ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah

[hamidreza]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4354/isis-jordan

Another Islamic empire from west of Africa to East of Asia?!! I think it is possible. But what will do Jewish people of Israel and Shies of Iran in the center of this empire?

 

[MontyB]

I am not sure Jordanians will run away quite as quick as the Iraqi's seem to have, personally I think ISIS is near the limit of its expansion capabilities in terms of manpower and will struggle to hold any of its gains should someone actually fight back.

I am really struggling to understand the roles of both the USA and Iran in this conflict as reports show Hezbollah fighting with the ISIL and I thought they were basically funded by Iran meanwhile aren't ISIL part of the Syrian rebel groupings which the USA wants to support against Assad?

 

[hamidreza]

I am not sure Jordanians will run away quite as quick as the Iraqi's seem to have, personally I think ISIS is near the limit of its expansion capabilities in terms of manpower and will struggle to hold any of its gains should someone actually fight back.

I am really struggling to understand the roles of both the USA and Iran in this conflict as reports show Hezbollah fighting with the ISIL and I thought they were basically funded by Iran meanwhile aren't ISIL part of the Syrian rebel groupings which the USA wants to support against Assad?

But I don't think so. I think about 20000 Daesh fighters can defeat Jordan army easily in a short time because of three

reasons. First they are brave , Martyrdom-seeking , well trained with a lot of war experience. Second most of people in Sunni

Islamic states are not consider them as enemy and in fact they have a lot of fans in these countries ( and for their army we

have the same condition ). There are some west fans against them but they will escape to west after first attack. And third in

most Islamic states people are against their governments ( Arab spring is a good example ) so they always want change and

now a group of Islamic fighters promising them to reestablish another Islamic empire like Umayyad empire. I think except that

Iran, Turkey and Kurdish and Shiite areas in the ME, they can occupy all ME and north Africa states easily. Unless

somebody from out of this region prevent them.

You know why they hate Shiite? one reason is they say we in Iran had a back-stabber when Ottoman Empire was occupying

Europe during Ottoman-Safavid wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Safavid_War_%281623%E2%80%9339%29

 

[MontyB]

But I don't think so. I think about 20000 Daesh fighters can defeat Jordan army easily in a short time because of three

reasons. First they are brave , Martyrdom-seeking , well trained with a lot of war experience. Second most of people in Sunni

Islamic states are not consider them as enemy and in fact they have a lot of fans in these countries ( and for their army we

have the same condition ). There are some west fans against them but they will escape to west after first attack. And third in

most Islamic states people are against their governments ( Arab spring is a good example ) so they always want change and

now a group of Islamic fighters promising them to reestablish another Islamic empire like Umayyad empire. I think except that

Iran, Turkey and Kurdish and Shiite areas in the ME, they can occupy all ME and north Africa states easily. Unless

somebody from out of this region prevent them.

You know why they hate Shiite? one reason is they say we in Iran had a back-stabber when Ottoman Empire was occupying

Europe during Ottoman-Safavid wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Safavid_War_%281623%E2%80%9339%29

You know I am tired of these idiotic blood feuds because some one from one village stole a goat from someone else's village back in the 14th century they suddenly feel the need to slaughter everyone we have had to put up with it in the Balkans for the last 30 years now we have the Middle East doing it as well.

Do you know why the West has reached the top of the heap for the last 500 years it is because we have learned to let go of these idiotic things and decided that living life and improving our lot are far better options than killing each other over every little slight, prior to that the Ottomans figured it out as well and lead the way forward before that the Byzantines and Romans.

Now if these clowns think they will build a state through martyrdom more power to them and I am more than happy to spend the resources helping them achieve their lofty goals of death but I will tell you something no empire has ever become great by killing themselves as a matter of procedure.

 

[VDKMS]

ISIS is not a regular army. In a confrontation with the Jordanian army they will be easily defeated and they know it. Islamists and Jihadists fare well in destabelized countries that's why they are emerging all over the Arab spring countries.
Therefore ISIS will not attack Jordan but try to destablize it first with terror attacks, a strategy well known by Jihadists all over the world.

 

[senojekips]

ISIS is not a regular army. In a confrontation with the Jordanian army they will be easily defeated and they know it. Islamists and Jihadists fare well in destabelized countries that's why they are emerging all over the Arab spring countries.
Therefore ISIS will not attack Jordan but try to destablize it first with terror attacks, a strategy well known by Jihadists all over the world.

So, tell us how poorly the irregular insurgents fared in Iraq against the might of the US Armed Forces, here we are only a matter of months after running away with our tails between our legs after wasting billions of Dollars and countless of our best young citizens, and they have already recaptured most of the country.

Stabilised or not, the result would have been the same.

 

[MontyB]

Second most of people in Sunni Islamic states are not consider them as enemy and in fact they have a lot of fans in these countries ( and for their army we have the same condition ). There are some west fans against them but they will escape to west after first attack.

I disagree if they were not considered an enemy to the Sunni then what there there half a million plus Sunni refugees fleeing into Kurdish areas.

