Discussion
Alpinestars said:
Grumfutock said:
Rubbish! As the Iraq army has just found out to their cost, they are well equipped, motivated and well led.
I think he meant Israel 
Iraqi army? oh do behave, hardly a force to be reckoned with and not exactly getting their arses handed to them either. ISIS is a ragtag bunch of psychos
TheRealFingers99 said:
Their designs are pretty much as Grumfuttock outlines.
By themselves I don't think they pose any real threat to Israel.
1. At best, they have a limited supply of decent weapons (equal to the stuff the Israelis have, but much less of it)
2. At best, they have Iraqi troops and commanders and probably defectors from the Syrian army. Much of the rest will be relatively poorly trained.
Their strength so far seems to be in mobility against poorly equipped and ill equipped opponents.
They've had no lasting success against the Lebanese and the Kurds and Iraqi army seem to be holding them (with a little help).
Remember that to take Israel they've first got to get through Hezbollah (higher up on their enemy list than Israel)and then, you presume, the Palestinians.
I'm not sure that there's any really coherent Israeli thought on the issue yet. One view from Israel here.
On the other side, the IDF itself is probably over-rated and somewhat demoralised by years of Intifada, the whole Gaza experience and the Lebanese conflict(s).
The deciding factor in any open combat with them is and will be air power. By themselves I don't think they pose any real threat to Israel.
1. At best, they have a limited supply of decent weapons (equal to the stuff the Israelis have, but much less of it)
2. At best, they have Iraqi troops and commanders and probably defectors from the Syrian army. Much of the rest will be relatively poorly trained.
Their strength so far seems to be in mobility against poorly equipped and ill equipped opponents.
They've had no lasting success against the Lebanese and the Kurds and Iraqi army seem to be holding them (with a little help).
Remember that to take Israel they've first got to get through Hezbollah (higher up on their enemy list than Israel)and then, you presume, the Palestinians.
I'm not sure that there's any really coherent Israeli thought on the issue yet. One view from Israel here.
On the other side, the IDF itself is probably over-rated and somewhat demoralised by years of Intifada, the whole Gaza experience and the Lebanese conflict(s).
They will go the same way as the Taliban. ISIS will attempt to fight a conventional battle, get pummeled by air power as is happening now in Iraq and the only reason that the Kurds and and Iraqis have had any success. Next they will resort to guerrilla tactics (IEDs, hit and run ambushes etc), or they will just splinter and disappear (not likely IMHO).
I would not under estimate or dub down ISIS. They are the biggest threat we have ever faced in that part of the world.
2013BRM said:
nice one
Iraqi army? oh do behave, hardly a force to be reckoned with and not exactly getting their arses handed to them either. ISIS is a ragtag bunch of psychos
I would suggest that their results in the field thus far speak volumes for their ability. Iraqi army? oh do behave, hardly a force to be reckoned with and not exactly getting their arses handed to them either. ISIS is a ragtag bunch of psychos
The Iraq army has been trained and equipped by the West for 10 years and yet they turned and ran. In June 10,000 ISIS fighters defeated 2 Iraqi Div (25,000), 40,000 police and over 100,000 militia in open battle.
Grumfutock said:
The deciding factor in any open combat with them is and will be air power.
Broadly agree, but US (at least) strikes seem to have centred very much on taking out their heavy weaponry (their in both senses -- ex US stuff for the most part) and to have been relatively limited. Grumfutock said:
I would not under estimate or dub down ISIS. They are the biggest threat we have ever faced in that part of the world.
You've got to define "we", here, I think. Also against them are a large body of rebels faithful to Al Qaeda -- need to watch and see how that pans out.
