Why ISIS is winning?

[cryptocoiner]

Why ISIS is winning, and how its foes can reverse that success

 (CNN)A combination of Iraqi forces has converged on Ramadi in an effort to reverse ISIS' stunning success in seizing the city.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al Abadi, promised a counter-attack "within days" as Baghdad seeks to address the most humiliating episode in its war with ISIS since the fall of Mosul nearly a year ago.

ISIS -- in both Iraq and Syria -- has had a successful month. Its capture of Ramadi and Palmyra in Syria are due to its tactics and structure, and the weakness or exhaustion of opponents, as well as support or acquiescence among enough Sunnis in both countries. It may also have benefited, according to some analysts, from cynical power-plays in Baghdad.

Even so, taking Ramadi and holding it are two different things. Evidence from previous battles suggests that ISIS doesn't 'do' defense as well as offense, and it is still vastly outnumbered by Iraqi forces. But the longer ISIS fighters are entrenched anywhere the more difficult they are to expel, and the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) clearly aren't capable of the task alone.

In Syria, the seizure of Palmyra gives ISIS access to the main roads to Homs and Damascus, and nearby gas fields. It also confirms a shift by ISIS to focus on territory held by the Assad regime in west and central Syria, after a series of defeats at the hands of Kurdish forces supported by coalition airpower in the north.

'Shock and awe'

The term was coined in 2003 to describe the technological power of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But it can equally be applied to the way ISIS behaves on the battlefield, striking the enemy with massive explosive force.

Back in February, Kurdish commanders near Mosul told CNN how ISIS had sent more than a dozen fuel tankers converted into massive vehicle-borne suicide bombs against their positions. A similar tactic was used to break the resistance of Iraqi security forces (ISF) in Ramadi.

Michael Knights, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has spent much time in Iraq, says it's "unsurprising that the ISF in Ramadi finally cracked when struck with a hammer blow -- namely, twenty-eight suicide car bombs in three days, including at least six massive fifteen-ton armored truck bombs in a single attack."

There were also rumors that thousands of ISIS fighters had come to Ramadi from Syria, likely spread by ISIS' adept use of social media to sow fear.

There is another psychological dimension to ISIS' threat: enemy soldiers know that they will be killed in cold blood if captured -- probably in gruesome fashion. At Tikrit last June, around Hit earlier this year, in Palmyra in Syria last week, enemy soldiers and other adversaries have been mercilessly dealt with. Summary executions -- en masse -- are part of its mode of warfare. After seizing a Syrian military base near Raqqa last July, it beheaded dozens of Syrian soldiers, posting videos of the barbarity.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, it has now begun a similar reign of terror around Palmyra, executing hundreds of captured soldiers and regime sympathizers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/28/middleeast/isis-how-to-stop-it/

[1715081670]

1715081670

[1715081670]

1715081670

[Aggressor66]

Obama is solely responsible for ISIS and it's murderous rampage.
Obama causes misery and despair wherever he ventures whether at home or abroad.
Spreading and enabling murder, strife and hate wherever his effeminate petty self inserts himself.

[RodeoX]

They are winning because they have the more compelling narrative. We don't like to admit it, but there is a huge movement toward Islam. We think we can shoot a powerful idea to death, but the people we are fighting are more committed than we are, and actually believe in the morality of what they are doing. By comparison the rest of the world has no consistent position or policy. Those who know war could see this coming when we announced we were going to "liberate" Iraq.

[bryant.coleman]

The ISIS is winning, because the CIA and the NATO want it to oust Bashar al Assad. If the NATO is serious about defeating ISIS, then it can be achieved by one small step. Just seal the Syria-Turkey border. ISIS is getting its Jihadi reinforcements through that border. If the Syria-Turkey border is sealed, then ISIS will run out of manpower in a few months and will be easily defeated, as it is not that successful in recruiting local Sunni Arabs. But the defeat of the ISIS will indirectly help Assad, and therefore the CIA will never allow it.

[Unbelive]

Obama is solely responsible for ISIS and it's murderous rampage.
Obama causes misery and despair wherever he ventures whether at home or abroad.
Spreading and enabling murder, strife and hate wherever his effeminate petty self inserts himself.