The fact of the matter is that ISIS are just another bunch of raving religious loonies who think slaughtering as many people as possible no matter who they are is how you make it in the world and the sooner they are wiped from the face of the world the better everyone will be.

 

[hamidreza]

I disagree if they were not considered an enemy to the Sunni then what there there half a million plus Sunni refugees fleeing into Kurdish areas.

The fact of the matter is that ISIS are just another bunch of raving religious loonies who think slaughtering as many people as possible no matter who they are is how you make it in the world and the sooner they are wiped from the face of the world the better everyone will be.

They left there because they didn't want to live in an unsafe place. They will return in peace time and it will not be important who will be the ruler. Daesh or Iraq army. But my question is what is the difference between Daesh in Iraq and Daesh and Al-Nosrah in Syria? they are doing the same thing they did in Syria. when Syrian refugees were leaving their homes during these 3 years most of west media said it was because of Assad dictatorship regime and nobody mentioned to Daesh or Al-Nosrah crimes!

 

[VDKMS]

So, tell us how poorly the irregular insurgents fared in Iraq against the might of the US Armed Forces, here we are only a matter of months after running away with our tails between our legs after wasting billions of Dollars and countless of our best young citizens, and they have already recaptured most of the country.

Stabilised or not, the result would have been the same.

The insurgents were defeated after the surge.

If Obama didn't withdraw all US military this would not have happend. The job was not finished (Maliki also is to blame). The same will happen again when they leave Afghanistan.

 

[senojekips]

The insurgents were defeated after the surge.

If Obama didn't withdraw all US military this would not have happend. The job was not finished (Maliki also is to blame). The same will happen again when they leave Afghanistan.

Precisely,... the insurgents were never "beaten", the coalition forces only ever "controlled" the land they were standing on, at any given time, the moment they moved elsewhere the land immediately reverted to the control by the insurgents. They would mount a mission on some little village, go in and kill a handful of insurgents then hightail it for home before dark. Within 10 minutes of their leaving the area it was back in control of the insurgents. You see, it's vastly different to the computer games you get your experience from.

It would have been no different had the coalition forces stayed there forever, That's why the coalition forces were run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs.

 

[MontyB]

The insurgents were defeated after the surge.

If Obama didn't withdraw all US military this would not have happend. The job was not finished (Maliki also is to blame). The same will happen again when they leave Afghanistan.

I am afraid you are missing the contradiction in your argument, if they were defeated then it could never have happened with or without the presence of US troops.

And yes it will happen in Afghanistan primarily because no solution to the Taliban has been found.

My personal belief is that these nations for whatever reason do not have a national identity or at least their nationalism is overshadowed by either tribal or sectarian preferences and as such the only answer is either a split along tribal/cultural/sectarian lines or a return to dictatorships.

 

[JOC]

Misc

.
This happened after Tito died the strongman in Yugoslavia. Numerous small wars and the forming of various smaller ethnic states that were only held together by Tito’s strong arm regime.

As for the US and Iraq. After desert storm the Coalition - US army stopped at Bagdad, this was the last chance the US had to actually do something with a force large enough to take control. They also enjoyed a high degree of popular support at this time. Many Iraqi's were happy to see the Americans and be rid of the tyrant.
For political reason the American presence was greatly reduced. They were forced to behave as more of a fire brigade and were limited to approved operations “which were often politically motivated" which is why they returned after making raids on insurgent strongholds. “Much like Vietnam.” One they weren't allowed to stay and two they were spread too thin to “stay” over the entire country of Iraq. As the country destabilized further the situation grew worse and the control over which the even greater reduced US forces could exercise was minimized. However one on one they always outfought the insurgents without fail.
Whether this ISIS takes control or becomes another warring entity amongst many in Iraq remains to be seen. The people of Iraq immediate future appear cloudy. The problem is Iraq has a lot of people who want nothing to do with any of this nonsense and may suffer more now than they did even under Saddams terror regime.

 

[JOC]

I am afraid you are missing the contradiction in your argument, if they were defeated then it could never have happened with or without the presence of US troops.

And yes it will happen in Afghanistan primarily because no solution to the Taliban has been found.

My personal belief is that these nations for whatever reason do not have a national identity or at least their nationalism is overshadowed by either tribal or sectarian preferences and as such the only answer is either a split along tribal/cultural/sectarian lines or a return to dictatorships.

I agree without some cement to glue the nation together it takes little for it to become unglued. Often diverse and antagonist groups were - are thrown together. This can be seen in some African nations as well.

 

[VDKMS]

Precisely,... the insurgents were never "beaten", the coalition forces only ever "controlled" the land they were standing on, at any given time, the moment they moved elsewhere the land immediately reverted to the control by the insurgents. They would mount a mission on some little village, go in and kill a handful of insurgents then hightail it for home before dark. Within 10 minutes of their leaving the area it was back in control of the insurgents. You see, it's vastly different to the computer games you get your experience from.

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

It would have been no different had the coalition forces stayed there forever, That's why the coalition forces were run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs.

They didn't leave with their tails between their legs. Obama was unable (unwilling?) to pressure Maliki to accept coalition forces in Iraq on their terms.