Grumfutock said:
2013BRM said:
nice one
Iraqi army? oh do behave, hardly a force to be reckoned with and not exactly getting their arses handed to them either. ISIS is a ragtag bunch of psychos
I would suggest that their results in the field thus far speak volumes for their ability. Iraqi army? oh do behave, hardly a force to be reckoned with and not exactly getting their arses handed to them either. ISIS is a ragtag bunch of psychos
The Iraq army has been trained and equipped by the West for 10 years and yet they turned and ran. In June 10,000 ISIS fighters defeated 2 Iraqi Div (25,000), 40,000 police and over 100,000 militia in open battle.
2013BRM said:
We'll see, as you no doubt appreciate, I don't rate the Iragi forces that much, I have heard many tales of their 'bravery' from friends who were in Op Granby and Desert Storm. These guys are a real threat however and they have superior skills in persuading the weak of mind to commit suicide and, in a gang, seem to delight in acts of utter depravity
I don't disagree with anything there. Although I wouldn't compare 2003 with now, totally different army. They weren't that bad in 2003 just poor leadership. Grumfutock said:
By "we" I mean the West. This could very easily splinter in to an Islamic war, Shia vs Sunni. If that happens the all hell will break lose. Personally I think that this is exactly what ISIS are trying to provoke.
Agreed, they like fighting each other more than they do us, hopefully it does and the focus will remain in that part of the world2013BRM said:
We'll see, as you no doubt appreciate, I don't rate the Iragi forces that much, I have heard many tales of their 'bravery' from friends who were in Op Granby and Desert Storm. These guys are a real threat however and they have superior skills in persuading the weak of mind to commit suicide and, in a gang, seem to delight in acts of utter depravity
The Iraqi army's enemy number one is corruption"Mosul's defenders held up well for three days until late Monday evening, but over the next few hours the force imploded, with the senior commander for all of Nineveh province, Mahdi Garawi, fleeing.
The commander of Iraq's ground forces, General Ali Ghaidan, and the vice chief of army staff, Lieutenant General Abboud Qanbar, also abandoned their posts, according to an Iraqi official and a Western security expert.
The entire military structure deployed by the Shi'ite government in Baghdad to protect the north and west melted away before the well-armed Sunni rebels, who had been advancing for weeks across the rocky, dusty flatlands of western Iraq."
I.S. have the religious indoctrination as a motivational number one factor, backed up with heavy weaponry taken from abandoned army depots.
The reason heads of the Iraqi army fled their bases is that they were bribed by a well funded I.S prior to an eminent attack. I.S did their homework and were well aware how demoralised the Iraqi army was, and how money destined for equipment maintenance and soldiers' salaries was not trickling down.
They were basically sitting ducks and easy targets even though they were well equipped.
ISIS attack Israel? I'd pay good money for a front-row ticket to THAT little fight. It would be over before breakfast. The Israel Air Force would wipe them out in less than two hours using its B Team pilots.
But - to be slightly serious. ISIS could only attack Israel directly through the Golan Heights. The Syrian army tried that with 3,000 tanks in 1973 and failed.
But - to be slightly serious. ISIS could only attack Israel directly through the Golan Heights. The Syrian army tried that with 3,000 tanks in 1973 and failed.
audidoody said:
ISIS attack Israel? I'd pay good money for a front-row ticket to THAT little fight. It would be over before breakfast. The Israel Air Force would wipe them out in less than two hours using its B Team pilots.
But - to be slightly serious. ISIS could only attack Israel directly through the Golan Heights. The Syrian army tried that with 3,000 tanks in 1973 and failed.
Not if they also took out Jordan, one of their stated aims. But I agree, it is very unlikely and Israel air power would make short work of them.But - to be slightly serious. ISIS could only attack Israel directly through the Golan Heights. The Syrian army tried that with 3,000 tanks in 1973 and failed.
The Royal Jordanian Air Force also would ensure ISIS never got within rifle range of the Jordanian border
IS have only been rampaging through dysfunctional countries (Iraq and Syria. They could never take on a moderate Muslim country with an intact, functional, and loyal army and air force.