Ha ha.

You are partly right. USA were training Iraq army 10 years. So all those ( US Army leadership) involved in that should lose their jobs and pay with their money reparation for their failure. I am sure this would never happen again. They will not enroll again to be something the cant provide.  It is easy to play games with someones else money.

[BADecker]

(Expletive!) Isis isn't really winning. Watch what winning looks like here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ.

[maku]

Why is ISIS winning? Maybe because, US is stretchered out and cannot do more?" Maybe because there is no one else to fight them? Or maybe US government is deliberately waiting for ISIS to grow and become bigger threat so that other countries will put their money to fight against ISIS?

[Aggressor66]

With their biggest supporter occupying the White House, ISIS knows they can roll over Iraq unapposed.
Obama has no intention of doing anything.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Well, at least we know now that it also works when bad men do nothing too.

[Lethn]

Obama is solely responsible for ISIS and it's murderous rampage.
Obama causes misery and despair wherever he ventures whether at home or abroad.
Spreading and enabling murder, strife and hate wherever his effeminate petty self inserts himself.

Really? Just Obama? Can't think of anybody else with your partisan brainwashed mind? You don't think both presidents and the people who elected them both TWICE aren't responsible for this too?

[Aggressor66]

Bush started it an Obama did nothing to help the situation ...
or
how about putting the blame where in belongs, in the hands of all the countries in the middle-east who have failed to get involved in their own problems the last 20+ years.

[syuhide]

Why ISIS is winning, and how its foes can reverse that success

 (CNN)A combination of Iraqi forces has converged on Ramadi in an effort to reverse ISIS' stunning success in seizing the city.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al Abadi, promised a counter-attack "within days" as Baghdad seeks to address the most humiliating episode in its war with ISIS since the fall of Mosul nearly a year ago.

ISIS -- in both Iraq and Syria -- has had a successful month. Its capture of Ramadi and Palmyra in Syria are due to its tactics and structure, and the weakness or exhaustion of opponents, as well as support or acquiescence among enough Sunnis in both countries. It may also have benefited, according to some analysts, from cynical power-plays in Baghdad.

Even so, taking Ramadi and holding it are two different things. Evidence from previous battles suggests that ISIS doesn't 'do' defense as well as offense, and it is still vastly outnumbered by Iraqi forces. But the longer ISIS fighters are entrenched anywhere the more difficult they are to expel, and the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) clearly aren't capable of the task alone.

In Syria, the seizure of Palmyra gives ISIS access to the main roads to Homs and Damascus, and nearby gas fields. It also confirms a shift by ISIS to focus on territory held by the Assad regime in west and central Syria, after a series of defeats at the hands of Kurdish forces supported by coalition airpower in the north.

'Shock and awe'

The term was coined in 2003 to describe the technological power of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But it can equally be applied to the way ISIS behaves on the battlefield, striking the enemy with massive explosive force.

Back in February, Kurdish commanders near Mosul told CNN how ISIS had sent more than a dozen fuel tankers converted into massive vehicle-borne suicide bombs against their positions. A similar tactic was used to break the resistance of Iraqi security forces (ISF) in Ramadi.

Michael Knights, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has spent much time in Iraq, says it's "unsurprising that the ISF in Ramadi finally cracked when struck with a hammer blow -- namely, twenty-eight suicide car bombs in three days, including at least six massive fifteen-ton armored truck bombs in a single attack."

There were also rumors that thousands of ISIS fighters had come to Ramadi from Syria, likely spread by ISIS' adept use of social media to sow fear.

