The Islamic State

[Istakhr]

Hopefully this will bite them in the ass sooner or later (speaking about Saudi and Quatari ruling elite).

Quatar acts like a dwarf on steroids, imagine Luxembourg with Oil & Gas...

They are pretty safe, only Jordan is under any threat from ISIS.

[Arakan]

According to German news media, the Yazidi are facing the realistic risk of genocide if ISIS doesnt get stopped.

Furthermore, the probability of US Intervention seems more likely than not (Obama right now searching for regional support --> Turkey?)

I repeat: Uncle Sam, bomb those bastards into oblivion. The Peshmerga will (hopefully) finish them on ground.

[Arakan]

They are pretty safe, only Jordan is under any threat from ISIS.

I thought more longterm in the way of "the devils you called..."

[Ruin]

ISIS is getting support in Iraq from the oppressed Sunni population. If ISIS gains control of Iraq, its possible they might ignite the Iran-Iraq war again. Hell, Iran might even preemptively attack. The Iranians have been fighting the MEK in eastern Iraq for years, and would probably love the chance to launch a full-scale invasion to address both concerns.

[Istakhr]

ISIS is getting support in Iraq from the oppressed Sunni population. If ISIS gains control of Iraq, its possible they might ignite the Iran-Iraq war again. Hell, Iran might even preemptively attack. The Iranians have been fighting the MEK in eastern Iraq for years, and would probably love the chance to launch a full-scale invasion to address both concerns.

Iran can't rely on its army to launch an offensive war. Also Iran will fight ISIS to the last drop of Iraqi Shia and Kurdish blood which should be enough to stop them from reaching Iran.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

Just came across this on a Dutch newssite, it's a movie by a Vice News Journalist who was actually allowed by ISIS to film them.

WARNING: Watch at own risk, NSFW.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1

[The Fallen]

How bad is the video? I'm not into the macabre.

[Galactus]

Given the brutality I can't figure out why anyone supports them?

Well, from what I understand thier core support is, essentially, the professional jihadists. Their local support is probably tenous at best, but they can bring in enough goons to stomp that out, at least temporarily.

[Ruin]

Iran can't rely on its army to launch an offensive war. Also Iran will fight ISIS to the last drop of Iraqi Shia and Kurdish blood which should be enough to stop them from reaching Iran.

Iran could take the eastern part of Iraq. Their army and the IRGC could pull it off, they'd have limited initial air support. Iran's western border is bolstered enough to pull this off. It could go two ways, Iran may attack ISIS while they're engaged with the Kurds/Iraqi Shia, or wait and attack after.

[Istakhr]

Iran could take the eastern part of Iraq. Their army and the IRGC could pull it off, they'd have limited initial air support. Iran's western border is bolstered enough to pull this off. It could go two ways, Iran may attack ISIS while they're engaged with the Kurds/Iraqi Shia, or wait and attack after.

First of all Iraqi Arab Shias will actually fight against Iran if Iran decides to annex/invade them.

Secondly when nearly half of your population don't consider your government legitimate, your army is made up of conscripts, and you are stupid enough to use it for an offensive war of choice, you'll end up with that army disintegrating. Other than Quds force and some other IRGC special force units (not the conscript part of IRGC either!) only some religiously motivated volunteer Basij militias are reliable (a very small minority of the total Basij organization), but even these Basij forces are no better than Iraqi Shia militants.

Iran is using Quds force, some Basij units and Lebanese and Syrian Shia militias to bolster Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurdish forces to stop ISIS from reaching Iran's border, taking Baghdad or Shia shrines.

PS: This is an explanation about the reliability of Iran's military and IRGC for a hypotetical offensive war of choice in Iraq, not a defensive war inside Iran's borders.

[Ruin]

First of all Iraqi Arab Shias will actually fight against Iran if Iran decides to annex/invade them.

Secondly when nearly half of your population don't consider your government legitimate, your army is made up of conscripts, and you are stupid enough to use it for an offensive war of choice, you'll end up with that army disintegrating. Other than Quds force and some other IRGC special force units (not the conscript part of IRGC either!) only some religiously motivated volunteer Basij militias are reliable (a very small minority of the total Basij organization), but even these Basij forces are no better than Iraqi Shia militants.

Iran is using Quds force, some Basij units and Lebanese and Syrian Shia militias to bolster Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurdish forces to stop ISIS from reaching Iran's border, taking Baghdad or Shia shrines.

PS: This is an explanation about the reliability of Iran's military and IRGC for a hypotetical offensive war of choice in Iraq, not a defensive war inside Iran's borders.

If the Iraqi Shias are engaged with ISIS and Iran enters the equation, it could go either way. It won't be all or nothing.

I don't disagree, such an invasion could really end badly for Iran. Doesn't mean it still couldn't happen. They'll threaten the conscripts to fight, using family as leverage. The looming threat of ISIS will be enough to get many of them to fight, especially after the government lies about the threat the organization actually poses. The threat of chemical weapons being used against Iran could also galvanize support against ISIS.

I wouldn't doubt the involvement of the Quds, (all the stuff you mentioned) acting in defense against ISIS in Iraq. The armored/troop units of the Iranian army/IRGC would be used in a push west, if it happened.

