Infiltrating ISIS

[Airbrush]

This group is a national priority for the USA and many other nations. Why are we not discussing this here? ISIS is accumulating great wealth from sympathetic wealthy donors from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. How do you decapitate ISIS? Air strikes in Syria. Will Asad object if a coalition destroys his enemy? Not likely. After the head of ISIS is cut off in Syria we can worry about Asad.

 

Why do I never hear of an effort at INFILTRATION against ISIS? Hundreds of jihadi yahoos from all over the world are joining with apparent ease, why can't some anti-ISIS Muslims also slip in unnoticed? I never hear about it so I suppose there is only a SECRET CIA project to recruit Muslims who can blend in with real jihadis.

 

They need to do the following: join ISIS, get confidence from their handlers, get info on meetings, and call in a drone strike. Then they get paid handsomely and retire. Send NEW spies in to continue the fight. If groups of jihadis start blowing up mysteriously and often, that will dampen overall enthusiasm for joining.

[tomgwyther]

It's highly likely that the security services are dong just that. Although it would take a long time for a new western recruit to get close to anyone important.
New recruits from the west are used mainly for logistics. they're not trained fighters and have little or nothing to do with command or front-line duties. western recruits are however used for propaganda.
The group I.S. isn't necessarily made up of devout muslims, imams etc. it's a loose affiliation of crime bosses and warlords, I kind of Islamic Mafia. Infiltrating such a group will take time.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not talking about infiltrating ISIS for the same reason that I don't talk about knitting- I don't know anything about it.

 

On the other hand, if I did know about infiltrating ISIS I wouldn't talk about i for the same reason that you don't talk about Fight Club.

 

I imagine everyone else here is in much the same position.

Edited September 6, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Airbrush]

.....if I did know about infiltrating ISIS I wouldn't talk about it for the same reason that you don't talk about Fight Club.

 

I imagine everyone else here is in much the same position.

 

Good point, we don't want the leadership in ISIS to know what the allies are planning. However, if groups of ISIS members start to mysteriously explode, there could be an advantage to having the news media playing it up to discourage worldwide recruitment. How great a spy does it take to sneak into ISIS just deep enough to know where there will be a concentration of a dozen or more jihadis?

 

It's highly likely that the security services are dong just that. Although it would take a long time for a new western recruit to get close to anyone important.

New recruits from the west are used mainly for logistics. they're not trained fighters and have little or nothing to do with command or front-line duties. western recruits are however used for propaganda.

The group I.S. isn't necessarily made up of devout muslims, imams etc. it's a loose affiliation of crime bosses and warlords, a kind of Islamic Mafia. Infiltrating such a group will take time.

 

Even a new recruit, from a foreign country, can easily get into a position to know when and where a number of brothers are gathering. They could "paint" the target area and send that info to the drone controllers. More than one spy can be inserted into a group, to report independently to get confirmation of a good target time and location. Moderate Muslims need to not only condemn the actions of ISIS, they need to go to the CIA and volunteer. If they are well-trained by the CIA, they could easily avoid capture and whatever hideous fate that brings, probably beheading after torture. In that exceptional case, they could even have a tracking device in their body. They press the self-destruct button, which calls in a drone strike to take them out and everyone nearby.

 

News reports of groups of jihadis exploding would dampen enthusiasm for joining jihad.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

 

News reports of groups of jihadis exploding would dampen enthusiasm for joining jihad.

 

We can certainly see how successful our air/drone strikes the last decade or so were in preventing a group like ISIS in coming into being.

[Ophiolite]

Why are we not discussing this here?

When you celebrate your eighteenth birthday and can offer suggestions that go beyond sophomoric nonsense I shall be happy to participate in a mature discussion.

[Ten oz]

A year ago politicians were having serious talks about helping such rebel groups as ISIS to defeat Assad. It seems we are constantly focused only on today's enemy. We ignore how complicated the world can be. The United States once armed the Taliban and Al Quada to fight the Russian for example. Some times the only way not to lose is to not play. If the western world must play I hope they take a fast is slow and slow is fast approach.

[Endy0816]

I'm certain the Government already does have people in place.

 

Main issue would be compartmentalized nature of the enemy. Individual cells. Separation of specialists, leadership and those desiring to martyr themselves.

 

You can reasonably assume that electronic intel wasn't responsible for every successful drone strike. For that matter some of the drone strikes were likely staged. Have a "narrow miss" bolster someone's credibility or a "hit" cover an extraction.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Endy0816

[Airbrush]

When you celebrate your eighteenth birthday and can offer suggestions that go beyond sophomoric nonsense I shall be happy to participate in a mature discussion.

 

Fine then you go first, sir. How do we disable ISIS? Is infiltration not an option? It looks like you don't have a clue.