There is another psychological dimension to ISIS' threat: enemy soldiers know that they will be killed in cold blood if captured -- probably in gruesome fashion. At Tikrit last June, around Hit earlier this year, in Palmyra in Syria last week, enemy soldiers and other adversaries have been mercilessly dealt with. Summary executions -- en masse -- are part of its mode of warfare. After seizing a Syrian military base near Raqqa last July, it beheaded dozens of Syrian soldiers, posting videos of the barbarity.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, it has now begun a similar reign of terror around Palmyra, executing hundreds of captured soldiers and regime sympathizers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/28/middleeast/isis-how-to-stop-it/

ISIS are winning because of their determined belief towards wrong notions of quran.
they call it JIHAD (to die for their rights/motherland) , now for each reason they think to die because wrong people (muslims) mis-interperate it to their fellows that their life is just for killing.

i dont wanna be partial but it takes no time to think ...
whenever you think of isis,terrorist,mother f***** you remember ofd MUslims.

this is not generally true there are some of my friends that are muslims and they are do very good..
but the story for rest world is different..
so its better to not talk about isis or terrorists because when ever you say of oppose them you are felt as a thorn in the eyes of muslims(mass) not all, as there are few good ones.

[Unbelive]

With their biggest supporter occupying the White House, ISIS knows they can roll over Iraq unapposed.
Obama has no intention of doing anything.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Well, at least we know now that it also works when bad men do nothing too.

I really dont understand why should he do and his country do anything now? Why? USA have enough Oil, Middle east if of no interest for them now. Yes there was responsibility for Iraq since they attacked it yars ago. And should restore previous situation when leave. But right now why would bother?

China on other hand needs Oil. China is taking care of most of Africa and will also of Middle East. Or in your case you may say China country president.

[HarryPotHead]

Why is ISIS winning? Maybe because, US is stretchered out and cannot do more?" Maybe because there is no one else to fight them? Or maybe US government is deliberately waiting for ISIS to grow and become bigger threat so that other countries will put their money to fight against ISIS?

And maybe just maybe the US is ISIS meaning they have funded and created them just like they did with osama and the homies. cia do some crazy shit I would not put it past them. ISIS will be 'winning' for as long as the US and other countries want them to.

[maku]

Why is ISIS winning? Maybe because, US is stretchered out and cannot do more?" Maybe because there is no one else to fight them? Or maybe US government is deliberately waiting for ISIS to grow and become bigger threat so that other countries will put their money to fight against ISIS?

And maybe just maybe the US is ISIS meaning they have funded and created them just like they did with osama and the homies. cia do some crazy shit I would not put it past them. ISIS will be 'winning' for as long as the US and other countries want them to.

I wouldn't go as far to say that US deliberately created ISIS but there might be some truth in what You are writing. Having constant threat means you can justify spending millions on military equipment, which will make "military group" happy and armaments plants will be busy. Also having a target lie ISIS allows to test some new toys.

[sintax]

ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals, according to Hisham Alhashimi, an adviser to the Iraqi government and an expert on ISIS. Many are members of Saddam Hussein’s secular Baath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/fight-lives?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter&mbid=social_twitter

It was at Camp Bucca that Abu Ahmed first met Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of Isis who is now frequently described as the world’s most dangerous terrorist leader. From the beginning, Abu Ahmed said, others in the camp seemed to defer to him. “Even then, he was Abu Bakr. But none of us knew he would ever end up as leader.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Looks like the US goverment has created it's own enemy, at least the weapons manufacturers are making a nice profit....

[Muhammed Zakir]

Because some retarded pyschos join them.

ISIS fighter trained by US - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/isis-man-trained-in-us/index.html?sr=twtsr053015isiscommander1230pstoryphoto

[Spendulus]

With their biggest supporter occupying the White House, ISIS knows they can roll over Iraq unapposed.
Obama has no intention of doing anything.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Well, at least we know now that it also works when bad men do nothing too.

I really dont understand why should he do and his country do anything now? Why? USA have enough Oil, Middle east if of no interest for them now. Yes there was responsibility for Iraq since they attacked it yars ago. And should restore previous situation when leave. But right now why would bother?

China on other hand needs Oil. China is taking care of most of Africa and will also of Middle East. Or in your case you may say China country president.

That's correct.  Always the conspiracy theorists blab blah blab "CIA, USA, da da da."

But there are all the other countries of the world with all their selfish interests.

And sure, no double some few of ISIS would have trained with US.  Some few Al Queda, so FUCKING WHAT?

That's not enough to generate a hugh conspiracy theory on top of.