Edited by audidoody on Monday 1st September 17:17
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/21/t...Interesting article on how the Gaza conflict benefits Egypt.
Four Litre said:
Please chose your preferred Mark Regev approved response:A. It is perfectly understandable action by Israel and any state to protect itself, the settlements provide a buffer in case of invasion from neighbouring hostile entities like the West bank, Gaza or Guatemala.
B. We will build Israeli housing,but actually will benefit the Palestinians, by forcing them into a smaller area, allowing us to target our artillery and airstrikes more effectively. None of this trying to run away schlep for the Palestinians anymore.
C. Settlements ? What settlements ? The Roman order XVII of 150 BC mandates that land to be the land of the chosen race, and as such we are merely building on Israeli land.
[sarcasm\]
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 2nd September 11:38
Four Litre said:
Absolute disgrace from an absolutely disgraceful regime. I really cannot understand how anyone can support Israel without being totally biased. And then they wonder why this sort of thing breeds the likes of Hamas.QuantumTokoloshi said:
Please chose your preferred Mark Regev approved response:
A. It is perfectly understandable action by Israel and any state to protect itself, the settlements provide a buffer in case of invasion from neighbouring hostile entities like the West bank, Gaza or Guatemala.
B. We will build Israeli housing,but actually will benefit the Palestinians, by forcing them into a smaller area, allowing us to target our artillery and airstrikes more effectively. None of this trying to run away schlep for the Palestinians anymore.
C. Settlements ? What settlements ? The Roman order XVII of 150 BC mandates that land to be the land of the chosen race, and as such we are merely building on Israeli land.
[sarcasm\]
In case of each option the benefit to those pesky, ungrateful, hateful, lazy, terrorists, wannabe-terrorists and other snakes, is that hard working settlers will provide gainful employment for otherwise benefit scroungers. A. It is perfectly understandable action by Israel and any state to protect itself, the settlements provide a buffer in case of invasion from neighbouring hostile entities like the West bank, Gaza or Guatemala.
B. We will build Israeli housing,but actually will benefit the Palestinians, by forcing them into a smaller area, allowing us to target our artillery and airstrikes more effectively. None of this trying to run away schlep for the Palestinians anymore.
C. Settlements ? What settlements ? The Roman order XVII of 150 BC mandates that land to be the land of the chosen race, and as such we are merely building on Israeli land.
[sarcasm\]
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 2nd September 11:38
They just can't stop giving. And getting nothing (or rockets) in return. Someone will come shortly to tell us how many rockets were fired from WB recently. I'm sure it's lots.
Four Litre said:
I'm not sure why it's labelled as a "revenge" move? Israel has been seizing/annexing land permanently pretty much on a constant basis since 1967. It's not neded a reason previously so why now?You'd also have thought that killing 2000 Palestinians was sufficient revenge.....
Countdown said:
Four Litre said:
I'm not sure why it's labelled as a "revenge" move? Israel has been seizing/annexing land permanently pretty much on a constant basis since 1967. It's not neded a reason previously so why now?You'd also have thought that killing 2000 Palestinians was sufficient revenge.....
"You mean only 2000, if Israel really, really wanted to, they could have killed 20,000, even 200,000 but showed such restraint and surgical strike capabilty that only 600 women and children were killed. The IDF is a model modern army. Collateral damage is a Jihadi loving, anti patriotic media concept."
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Countdown said:
Four Litre said:
I'm not sure why it's labelled as a "revenge" move? Israel has been seizing/annexing land permanently pretty much on a constant basis since 1967. It's not neded a reason previously so why now?You'd also have thought that killing 2000 Palestinians was sufficient revenge.....
"You mean only 2000, if Israel really, really wanted to, they could have killed 20,000, even 200,000 but showed such restraint and surgical strike capabilty that only 600 women and children were killed. The IDF is a model modern army. Collateral damage is a Jihadi loving, anti patriotic media concept."
Governments silence from around the world on this is deafening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff