Russia has certainly been fighting ISIS. They've just been fighting other groups in addition.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reuters: Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has been killed
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
Russia has certainly been fighting ISIS. They've just been fighting other groups in addition.
ISIS is different in that it's a fight against people trying to form an actual state that controls territory. Al Qaida tends to not take over entire cities with an army.
Frozenprince
Banned
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have no ability to co-ordinate or function as entities. They commit wanton terror bombings and attacks because Pakistani officials allow them to exist without impediment in Waziristan.
The death of their leadership crippled their ability to project beyond that border with Afghanistan. It devastated them. ISIS is also far more structured and reliant on a chain of command. They aren't a terror group, much like the Taliban, they are a failed "government" and military junta. You cannot operate as a cohesive military unit without leadership. It just doesn't work.
Yes. Just for US you fuck. Doesn't solve your inland terrorist problems.
Dreams-Visions
Member
good.
Frozenprince
Banned
Nah, people equating this to someone like Mullah Omar getting got are missing the key difference.
Mullah Omar wasn't running an organized army that had multiple cities under military rule.
This is a crippling blow.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Not true. The next leader probably won't be as charismatic to be a figure or have the full support of thier groups like with AQ who has tons of fractures and reduced capacity to recruit, coordinate and hold influence in the terror world. Chances are they next guy won't be that good at hiding either.
Honestly more impressed Russia actually hit ISIS and got lucky that the dude was there (if true).
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
I agree. It's more like what the death of Bin Laden have done to AQ.
Internally, it won't change anything (if confirmed) but the loss of their messianic figure will mean a lot for the potentials followers.
backflip10019
Member
This is excellent news.
The ocean deserves better.
US military more or less confirmed it.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-military-savagely-trolls-isis-140439904.html
Also to the people hating Trump for that tweet, as much as he is a terrible person, it is kind of expected for the US president to say something about it. He didn't he even take credit, just said it was a big win against ISIS... which it is.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-military-savagely-trolls-isis-140439904.html
Also to the people hating Trump for that tweet, as much as he is a terrible person, it is kind of expected for the US president to say something about it. He didn't he even take credit, just said it was a big win against ISIS... which it is.
Omegasquash
Member
Burn the body and throw the ashes in a river. I believe that was the way that Russia dealt with Adolf Hitler, and Al-Baghdadi deserves something along the same lines.
No honor, no rest. Nothing.
No honor, no rest. Nothing.
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
Well, that takes care of terrorism. What next?
The Albatross
Member
It'll be interesting to see if this corroborates Russian reports from June that they killed him in an air strike, or if it's related to Iraqi security forces taking back Mosul -- the former headquarters/center of ISIS and where al-Baghdadi declared his new Caliphate, or somewhere else in something not yet reported.
It's a significant loss. In the West we tend to group all terrorist leaders together, thinking "Ahh, one down another will take his place," because to us it's just "another terrorist with a foreign name" taking his place, but when leaders of these organizations are killed or captured, it has a wide-spread affect. And, not only that, but typically the leader is killed/captured after most of his lieutenants are (high ranking ISIS lieutenants have been killed over the last 9-12 months) ,and so it creates an empty vacuum. And as we've been witnessing, ISIS is a shell of what it was 2 and 3 years ago, losing more than 50% of its territory
This map is old too, as ISIS has been expelled and defeated throughout almost all of Iraq, most notably in the last 3 months the Iraqi military took back Mosul and nearly all of North Eastern Iraq, which squeezes ISIS in Syria.
(here is a newer interactive map from BBC)
These things do matter. They make recruiting new members more difficult, it disrupts strategic planning, it throws groups into disarray, and disparate terrorist elements that used to be united under a strong or effective lieutenant, end up breaking up into separate groups that lose their influence and are more easy to break up by coalition or non-terrorist forces.
For us in the West though it's easy to fall into the error of "Well, some other Al-Blahblah will take over, what's the difference," but these killings and captures are what stopped the ISIS offensive and led to their vast territory losses. Psychologically throughout the region, few recruits want to join a movement that is seen as being defeated. THis similarly happened with Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq, that as AQIA leadership was captured or killed, the movement stalled, they lost territory, and while AQIA is still present, it's not nearly as influential or powerful as it was 10 years ago, and likewise with Al Qaeda.
It doesn't "win the war on terrorism" or immediately prevent terrorist acts, but these things do have impacts on the growth of those terrorist movements.
This is factually and blatantly false, at least of Al Qaeda. There's a good 2011 book by contemporary Middle Eastern historian Fawaz Gerges called The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda, it's worth looking into. There's a distilled narrative here.
It's a significant loss. In the West we tend to group all terrorist leaders together, thinking "Ahh, one down another will take his place," because to us it's just "another terrorist with a foreign name" taking his place, but when leaders of these organizations are killed or captured, it has a wide-spread affect. And, not only that, but typically the leader is killed/captured after most of his lieutenants are (high ranking ISIS lieutenants have been killed over the last 9-12 months) ,and so it creates an empty vacuum. And as we've been witnessing, ISIS is a shell of what it was 2 and 3 years ago, losing more than 50% of its territory
This map is old too, as ISIS has been expelled and defeated throughout almost all of Iraq, most notably in the last 3 months the Iraqi military took back Mosul and nearly all of North Eastern Iraq, which squeezes ISIS in Syria.
(here is a newer interactive map from BBC)
These things do matter. They make recruiting new members more difficult, it disrupts strategic planning, it throws groups into disarray, and disparate terrorist elements that used to be united under a strong or effective lieutenant, end up breaking up into separate groups that lose their influence and are more easy to break up by coalition or non-terrorist forces.