As I mentioned in the first post, Iran could take parts of the eastern Iraq, not the entire country. If they actually launched an attack, Iranian airpower would be relocated to assist with the push west.

[Arkhangel]

So is AQ trying to soften it's image and win over the public? Have they adopted a more mainstream ideology? Or is ISIS' atrocities that much more horrendous?

Admittedly, I haven't read about any of the acts committed by ISIS.

Part of AQ is. The thing to understand is that AQ is not an organisation, it's more a loose affiliation of a number of regional organisations under the nominal leadership of the central al Qaeda or al Qaeda Um. Over the last ten years, and especially in the last three or four, the centre of power has been shifting away from al Qaeda Um towards greater autonomy amongst the regional groups. al Qaeda Um and Zawahiri now play more of a spiritual guidance role than a strategic or tactical one (although some people think Zawahiri wants to be a strategic leader as well).

Mohammed al Golani has made significant efforts to distinguish Jabhat al Nusra from the other al Qaeda groups and especially from AQI. For months JN publicly denied its ties to al Qaeda, although everyone from Kurdish goatherds to Western journalists knew that it was created and funded via al Qaeda and lead by former al Qaeda fighters. JN's tactics in Syria are markedly different from ISIS's - they are (comparatively) less violent, more likely to work cooperatively and form alliances with other rebel groups including secular ones, and expend considerable time, effort and resources on providing services to the community.

TLDR: Jabhat al Nusra is waging a hearts and minds campaign in Syria, and that relates to this...

Well, from what I understand thier core support is, essentially, the professional jihadists. Their local support is probably tenous at best, but they can bring in enough goons to stomp that out, at least temporarily.

In the early days Jabhat al Nusra was made up of a core of 'professional' fighters, mostly AQ and mostly foreign, and a larger body of local Syrian fighters. As the conflict wore on it attracted more foreign recruits through, amongst other things, online social media campaigns. The foreigners and the Syrians took different approaches to the conflict: for the Syrians, this was their home and their communities, and they wanted something to go back to after the war, so they tended to be less extreme (again, comparatively - they're still not nice guys), whereas the foreigners were more of the 'blow them all to hell' mindset. The Syrians were also by and large fighting for a purpose, because they believed in the cause; the foreigners are split between true believers in jihad and the kind of assholes who are attracted by extreme violence.

When Baghdadi announced the merger of AQI and JN into ISIS, and Golani rejected it, a group of former JN fighters including most of the foreigners split off from JN and began to fight under ISIS's banner. Over time the different tactics and marketing strategies of the two groups made the demographic differences between them more extreme, so that JN is now primarily Syrian fighters whilst ISIS is now primarily foreigners and 'professionals'. These are the people who are now rampaging through Iraq as well.

[James Arryn]

Indeed. People would actually be cheering for Israel should ISIS ever be stupid enough to attack Israel. Would be nice to see though.

It would?

[The Prince of Newcastle]

I never thought id be happy to hear of US involvement in Iraq again but hopefully these air strikes and aid drops can help those poor people trapped on the mountain.

This is the beginnings of genocide. We cannot sit idly by.

[Fez]

The US Navy just announced a few minutes ago that two of its FA-18s went on their first bombing runs against ISIS this morning, targeting artillery positions near Erbil. The stated objective seems to be protecting the US state department personnel who are there, with the hope that continued attacks will also force ISIS to withdraw from that mountain near Sinjar to protect its other assets.

[Arakan]

This is the beginnings of genocide. We cannot sit idly by.

The word "genocide" has been thrown around too often in the last years but here we are life witnesses of the actions of a group which clearly has the extermination of "unwanted" people in its agenda ! And ISIS doesnt even hide their agenda or deeds at all, in contrast they make sure that all the world knows.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

I wonder what ISIS will do now that we've opened direct hosilities with them? Will this help or hurt them in the region?

[Old Man Aegon]

Im not usually for an armed solution but considering that we are facing a probable genocide (targetted primarily at non-islamics) I belive we have to stop this ASAP, with force if necessary (or perhaps even rather with force to dismantle their movement). We dont need a second Rwanda. Hell, we should never stand by as we did back then.

[Fez]

Fez,

I wonder what ISIS will do now that we've opened direct hosilities with them? Will this help or hurt them in the region?

Well there's your million dollar question right there. I don't know enough about the various regional ties to make an educated guess. But my uneducated guess is that it will be a wash, unless we seriously step up operations. Maybe it will cause a few more fighters to flock to them, but I think the battle lines are already pretty well drawn at this point, and I'm not sure our involvement gives them much more cache`. At the same time, I don't think we'll make a serious dent in their operations either, not with just a few bombing runs. Hopefully its enough to secure US personnel, and open up an escape corridor for the yazidi on the mountain.

[Shryke]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28699832

US President Barack Obama says he has authorised air strikes against Islamic militants in northern Iraq but will not send US troops back to the country.

He said Islamic State (IS) fighters would be targeted to prevent the slaughter of religious minorities, or if they threaten US interests.

Strikes have not yet begun, but the US has made humanitarian air drops to Iraqis under threat from the militants.