 

[MontyB]

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

That does not mean that it was in trouble though, my guess is that once they realised that the coalition was pulling out they decided it wasn't worth risking lives when they would have easier pickings in a few months.

 

[senojekips]

Just before the coalition troops left Iraq the threat of the insurgents was very low.

The insurgents listen to the News too, they knew that they had the coalition forces beaten and that they were leaving, then they could do pretty much as they wanted, that is what we are seeing now.

They didn't leave with their tails between their legs. Obama was unable (unwilling?) to pressure Maliki to accept coalition forces in Iraq on their terms.

Dream on, Pinocchio. The coalition knew they were never going to succeed even before Maliki was installed.

The insurgents may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. The coalition forces were totally out of their element when combating a guerrilla force, just as they were in Vietnam, Central America and a dozen other small wars they have been involved in. Their strength is in technology as we saw in Kuwait where they had a resounding success.

 

[MontyB]

Its a bit ironic though isn't it that people who will be willing to be used as human bombers - martyrs would wait for easier pickings. Although their leadership likely did just that seeing as they would not be the actual bombers - martyrs.

I think the assumption that these people are just a collection of human bombers waiting to go off is a dangerous underestimation of them.

I think the groups we are seeing here are much smarter than that.

 

[JOC]

continued

I think the assumption that these people are just a collection of human bombers waiting to go off is a dangerous underestimation of them.

I think the groups we are seeing here are much smarter than that.

That's basically what I meant by the irony of the situation. The leaders are dangerous in how they use the rank and file who will carry out the bombing and martyrdom.

This ISIS is bad news willing to kill anyone who doesn't share their belief. Many thousands of people: Assyrian Christians, Shiites have been indiscriminately killed by the Sunni ISIS who have just captured oil rich Mosul. With the collapse of the Iraqi army (mainly due too poor leadership) and the lack of any real central government Iraq has fallen into a state of hopeless sectarian warfare. Their is little evidence of any political solution in the cards. I think that ISIS could act as a destabilizing agent on the larger region via terrorism, etc. even on some of it's own benefactors.

As for the coalition - US which left for political reasons, the war became unpopular, Obama had made campaign promises to bring the troops home. Even when down to 50000 they still provided a strong stabilizing influence and keep the insurgents at bay. However with only 50000 troops and having to operate under all their political limitations it was impossible to completely control Iraq. They remained undefeated. Unfortunately the elected government replaced many capable Iraqi military commanders and governments officials with inexperienced new personal which helped lead to a breakdown of the military and the central government.

 

[MontyB]

That's basically what I meant by the irony of the situation. The leaders are dangerous in how they use the rank and file who will carry out the bombing and martyrdom.

This ISIS is bad news willing to kill anyone who doesn't share their belief. Many thousands of people: Assyrian Christians, Shiites have been indiscriminately killed by the Sunni ISIS who have just captured oil rich Mosul. With the collapse of the Iraqi army (mainly due too poor leadership) and the lack of any real central government Iraq has fallen into a state of hopeless sectarian warfare. Their is little evidence of any political solution in the cards. I think that ISIS could act as a destabilizing agent on the larger region via terrorism, etc. even on some of it's own benefactors.

As for the coalition - US which left for political reasons, the war became unpopular, Obama had made campaign promises to bring the troops home. Even when down to 50000 they still provided a strong stabilizing influence and keep the insurgents at bay. However with only 50000 troops and having to operate under all their political limitations it was impossible to completely control Iraq. They remained undefeated. Unfortunately the elected government replaced many capable Iraqi military commanders and governments officials with inexperienced new personal which helped lead to a breakdown of the military and the central government.

I agree that you will never reach a political solution with groups like ISIS the only solution is kill enough of them to render them ineffective as a fighting force, I still think though you are focusing too much on the suicide element and neglecting the fact that they have achieved almost all of their gains so far fighting in a relatively conventional way.

I notice Turkey has given up on the Iraqi government and suggested that it would support the idea of three states emerging from Iraq but I am not sure even that would help as the Sunni area would still be an unstable mess.

 

[JOC]

ISIS

I agree that you will never reach a political solution with groups like ISIS the only solution is kill enough of them to render them ineffective as a fighting force, I still think though you are focusing too much on the suicide element and neglecting the fact that they have achieved almost all of their gains so far fighting in a relatively conventional way.

I notice Turkey has given up on the Iraqi government and suggested that it would support the idea of three states emerging from Iraq but I am not sure even that would help as the Sunni area would still be an unstable mess.

True they have made most of gains in Iraq as a convention fighting force. However as per their long term goals they would perhaps start using martyr's as destabilizing agents in nearby stronger - stable neighbors. After all they desire an new empire. This somewhat ragtag army made a lot of gains in environments like Syria and Iraq using conventional style forces, but many of the countries in the neighborhood are more prepared for conventional war. So further advances by the ISIS would likely start from within. This is where the role of the terrorist comes in.

According to their stated goals the ISIS would likely not be satisfied with that goal, that is the ISIS controlling just the Sunni area of Iraq.