[Possum577]

They are winning because they have the more compelling narrative. We don't like to admit it, but there is a huge movement toward Islam. We think we can shoot a powerful idea to death, but the people we are fighting are more committed than we are, and actually believe in the morality of what they are doing. By comparison the rest of the world has no consistent position or policy. Those who know war could see this coming when we announced we were going to "liberate" Iraq.

If killing innocent people = evil. And killing those that kill innocent people = good. How can a powerful idea, that is evil, ever attract more than the idea that is good? I don't think ISIS will ever win. Their advancements are over areas in the world that are susceptible persuasion, influence, and blind faith. These are areas that have week government, military, and infrastructure to begin with. Areas that don't subscribe (let alone are able) to ruling locally by force. It's not a  surprise that ISIS has grown in Syria. Could it grow in the world? I don't think so. A world war, one with combined forces from a few countries, would put an end to it.

There's a responsibility for the Middle East to control their own. The West has learned that through endless (decades of) intervention. That's why the world, largely, waits. Liberation is only possible if it's lead by the people that want to be liberated. The border of the control ISIS can have is limited to those that choose not to fight their direct oppression.

Evil never wins. ISIS is evil. If they weren't evil they would believe what they believe without forcing the entire world to also subscribe to their ideology. ISIS is greedy, no different from "the evil corporations". That's probably the greatest irony of their reign.

[maku]

They are winning because they have the more compelling narrative. We don't like to admit it, but there is a huge movement toward Islam. We think we can shoot a powerful idea to death, but the people we are fighting are more committed than we are, and actually believe in the morality of what they are doing. By comparison the rest of the world has no consistent position or policy. Those who know war could see this coming when we announced we were going to "liberate" Iraq.

If killing innocent people = evil. And killing those that kill innocent people = good. How can a powerful idea, that is evil, ever attract more than the idea that is good? I don't think ISIS will ever win. Their advancements are over areas in the world that are susceptible persuasion, influence, and blind faith. These are areas that have week government, military, and infrastructure to begin with. Areas that don't subscribe (let alone are able) to ruling locally by force. It's not a  surprise that ISIS has grown in Syria. Could it grow in the world? I don't think so. A world war, one with combined forces from a few countries, would put an end to it.

There's a responsibility for the Middle East to control their own. The West has learned that through endless (decades of) intervention. That's why the world, largely, waits. Liberation is only possible if it's lead by the people that want to be liberated. The border of the control ISIS can have is limited to those that choose not to fight their direct oppression.

Evil never wins. ISIS is evil. If they weren't evil they would believe what they believe without forcing the entire world to also subscribe to their ideology. ISIS is greedy, no different from "the evil corporations". That's probably the greatest irony of their reign.

Well said. I'll just add that ISIS could be dealt with within a month by razing it to the ground, but Western nations wouldn't allow for that because of human rights, we don't know how many people in that area are civilians that couldn't escape from the terrorists. Also if everybody would be annihilated on ISIS terrains, then that would make more bad blood in the region.

[Daniel91]

At the moment it may seem to suck wins but long term I think it will lose this war.
At present, their enemies are divided, Iran, Syria, America, Russia, Iraq and others but it will not last long.
When all understand the gravity of the situation and finally achieve real agreement on military cooperation, ISIS will have no chance alone against all.
Americans have underestimated the danger of Isis, as previously underestimated the threat from Saddam and Osama, but I think they now understand the seriousness of the situation.
Each additional day of ISIS terror is a disaster for the region and the entire civilized world.

[Unbelive]

At the moment it may seem to suck wins but long term I think it will lose this war.
At present, their enemies are divided, Iran, Syria, America, Russia, Iraq and others but it will not last long.
When all understand the gravity of the situation and finally achieve real agreement on military cooperation, ISIS will have no chance alone against all.
Americans have underestimated the danger of Isis, as previously underestimated the threat from Saddam and Osama, but I think they now understand the seriousness of the situation.
Each additional day of ISIS terror is a disaster for the region and the entire civilized world.

Ofcourse they will lose. When they will hit interests of China and Russia, will fail big. No way they can win them.

[syuhide]

us created terrorist to protect himself now its vice versa...

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Obama can only talk about peace he has no guts like bush..can can only do conspiracy and kill hidden dead terrorist..

