Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

45,000 ISIS terrorists killed in airstrikes Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    As for intelligence - are you really suggesting intelligence from a region where soldiers don't wear uniforms, and westerners are totally unwelcome is reliable? You suggest that there are between 16,000 to 22,000 ISIS soldiers. I would suggest a more accurate figure was somewhere between none and lots.
    This logic is totally absurd, they have non-Western looking informants on the ground, special forces, surveillance aircraft and, oh yes, the Kurds/Iraqi's/other groups who are actively operating in these areas to inform them. There is also data to help provide a rough guide of the total numbers leaving from Western countries to bolster their forces. The West has been gathering intelligence for decades, obviously figures are only estimates but they're pretty good estimates.


    AlexanderHam I think I'll leave you to take it from here, I agree with you 100% and you've articulated the points very well throughout the whole thread, AND have provided sources and figures to support your argument, good stuff.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcneill98)
    And why is it that ISIS has lost significant land since Russia started bombing, yet 2 years beforehand of USA, Britain France and Arab bombing didn't stop the spread ?
    That statement is absolutely not true, it's a ridiculous propaganda narrative I've seen coming from a lot of conspiracy sites. Coalition bombing had a lot of success against ISIS well before the Russian intervention began. And Russia aren't bombing at all in Iraq.

    Russian air strikes led to ISIS losing Palmyra, Qaryatain, and an area east of Aleppo to the Syrian government. And the Syrian govt haven't had any major success since Palmyra/Qaryatain really, a good few months ago now. Coalition air strikes have resulted in far more battlefield successes, even if you just restrict it to the time period of the Russian intervention (for fairness of course, as the US has been bombing them for longer).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Russian air strikes led to ISIS losing Palmyra, Qaryatain, and an area east of Aleppo to the Syrian government. And the Syrian govt haven't had any major success since Palmyra/Qaryatain really, a good few months ago now.
    Darayya?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So for over a hundred thousand dollars per sortie in aircraft operating costs alone, we kill on average three third world peasants.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    Darayya?
    Darya is nothing to do with ISIS, it was held by other non ISIS rebel groups.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Darya is nothing to do with ISIS, it was held by other non ISIS rebel groups.
    "the Syrian govt haven't had any major success since Palmyra/Qaryatain really"

    Darayya is a recent example of success for the Syrian government.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    as a muslim I feel it's essential to bomb ISIS because they are the biggest threat to us young muslims but I also get extremely saddened by the amount of syrians and iraqis killed for no reason I understand civillian casualties happen but it's very hard to swallow
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    crush the head of the serpent
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    "the Syrian govt haven't had any major success since Palmyra/Qaryatain really"

    Darayya is a recent example of success for the Syrian government.
    Perhaps I could have clarified further. They've had successes, but not that many against ISIS. Their successes have mostly been against other rebel groups that are not being bombed by the US. If we're looking at US v Russia to see whose anti-ISIS intervention has been most successful, we really have to limit it to ISIS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Perhaps I could have clarified further. They've had successes, but not that many against ISIS. Their successes have mostly been against other rebel groups that are not being bombed by the US. If we're looking at US v Russia to see whose anti-ISIS intervention has been most successful, we really have to limit it to ISIS.
    Right. But that doesn't really give us the full picture, seeing as it's silly to see the IS as the only militant Islamist group currently in Syria that needs to be dealt with.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The current intelligence estimates say there are between 16,000 to 22,000 ISIS soldiers, which is down from about 32,000 a year ago. Remember they have recruited people every month, and earlier on they were recruiting thousands of people each month. There has been a lot of "churn" as we kill off ISIS members and new ones are recruited. However, ISIS recruitment is believed to have been reduced from perhaps 2,000 a month to around 200 a month, particularly with the cutting off of their supply lines through Turkey.

    Beating ISIS means the Kurds and Iraqis retaking all current ISIS territory. No doubt ISIS will devolve back to an insurgent and terrorist force rather than a quasi-state that holds territory, levies taxes, and so on. They will continue to be a major challenge for the Iraqis for years to come. But ending ISIS as a quasi-state is a very important goal, and that is what we are pursuing. Once that is done, the Iraqis and Kurds are in a position to take it from there.

    Remember we've done this before. In 2006-2008 the United States Army pretty much defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq (the ISIS predecessor organisation). By 2010 the violence had been reduced by 90%, and AQI had been pushed out of all the major cities and exiled to the western deserts. After the US left, the Shi'a Prime Minister Maliki unfortunately provoked a general Sunni uprising that was effected through ISIS as a vehicle for resistance to the government. The Syrian Civil War also gave AQI/ISIS a huge opportunity to build themselves back up, which they did.

    The goal is broadly to get ISIS back to the position AQI was in, in 2010.



    Eh? Between 1996 and 2001, Al-Qaeda operated in Afghanistan as "guests" of the Taliban regime, setting up terrorist training bases and almost becoming a state within a state in Afghanistan. In 2001 in response to the 9/11 attack and the Taliban's refusal to hand Bin Laden over and shut down the camps, the West invaded Afghanistan with the primary goal of destroying the Al-Qaeda training camps and removing Afghanistan as a sanctuary for Al-Qaeda leadership.

    The Taliban, supported by the Pakistani government, had a resurgence from 2006 onwards, and Afghanistan is still struggling with that. If Pakistan ceased to support the Taliban they would collapse as a force, and the US is now starting to bring much greater pressure to bear on Pakistan to cease that support.