I'm certain the Government already does have people in place.

 

Main issue would be compartmentalized nature of the enemy. Individual cells. Separation of specialists, leadership and those desiring to martyr themselves.

 

You can reasonably assume that electronic intel wasn't responsible for every successful drone strike. For that matter some of the drone strikes were likely staged. Have a "narrow miss" bolster someone's credibility or a "hit" cover an extraction.

 

The gov't does NOT have people in place evidentally. ISIS marched over Iraq and Syria without opposition. A few forward observers could have easily called in drone strikes on columns of ISIS armored vehicles, which are hard to miss, kicking up huge dust clouds as they move to another town to enslave.

 

How compartmentalized is a column of fighters in armored vehicles on a dirt road ? Looks like an easy target to me. All it takes is one spy in the column to call in the location.

 

We can certainly see how successful our air/drone strikes the last decade or so were in preventing a group like ISIS in coming into being.

 

The success of an air/drone strike depends upon quality of information. Evidentally there HAS NOT been very good information. When you have spies in place, you get the best info possible.

 

This looks like a fallacy in your reasoning. You suggest that one reason ISIS exists is because of US drone strikes. ISIS came into being because of BAD strikes, among other reasons. Just improve upon it! So this implies you oppose my proposition that infiltration of ISIS could be an effective weapon?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

The success of an air/drone strike depends upon quality of information. Evidentally there HAS NOT been very good information. When you have spies in place, you get the best info possible.

 

This looks like a fallacy in your reasoning. You suggest that one reason ISIS exists is because of US drone strikes. ISIS came into being because of BAD strikes, among other reasons. Just improve upon it! So this implies you oppose my proposition that infiltration of ISIS could be an effective weapon?

This is just begging the question on your part (a fallacy)

 

I said/implied nothing about infiltration.

[Ten oz]

The gov't does NOT have people in place evidentally. ISIS marched over Iraq and Syria without opposition. A few forward observers could have easily called in drone strikes on columns of ISIS armored vehicles, which are hard to miss, kicking up huge dust clouds as they move to another town to enslave.

 

How compartmentalized is a column of fighters in armored vehicles on a dirt road ? Looks like an easy target to me. All it takes is one spy in the column to call in the location.

 

It seems like you have been following this very long. Had you been you'd know why these "easy targets" weren't taken out. As a matter of foriegn policy the United States have wanted Assad gone. Since 2011 there has been pressure on the administration to arm the rebels who were fighting against Assad. Many even call on the administration to provide air support to the rebels and bomb location in Syria to weaken Assad.

News article from 2013 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html

 

Eventually in Dec. of 2013 the radical wing of the rebels in Syria took over and basically formed ISIS as we know it today. That is when he West stopped provided aid. However the removal of Assad from power has remained a priority. Attacking our previously supported rebels would've benifited Assad. The enemy of our enemy is our friend seemed to prevail and ISIS was ignored, allowed, encouraged, and or tolerated so long as they were a thorn in Assad's side.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-cuts-aid-to-syria-rebels-as-islamists-advance/

 

 

 

The success of an air/drone strike depends upon quality of information. Evidentally there HAS NOT been very good information. When you have spies in place, you get the best info possible.

The U.S. and Britain has been working with various elements of ISIS since 2011 officially. Perhaps longer unofficially. Lack of strikes are not do to lack of information.

 

 

 

This looks like a fallacy in your reasoning. You suggest that one reason ISIS exists is because of US drone strikes. ISIS came into being because of BAD strikes, among other reasons. Just improve upon it! So this implies you oppose my proposition that infiltration of ISIS could be an effective weapon?

This isn't the first time supporting rebels turned out poorly. Just look at the Taliban and Al Quada. So the position we are stuck in now is a bit of a catch 22 right? Destroying ISIS empowers Assad, Iran, and ultimately Russia sense Syria and Iran have a relationship with Russia and no relationship with the west. With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in their current pathetic states Iran and Syria backed by Russia would become the strongest powers in the region. That is not something the West wants to see. An example of this concern was recently voiced by former United States Sec. of State Henry Kissinger who flat out said Iran is a bigger threat than ISIS -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html

 

So what would like to see happen? Should the United States move troops back into Iraq to defeat ISIS to the benifit of Syria's Assad and Iran? Perhaps the U.S. should just offer Assad an olive branch and provide him direct support to defeat ISIS? It is a very difficult thing. We, United States, would prefer to see them all defeated ISIS, Assad, and Iran. That last option just doesn't seem possible though.

[swansont]

 

The gov't does NOT have people in place evidentally. ISIS marched over Iraq and Syria without opposition. A few forward observers could have easily called in drone strikes on columns of ISIS armored vehicles, which are hard to miss, kicking up huge dust clouds as they move to another town to enslave.