[bryant.coleman]

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

[syuhide]

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

mutiny is every where man..depressed help depressed ,they find it their mirror showing their fate....
nothing can stop isis,,they are bound to live and they will...

[freemind1]

As sad as it is ISIS is unstoppable now, however much they say the United States, the country of freedom , gold, diamonds and oil...

[aahzmundus]

They are winning because they have the more compelling narrative. We don't like to admit it, but there is a huge movement toward Islam. We think we can shoot a powerful idea to death, but the people we are fighting are more committed than we are, and actually believe in the morality of what they are doing. By comparison the rest of the world has no consistent position or policy. Those who know war could see this coming when we announced we were going to "liberate" Iraq.

Commitment. These monsters are committed to their cause of "Purification". They believe in what they do as a necessary evil, a noble cause for which they have been and are and will die for. This gives them support, it's not hard to believe the turn of events, like RodeoX rightly pointed out.
I'm not sure how things are gonna play out for Iraq, but one thing is almost certain, these orthodox delusional people will die for their cause, and that has immense impact on the situation.

[cryptocoiner]

As sad as it is ISIS is unstoppable now, however much they say the United States, the country of freedom , gold, diamonds and oil...

Well, maybe its unstoppable because America just don't want to stop it? They air strikes against ISIS is mere declarative. USA just can stop supporting Syrian opposition and Assad can do the rest of the work himself. ISIS will be finished.

[bryant.coleman]

Well, maybe its unstoppable because America just don't want to stop it? They air strikes against ISIS is mere declarative. USA just can stop supporting Syrian opposition and Assad can do the rest of the work himself. ISIS will be finished.

A few token strikes here and there will not do any harm to the ISIS. If the Americans had any intention of defeating the ISIS, then they should have stopped harassing Assad's forces. Along with the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Syrian army is the only force which is capable of defeating the ISIS. However, it seems that for the Americans, Assad is a bigger threat when compared to the ISIS.

[cryptocoiner]

Well, maybe its unstoppable because America just don't want to stop it? They air strikes against ISIS is mere declarative. USA just can stop supporting Syrian opposition and Assad can do the rest of the work himself. ISIS will be finished.

A few token strikes here and there will not do any harm to the ISIS. If the Americans had any intention of defeating the ISIS, then they should have stopped harassing Assad's forces. Along with the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Syrian army is the only force which is capable of defeating the ISIS. However, it seems that for the Americans, Assad is a bigger threat when compared to the ISIS.

totally agree

[fuzion]

Many of their members will dies because of their movement, that is for sure.

[bumm]

Many of their members will dies because of their movement, that is for sure.

it is like digging your own grave, sad to see that these people foolish actions having consequences throughout the world.

[HarryPotHead]

Many of their members will dies because of their movement, that is for sure.

it is like digging your own grave, sad to see that these people foolish actions having consequences throughout the world.

Yeah. I love watching liveleak and seeing the videos of dead ISIS with their heads ripped open by shrapnel, missing limbs and guts spilled out.
These guys are monsters and will die looking like monsters.

[cbase]

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

I think this will only stop when everything comes under ISIS in Iraq. Only then it will be affordable for US or NATO to be at War with ISIS. Even Russia will be eying the opportunity to let its army go into the war.

[bryant.coleman]

I think this will only stop when everything comes under ISIS in Iraq. Only then it will be affordable for US or NATO to be at War with ISIS. Even Russia will be eying the opportunity to let its army go into the war.

That will be a horrible strategy against the ISIS. Imagine what would happen if they conquer the whole of Iraq and Syria. All the minorities who are living there (Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, Mandeans.etc) will be exterminated. All the Shiite shrines will be destroyed, along with the other non-Muslim places of worship. And the ISIS will be having a potential recruitment pool of some 50 million people, which will make them invincible against a normal ground offensive. IMO, the only chance to defeat the ISIS is to attack them right NOW.

[maku]

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

I think this will only stop when everything comes under ISIS in Iraq. Only then it will be affordable for US or NATO to be at War with ISIS. Even Russia will be eying the opportunity to let its army go into the war.