    In the case of ISIS, it has no nation-state sponsor. It is surrounded by much more powerful enemies and will be unable to get the sort of foothold the Taliban have. As I said, we seek to put them back into the position AQI was in in 2010, and remained until it was ****ed up by the Iraqi PM (who has been removed and replaced by a much more non-sectarian PM who wants genuine peace and accomodation with the Sunnis, including offering them federal autonomy)



    That idea would be born of your very low level of knowledge of this conflict. It is quite unfortunate that you have such strong opinions arising out of ignorance and prejudice. We are not doing "a few random airstrikes", in the last 2 years there have been about 14,000 airstrikes (in which over 30,000 bombs and missiles were released) killing 45,000 ISIS members.

    One element of that air campaign is to provide direct battlefield support to the Kurds and Iraqis. We provide them with laser designators and GPS equipment that allows them to designate a target with great accuracy so that the Western coalition can drop a bomb or a missile on it. If the Kurds or Iraqis can identify a target, the Western air coalition can hit it. The Kurds and Iraqis have very clearly explained just how vital this air support has been to winning battles.

    The second element is an interdiction overwatch. Sophisticated airborne surveillance platforms like the E-8 JSTARS, which can keep 50,000 square kilometers under surveillance with its advanced radar (particularly for tracking vehicles on the ground... if something is moving, JSTARS can see it; any traffic within its sphere of surveillance with be detected and tracked), and also large numbers of drones, keep a watchful unblinking eye over ISIS areas so that whenever ISIS brings a large number of vehicles together into a column for an attack, it is easily detected and attacked. ISIS inability to gather together large forces for an attack without being detected and engaged is a major reason why they haven't mounted a major offensive for over a year (and that offensive, the capture of Ramadi, was only possible due to a freak sandstorm that grounded aircraft). So while the Kurds and Iraqis can gather together large numbers of vehicles for an offensive, if ISIS tries to do it they get hit. When a large convoy of 300 ISIS vehicles carrying fighters tried to escape after the capture of Fallujah by the Iraqi Army, they were detected and it was a bloodbath.

    The third element is attacking rear echelon ISIS forces; the forces behind the front lines, training infrastructure, car bomb factories, command centres, and so on. In addition to the above two elements, the air coalition continues a steady campaign hitting ISIS targets behind the front lines so that nowhere is safe for them. It also wears them down and reduces their ability to support the front lines. We've seen the effects of this in Kurds reporting that 2 years ago, ISIS fighters were well-equipped and battle hardened, and now they are often poorly equipped and either very young or very old.

    The final element in the air campaign is clipping senior ISIS commanders. You can see this in operations like the RAF's drone strike killing Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin. They were well behind the lines, in the ISIS capital Raqqa. They provided IT support, hacking, social media and so on. We've hit many other ISIS commanders such that for some formations we've killed the top guy three or four times in a row. We've killed most of the top commanders who were on the ISIS Shura Council at the start of the war. Btw, to kill Reyaad Khan GCHQ hacked his phone and switched on the GPS to give them a location, and then vectored in the drone to watch that house. When he left the house and got in a car we hit it with a Hellfire missile. Hardly a "random" airstrike.

    Between all these elements, we have made all the difference (to which the Kurds and Iraqis have attested) and these operations (around 100 airstrikes a week) is constitutes a steady, methodical, well-planned drum beat of airstrikes that just keeps on coming for ISIS and from which they have no respite. Furthermore, it's not like in World War 2 where they send lots of bombers over and just drop some random bombs hoping to hit something.

    We now use devices called targeting pods that are a very high quality video camera (that can zoom in to see incredible detail from miles away and 20,000 feet up), with a laser designator attached and also some sophisticated GPS and inertial navigation devices. With this targeting pod, an F-16 could get a call to scramble to help out some Kurds. It gets in the air and flies over the battlefield. The Kurds using their designator equipment can send a GPS co-ordinate of the enemy to the aircraft above and the pilot tells the targeting pod to "look there". The pod, using its data of where it is itself in space, and then knowing which direction it is looking in (and using the laser to get range) can look at a GPS co-ordinate. So now the pilot can see what the Kurds were talking about, maybe an ISIS car bomb. The pilot uses the pod to "laser designate" the target; he launches a bomb with an electronic eye in the nose and movable fins that homes in on the laser spot the pilot is pointing out. Or he could drop a GPS-guided bomb on that GPS-coordinate. Both these types of weapons routinely hit within about 5 meters of the target. So you see there is nothing random about a modern airstrike; they are firing at very specific targets that they are looking at and can identify from many miles away with these sophisticated targeting pods. Here is a video of just how accurate they can be





    You are confusing two separate fights. Leaving aside Iraqi (where the battle is very clear; between the legitimate Iraqi and Kurdish governments fighting ISIS terrorists with out help), the Syria ISIS territory is separated from the main axis of regime/rebel fighting from around Aleppo in the north to Daraya in the south. ISIS is mainly in the East and the North of the country. We are supporting the Kurds in their fight against ISIS and those rebel groups who are fighting ISIS in the north also receive some support. We are not targeting Assad. We are not interposing ourselves in that fight, as part of this operation.

    Therefore the issue of who we are fighting seems fairly clear. The outcome we are looking for is to see all ISIS territory recaptured by the legitimate owner. Who gets what isn't really our concern; our aim is to end ISIS as a quasi-state and drive it back underground. And it is very clear our strategy is working; the predictions and claims of the anti-war left have been thoroughly debunked and proven wrong.
    Wow. Are you Sam Kiley from Sky News?!! How do you know and understand so much about it all? [Or can't you say ?? ]
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samaad1)
    as a muslim I feel it's essential to bomb ISIS because they are the biggest threat to us young muslims but I also get extremely saddened by the amount of syrians and iraqis killed for no reason I understand civillian casualties happen but it's very hard to swallow
    Perhaps it's easier to swallow when you consider no strikes results in far more civilian deaths*
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 31, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.