Isis fighters 'realise cause is lost' as numbers fall to two-year low, Barack Obama says

The size of Isis's army is at its lowest level for two years, the group has lost swathes of territory and the group’s fighters “realise their cause is lost”, Barack Obama has said.

Setting out the current state of the war against the so-called Islamic State, the US President said the jihadist group had lost 40 per cent of its territories in Iraq and 10 per cent of those in Syria as well as numerous financial setbacks.

The Pentagon has also claimed air strikes have killed more than 25,000 Isis militants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-fighters-realise-cause-is-lost-as-numbers-hit-two-year-low-barack-obama-says-a6983631.html


If only they had acted sooner, how many lies could have been saved.

I think politics got in the way of rapid action. Still, it's good news.

Never mnd that


If americas warmongering, aided and abetted by a crawling L/W sycophant over here hadnt happened, one has to wonder if ISIS would ever have existed

Lord Foul wrote:Never mnd that


If americas warmongering, aided and abetted by a crawling L/W sycophant over here hadnt happened, one has to wonder if ISIS would ever have existed

Hi Vitcor

Al Qaeda existed before the First Iraq war.
As to whether they would have existed, of course they would have existed ISIS.
Whether they would have gained the support from Iraq or ex-Baathists without a second Iraq War is another matter. But if iIraq had been dragged into a civil war like Syria, after the Arab Springs, ISIS would have still been able to capitalise off of this. Again ISIS was actually formed in 1999.

The group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād
(lit. "The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad").[30] In October 2004, al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance (bay'ah) to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and renamed the group Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (lit. "The Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. Under al-Zarqawi, the group participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces.
In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, now under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām (or al-Nusra Front) established a large presence in Sunni-majority Al-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces. In April 2013, al-Baghdadi decreed the reunification of the Syrian al-Nusra Front with ISI to form the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL). However, Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL by February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".

So whilst they had many Baathist join their ranks, it was within Syria itself that they saw an surge in support

Saudi has been exporting and financing huge sums of money into its doctrine across the world. This is why you have seen other extremist groups form like Boko Haram, where there was no civil war on Allied involvement in a conflict. This alone shows others have been created more from the  actual effect of money that Saudi has placed into Wahhabism abroad. An the Arab nations asked for allied assistance in the First Iraq War

Now look at the Motives for 9/11

Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, not political, but the association is on supposed Transgressions to Muslims, who were committing genocide. Motivation on this claim, is formed fundamentally from Islam

Supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. Same as above

Supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir Same as above

the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, Well the PLO started that conflict, but lets not split hairs again same reason based on transgressions, not political or social but born from the Islamic belief on Transgression.

the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, Transgression again of Troops to Land deemed Muslims, so again Islam

US support of Israel, This is only one of two not Islamic, its plain antisemitism, where they want nobody to assist Jews.

and sanctions against Iraq. This one is also not Islamic, but Political


So when you look at the problem you will always have these groups to continue to rise up, even more so after the Arab Springs as they fundamentally fear Secular influence and Islam losing control. So you would have still seen the creation of ISIS. Its us of Iraq in its name may not be there dependent on whether civil war also came to Iraq or not, as it did to Syria. Which I have no doubt it would have done after the Arab Springs.

didge wrote:So when you look at the problem you will always have these groups to continue to rise up, even more so after the Arab Springs as they fundamentally fear Secular influence and Islam losing control. So you would have still seen the creation of ISIS. Its us of Iraq in its name may not be there dependent on whether civil war also came to Iraq or not, as it did to Syria. Which I have no doubt it would have done after the Arab Springs.

Doubtful. ISIL is the result of the downfall of Iraq, which in turn led to the Arab Spring uprisings, leading to the downfall of Syria.

ISIL means the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--the Levant has throughout history meant Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, the West Bank (now under Israeli occupation) and Israel itself.

The invasion of Iraq and the takeout of Saddam Hussein created a domino effect. In the vacuum, ISIL was formed, in part out of al Qaeda, but other elements too. The triggering event was Iraq II, which took out the strongman.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:So when you look at the problem you will always have these groups to continue to rise up, even more so after the Arab Springs as they fundamentally fear Secular influence and Islam losing control. So you would have still seen the creation of ISIS. Its us of Iraq in its name may not be there dependent on whether civil war also came to Iraq or not, as it did to Syria. Which I have no doubt it would have done after the Arab Springs.

Doubtful.  ISIL is the result of the downfall of Iraq, which in turn led to the Arab Spring uprisings, leading to the downfall of Syria.  

ISIL means the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--the Levant has throughout history meant Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, the West Bank (now under Israeli occupation) and Israel itself.  

The invasion of Iraq and the takeout of Saddam Hussein created a domino effect.  In the vacuum, ISIL was formed, in part out of al Qaeda, but other elements too.  The triggering event was Iraq II, which took out the strongman.

Please read my previous post and address the points I made, as i am not going to repeat myself

I already spoke on the name, how it formed before the second Iraq war, how it gained more support in the civil war in Syria, which then allowed it to be powerful enough to strike into Iraq. Other extremist groups have formed not within the Middle East, one being Boko Haram Seriously, its really a waste of time, when you do not digest what I have said.
ISIS was created in 1999