I don't think that a good idea. Lots of people will die, there will be more refugees witch is already a problem for EU. The quickest way is to stop ISIS now, but every body seems busy with something else. And I don't think that Russia will intervene, they know it's costly so they will stay out of it military wise.

[Snorek]

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

That is correct, against ISIS we need ground forces. Airstrikes alone is not enough. USA and Obama created this abomination, their meddling in the internal affairs of the middle eastern countries caused shift of the balance and brought extremist to power. All because of the power play and greed for oil and spoils of war and then contracts made for reconstruction of destroyed cities... So now USA should finish this, once and for all.

[Balthazar]

Answer seems obvious.

[bumm]

Many of their members will dies because of their movement, that is for sure.

it is like digging your own grave, sad to see that these people foolish actions having consequences throughout the world.

Yeah. I love watching liveleak and seeing the videos of dead ISIS with their heads ripped open by shrapnel, missing limbs and guts spilled out.
These guys are monsters and will die looking like monsters.

I don't know how they will die. But we should all just pray that they should not become like Taliban and start ruling over Iraq for years. Because if that happens, then there will be more terrorist groups formed.

[Marbit]

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

That is correct, against ISIS we need ground forces. Airstrikes alone is not enough. USA and Obama created this abomination, their meddling in the internal affairs of the middle eastern countries caused shift of the balance and brought extremist to power. All because of the power play and greed for oil and spoils of war and then contracts made for reconstruction of destroyed cities... So now USA should finish this, once and for all.

The terrorists seem well-ensconced in their twin nerve centers for Iraq and Syria, Mosul and Raqqa, respectively, and do not appear threatened in Fallujah, only miles from Baghdad.  This despite the allied air campaign designed, in President Obama’s words, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group.

Airstrikes alone will not defeat the ISIS. If the NATO is serious about destroying the ISIS, then it should bring in the infantry and the battle tanks. For every 10 terrorists killed in the US-led airstrikes against the ISIS, 50 more joins them after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. ISIS has also stepped up the recruitment of local Sunni Arabs.

That is correct, against ISIS we need ground forces. Airstrikes alone is not enough. USA and Obama created this abomination, their meddling in the internal affairs of the middle eastern countries caused shift of the balance and brought extremist to power. All because of the power play and greed for oil and spoils of war and then contracts made for reconstruction of destroyed cities... So now USA should finish this, once and for all.

Do not know whether that will be a good idea to send ground forces. The US Army are still returning back after a decade long deployment in Afghanistan. Sending them back again to Iraq can backfire in a big way.

[bryant.coleman]

That is correct, against ISIS we need ground forces. Airstrikes alone is not enough. USA and Obama created this abomination, their meddling in the internal affairs of the middle eastern countries caused shift of the balance and brought extremist to power. All because of the power play and greed for oil and spoils of war and then contracts made for reconstruction of destroyed cities... So now USA should finish this, once and for all.

The United States toppled the secular Saddam Hussein regime, and installed a puppet government, which was biased towards the Shiite Arabs. This in turn resulted in discrimination against the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds. The Sunnis had enough, and they allied with the most powerful force which was fighting against the puppet government. Unfortunately, this "most powerful force" turned out to be the ISIS.

[HarryPotHead]

I think they are winning now but if Donald trump gets to be president then he can drop bombs on the oil they control and take their money away.
Then they'll start losing and wont be able to pay the fighters anymore and then a group of unpaid fighters can turn on their master and can change the table and end the war and end isis.

[RappelzReborn]

Well you always win when you have MI6 , Mossad & CIA on your side , don't you ? they just want to spread the chaos on the middle east , make islam looks bad & and take the oil of course . { massive destruction weapons with sadam => woops there is nothing here but there is oil}
When a guy kills someone and he is a muslim "oh , he is a terrorist"
when a muslim gets killed for being a family of 3 muslims  by an atheist "oh , just a sick guy"
I personally don't think that presidents are the one who decide but it's more Intelligence agencies because it wouldn't make sense how each president comes and fuck things up . there has to be someone good out there

[WeR]

Not ISIS anymore but just IS, the Islamic State.

[Ingatqhvq]

I don't think they could win at last. they may survive for years, but they will be destroyed at last.