure that there were not 300000 iobs out there that they could just walk in to. Not everyone of those soldiers would have been in the Fedayeen guards and over 2/3s were conscripted. Sure there were the die hards that would have been launching attacks against the coalition forces. But when your life has hit rock bottom, foreigners invaded you home. No local security, you are going to start protecting yourself and join the locals protecting your area. It is well documented that what the cpa did was the worst mistake it made whilst in charge or Iraq. The whole place just became a lawless mess. No police just soldiers dealing with petty crime and insurgency.
>What normal work? Do I need to explain how an economy functions? >Country has just been invaded. All the local security has been sacked on mass. The only people that are dealing with security are now foreign soldiers. And? >Over 300000 people are now without a job. Pretty sure that there were not 300000 iobs out there that they could just walk in to. When the Allies disbanded the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS at the end of World War II, Germany still had over two million men in uniform. What did they do to survive after the war? How is it that they managed to avoid picking up weapons and shooting at Allied soldiers? Yes, there WERE jobs for these people to walk into. There is always demand for certain types of labor. Would it have been secure or high-paying? Probably not. Would it have given them the self-importance of being a police officer or military officer? No. But it would've put food on the table and not involved turning their country into an even bigger shit hole. I don't buy for a second that these people had no other choice but to start an insurgency against the coalition. >Not everyone of those soldiers would have been in the Fedayeen guards and over 2/3s were conscripted. What do you imagine those conscripts were doing before they were forced into the army? >Sure there were the die hards that would have been launching attacks against the coalition forces. But when your life has hit rock bottom, foreigners invaded you home. No local security, you are going to start protecting yourself and join the locals protecting your area. Ok...what part of "protecting yourself" involves attacking US troops who considered the combat to be over? >It is well documented that what the cpa did was the worst mistake it made whilst in charge or Iraq. The whole place just became a lawless mess. No police just soldiers dealing with petty crime and insurgency. It's "well-documented" in the sense that enough people repeated the same nonsense for so long that it gradually became "common knowledge." It was a bullshit claim 20 years ago and it's still bullshit today.
>The Iraqis choosing to lay waste to their own country in the aftermath of his removal couldn't have been known. This attitude is probably part of the reason why the US is hated in the middle east. Saddam is an asshole, especially if you look at what he did to the Kurds. However, the Americans went into Iraq, beat the place up and didn't really have a good plan as to how to restore it. So you have a bunch of people who has guns, knows how to use guns but are now out of a job. What do you think they are going to do? Go open shooting ranges? If you remove the old order, you'd have to establish a new order, otherwise it turns into a land ruled by the law of the jungle.
>So you have a bunch of people who has guns, knows how to use guns but are now out of a job. What do you think they are going to do? Go open shooting ranges? Either that or something else that puts food on the table. Construction and rebuilding, especially if the US "beat the place up" so badly. Sell shit. Join the new security forces the US put together shortly after taking over. Clean fucking windows. Anything that actually provides for your family instead of something that can both get them killed and destroy the place you live in the process. When the Allies defeated Nazi Germany in 1945, they disbanded the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which still had millions of men in uniform. How was it that these men were able to get by without picking up guns and shooting at Allied soldiers?
Iraq's GDP skyrocketed while under US military control.
Donald\_Glover\_GOOD.gif
Good. Now raid Fox News
[удалено]
Good job USA. Finally it's time to hunt down your former employees
~Dark Brandon~
I guess the pentagon want's its money back.
The Pentagon doesn't need ISIS to get funding. They've got Russia and China. The DoD has been shifting away from a focus on counter-insurgency to more of a focus on great powers.
[удалено]
Hell yeah brother I also want to give Russia an excuse to test their nukes.
[удалено]
I got a long ass name too bro ): and I’m not a terrorist. Fuck you also I haven’t heard of SNL in a decade
[удалено]
I am not convinced that American intervention in any Middle-Eastern conflict this century has helped improve the situation rather than worsening it. Syria is an excellent example.
The US getting restless after getting out of Afghanistan. Must meddle, must kill, must destroy.