 

How compartmentalized is a column of fighters in armored vehicles on a dirt road ? Looks like an easy target to me. All it takes is one spy in the column to call in the location.

 

If they are that obvious why would a spy be necessary? You can spot them with satellites and other surveillance.

[Airbrush]

 

If they are that obvious why would a spy be necessary? You can spot them with satellites and other surveillance.

 

Exactly, so US intelligence KNEW about the convoys of stolen US armor going around Iraq and Syria attacking and enslaving villages and cities, and chose to do NOTHING about it for how long? Then finally those refugees on the mountain and a couple of beheadings got in the news and Obama is promising to destroy ISIS, finally.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

 

Exactly, so US intelligence KNEW about the convoys of stolen US armor going around Iraq and Syria attacking and enslaving villages and cities, and chose to do NOTHING about it for how long? Then finally those refugees on the mountain and a couple of beheadings got in the news and Obama is promising to destroy ISIS, finally.

 

 

Iraq and Syria. Neither of which is the US. Why is this the US's responsibility?

[Airbrush]

Destroying ISIS empowers Assad, Iran, and ultimately Russia, since Syria and Iran have a relationship with Russia and no relationship with the west. With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in their current pathetic states, Iran and Syria, backed by Russia, would become the strongest powers in the region. That is not something the West wants to see. An example of this concern was recently voiced by former United States Sec. of State Henry Kissinger who flat out said Iran is a bigger threat than ISIS -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html

 

So what would like to see happen? Should the United States move troops back into Iraq to defeat ISIS to the benifit of Syria's Assad and Iran? Perhaps the U.S. should just offer Assad an olive branch and provide him direct support to defeat ISIS? It is a very difficult thing. We, United States, would prefer to see them all defeated ISIS, Assad, and Iran. That last option just doesn't seem possible though.

 

Interesting about the new trinity, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Yes I heard Kissinger on the radio regarding this. That guy is smart and experienced, but his voice is as hard as hell to listen to.

 

I would like to see PINPOINT drone or stealth bomber attacks on ISIS anywhere they are isolated from civilians, anywhere in Iraq and Syria. When they are on the road to another city, they are sitting ducks for stealth air strikes. Do you think Asad is going to complain if you shoot up the ISIS headquarters in Syria? After ISIS is beheaded, then we are left with the trinity to deal with. They can wait.

Iraq and Syria. Neither of which is the US. Why is this the US's responsibility?

 

Iraq and Syria are failed states. Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They can afford it. What about all the other wealthy gulf states that voice meek condemnation? What about NATO?

 

ISIS declared war on the US by beheading 2 guys.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Iraq and Syria are failed states. Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They can afford it. What about all the other wealthy gulf states that voice meek condemnation? What about NATO?

 

ISIS declared war on the US by beheading 2 guys.

 

And look at all the success we've had in nation building.

 

We'd have an uncountable number of wars if all it took was to kill a few citizens of another country. The bottom line is that global politics is far more nuanced than armchair secretaries of state seem to comprehend. Nothing is as simple as you've portrayed here.

[Ten oz]

Interesting about the new trinity, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Yes I heard Kissinger on the radio regarding this. That guy is smart and experienced, but his voice is as hard as hell to listen to.

 

In my opinion Kissinger is a warmonger.

 

I would like to see PINPOINT drone or stealth bomber attacks on ISIS anywhere they are isolated from civilians, anywhere in Iraq and Syria. When they are on the road to another city, they are sitting ducks for stealth air strikes. Do you think Asad is going to complain if you shoot up the ISIS headquarters in Syria? After ISIS is beheaded, then we are left with the trinity to deal with. They can wait.

 

What makes you believe killing ISIS members would help Western interests in the region? How did we get here in the first place? Do you believe if the United States had not removed Saddam and haven't been undermining Assad that a group like ISIS would be terrorizing the region now? Can you say for sure destroying ISIS doesn't lead to something worse?

 

Since the War on Terror began a decade ago do you believe the western world has successful done anything to improve the region or make themselves safer? I personal do not think they have. We (USA) pushed into Afghanistan and as a result many rebels moved into Pakistan. Today Afghanistan is home to little more opium drug lords and Pakistan which was previously a strong U.S. allie is great diminished. Terrorist still call both places home. We also pushed into Iraq and removed Saddam. Iraq did not have terrorist. Today they have ISIS.

 

But hey, both Saddam and Osama are dead so it was all worth it right....

 

 

Iraq and Syria are failed states. Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They can afford it. What about all the other wealthy gulf states that voice meek condemnation? What about NATO?

 

ISIS declared war on the US by beheading 2 guys.