For us in the West though it's easy to fall into the error of "Well, some other Al-Blahblah will take over, what's the difference," but these killings and captures are what stopped the ISIS offensive and led to their vast territory losses. Psychologically throughout the region, few recruits want to join a movement that is seen as being defeated. THis similarly happened with Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq, that as AQIA leadership was captured or killed, the movement stalled, they lost territory, and while AQIA is still present, it's not nearly as influential or powerful as it was 10 years ago, and likewise with Al Qaeda.
It doesn't "win the war on terrorism" or immediately prevent terrorist acts, but these things do have impacts on the growth of those terrorist movements.
This is factually and blatantly false, at least of Al Qaeda. There's a good 2011 book by contemporary Middle Eastern historian Fawaz Gerges called The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda, it's worth looking into. There's a distilled narrative here.
GhostTrick
Banned
Unfortunately, this is a bit short sighted. First of all, there's like a lot of terrorist groups. Second, they can name another one. Third, even if ISIS disappeared, one group will take the place because the situation in middle east is just unstable :/
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Great news if true this time. Rot away for eternity, bye.
abstract alien
Member
I mean, fuck that guy and his soul, but surely there's a conveyor belt of shitty men waiting to fill the role.
The Albatross
Member
Back in June Russia announced they killed him in an airstrike but it was never confirmed. Reuters has seemingly confirmed he's been killed but unsure of whether it was a Russian airstrike, or related to Iraqi security forces taking back Mosul (the HQ of ISIS where Al Bagdhadi first declared his Caliphate) this weekend, or some other attack related to those two.
It's likely it was a Russian airstrike that got him ........ probably ...... Assuming the reports are verified.
This map is old too, as ISIS has been expelled and defeated throughout almost all of Iraq, most notably in the last 3 months the Iraqi military took back Mosul and nearly all of North Eastern Iraq, which squeezes ISIS in Syria.
(here is a newer interactive map from BBC)
Here's a screen grab of the new BBC map
It'll be interesting to see if this corroborates Russian reports from June that they killed him in an air strike, or if it's related to Iraqi security forces taking back Mosul -- the former headquarters/center of ISIS and where al-Baghdadi declared his new Caliphate, or somewhere else in something not yet reported.
It's a significant loss. In the West we tend to group all terrorist leaders together, thinking "Ahh, one down another will take his place," because to us it's just "another terrorist with a foreign name" taking his place, but when leaders of these organizations are killed or captured, it has a wide-spread affect. And, not only that, but typically the leader is killed/captured after most of his lieutenants are (high ranking ISIS lieutenants have been killed over the last 9-12 months) ,and so it creates an empty vacuum. And as we've been witnessing, ISIS is a shell of what it was 2 and 3 years ago, losing more than 50% of its territory
This map is old too, as ISIS has been expelled and defeated throughout almost all of Iraq, most notably in the last 3 months the Iraqi military took back Mosul and nearly all of North Eastern Iraq, which squeezes ISIS in Syria.
(here is a newer interactive map from BBC)
These things do matter. They make recruiting new members more difficult, it disrupts strategic planning, it throws groups into disarray, and disparate terrorist elements that used to be united under a strong or effective lieutenant, end up breaking up into separate groups that lose their influence and are more easy to break up by coalition or non-terrorist forces.
For us in the West though it's easy to fall into the error of "Well, some other Al-Blahblah will take over, what's the difference," but these killings and captures are what stopped the ISIS offensive and led to their vast territory losses. Psychologically throughout the region, few recruits want to join a movement that is seen as being defeated. THis similarly happened with Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq, that as AQIA leadership was captured or killed, the movement stalled, they lost territory, and while AQIA is still present, it's not nearly as influential or powerful as it was 10 years ago, and likewise with Al Qaeda.
It doesn't "win the war on terrorism" or immediately prevent terrorist acts, but these things do have impacts on the growth of those terrorist movements.
This is factually and blatantly false, at least of Al Qaeda. There's a good 2011 book by contemporary Middle Eastern historian Fawaz Gerges called The Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda, it's worth looking into. There's a distilled narrative here.
Thanks for this... First thought when I saw this was exactly what you said "big deal, next up". Glad it has an actual impact
michaelius
Banned
It's way too early to celebrate - they will try to turn him into martyr and Isis is already trying to create new stronghold in Asia.
Still no proof and the guy gets killed at least once a month.
Alter_Fridge
Member
Ugh not again
nailbombxx
Member
Daeshbags getting dunked on
To be fair, Russia never claimed that. AP posted a botched translation and claimed that Russia said they killed him, which the official statement did not say. It said that they got reports which claimed that he was among the group of people killed and that Russia is tying to verify that information. APs source did not say what AP claimed it did and everyone who speaks just a little bit of Russian will attest that.
NyMartin90
Member
I'm surprised Trump hasn't called for a special broadcast to the US as Obama did for Bin Laden.
Abinash117
Member
Someone else emailed the same question and got this back:
https://twitter.com/chadgarland/status/884738550629097473
It says centcom hopes it is true.
When they first arrived in Syria they was almost entirely focused on rebels; that started to change over time, but it was still majority focused rebels. However, they have some sort of ceasefire in Idlib a few months ago allowed them to focus on ISIS. It happened similar with Palmyra.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Sure, but as Albatross commented, killing these people makes a real difference, combined with all of the other ongoing operations.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
lol..
Are you saying that's a bad thing?
Fox Mulder
Member
Well there has to be a boogeyman to fuel the endless military machine.
I don't know why I find this so damn funny.
Similar threads
- Locked