What makes Iran and Syria "failed" states; the U.S. not getting along with them or the fact that Russia does? Saudi Arabia beheaded at least 19 people in August for offenses ranging from drug smuggling to sorcery. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executes-19-during-half-of-august-in-disturbing-surge-of-beheadings-9686063.html

 

Saudi Arabia still stones women to death for adultery - http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3326/islam-lashes-stoning-women

 

Saudi Arabia is a known human rights violator for their treatment of migrant workers and women - http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-saudi-un-rights-idUSBRE99K07X20131021

 

You call Syria and Iran are failed states then ask why Saudi Arabia is doing something because they can afford it; because Saudi Arabia doesn't care. The West turns a blind eye to all the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and etc. Wealthy countries that sell the West oil get a pass. Wasn't Bin Laden Saudi? Don't many wealthy families in the above mentioned countries finiancially support groups like Hamas, Al Quada, and ISIS? Assuming you know that they do what long term problem does killing individual ISIS members solve? What long term goal does removing Assad achieve?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ten oz

[Airbrush]

Those are all very good questions, Ten oz. BTW, every time I see that name I wonder "Ten oz of what?" If you would tell.

 

It seems obvious to me that only by killing ISIS members can you manage them NOW. But we also need to think of the long term.

 

If we had not removed Saddam, probably there would NOT be an ISIS today.

 

It is worse to allow ISIS freedom of operations.

 

Pakistan was never a "strong US ally".

 

I do believe the western world is safer because the US went into Afghanistan. If we did not, Al Qaeda would probably have attacked many more western targets. They are disabled and on the run, which makes their life more difficult.

 

No, it is not all "worth it".

 

Iraq and Syria are failed states because they currently have full-blown civil war.

 

The barbarism of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with it. The Saudis are also threatened by ISIS, so why don't they fight ISIS? ISIS wants to take Mecca and Medina as they OWN, under THEIR caliphate. There must be a covert agreement between the US and Saudis, that the US will be Saudis police force to control ISIS.

 

Killing ISIS members and removing Asad will not solve any long-term problems, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about what needs to be done now. You must bandage a bleeding wound now. In the long-term this is a Suni issue to resolve.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Airbrush

[swansont]

 

Iraq and Syria are failed states because they currently have full-blown civil war.

 

 

So who swooped in to save the US when it was a failed state? We had a full-blown civil war, too.

[Airbrush]

 

So who swooped in to save the US when it was a failed state? We had a full-blown civil war, too.

 

"The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Confederate States of America."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_us_civil_war

 

Apparently cotton was not as important to the world then as oil is now. What saved the Union was the industrial might of the north.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

ISIS declared war on the US by beheading 2 guys.

That's just weird.

It's states that declare war, not groups of misfits.

 

However, by the same "logic" the US declares war on itself by executing US citizens on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

[swansont]

 

"The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Confederate States of America."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_us_civil_war

 

Apparently cotton was not as important to the world then as oil is now. What saved the Union was the industrial might of the north.

 

So IOW outside intervention is not necessary to save a so-called failed state from its civil war.

[MigL]

You are right swansont, maybe the US should keep out of the middle east.

Let them fight their own bloody civil war like the Americans did to further equality.

Let them fight their world wars like Europe did to eliminate oppression.

 

It would be a lot easier if the 'bleeding-heart apologists' ( just kidding ) didn't blame the US afterwards for not intervening.

[Airbrush]

The world of the US Civil War was 150 years different than the world we live in now. It is not comparable to the situation with ISIS. ISIS will grow and spill over into the entire area, into the Gulf states and into Saudi Arabia, stopping only at Iran, then into Europe and the USA if not stopped by air strikes now. They already have accumulated Billions of dollars to finance jihad, and that means a nuke from a disgruntled Russian scientist to use on New York City.

 

Yeah, "let them fight their own wars". The US entered WW2, and that could have been the tipping factor for the speedy war in Europe. If the US did not fight Hitler in WW2, England would have fallen and may have been totally devastated, but Germany would probably still have been defeated, because of Hitler's stupidity, but the war would have continued for several more years, killing millions more innocent people and costing Billions more treasure.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Airbrush

[MigL]

The civil war may have been 150 yrs ago, but ISIS wants to take the area of the Levant back to the 13th century.

If you re-read my post, you'll note that although I have isolationist leanings, I don't advocate it as a course of action, since the US will be blamed by the rest of the world if they don't intervene. This has happened numerous times in Africa and even Europe ( more so lately ), and the 'apologists' always claim that lack of oil is the reason. However...

 

Until the middle eastern people decide to rise up for their rights against the oppression of these terrorists, just like 1st world nations did 150 or 75 yrs ago, nothing will change. To appreciate how fragile and valuable democracy is, you have to earn it with blood.

 

Unfortunately only tyrants and dictators can nation build ( through fear, oppression and murder ).