• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

Zyphlin said:
Oh? In what scenario do you see ISIS coming out and publicly claiming anything other than the strikes not being effective?
Click to expand...
Because Jihaders from various groups have realized over the years that making wild claims and unsupported boasts only hurts them in the long run. So does concealing the number of casualties they have taken.

As a result, the various Al Queda groups- yes, I know that ISIS is not Al Queda, have quickly acknowledged and reported casualties. Likewise, Hamas and Hezbollah have been generally willing to acknowledge deaths from Israeli military actions and publically acknowledge casualties via paying out death benefits.

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that one can, at the same time, be:
A. A terrorist
B for varying motivations, truthful

Zyphlin said:
That's entirely different then just taking ISIS for it's word as a singular reason, or one of the main reasons, to come to such a conclussion.
Click to expand...
I never said I took the word of ISIS unchallenged. Rather, I always took the totality of their claim and the other factors to draw a conclusion that they may well be telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Isis surely has something to boast about now, thanks to Obama.


WE UNDERESTIMATED ISIS.

Obama: We underestimated ISIS | New York Post


Did he have to blab and let Isis know about that?
Click to expand...

Obama does not care what ISIS knows, he's only fighting for democrat party votes in november. He wouldnt have warned them over 10 days before we first struck if he was serious.
 
Kobie said:
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Of COURSE ISIS is going to say the bombings are "ineffective," and of course the rabid right-wing partisans are going to believe them.
Click to expand...

I am not commenting on Isis claims,I am using common sense. When you tell the enemy you are going to bomb them months ahead of doing so, what do you think they will do? You don't think they will empty building full of war supplies and disperse it or even put it in schools and hospitals? Come on dude you have to be smarter than that.
 
lifeisshort said:
I am not commenting on Isis claims,I am using common sense. When you tell the enemy you are going to bomb them months ahead of doing so, what do you think they will do? You don't think they will empty building full of war supplies and disperse it or even put it in schools and hospitals? Come on dude you have to be smarter than that.
Click to expand...

When did Obama tell ISIS he was going to bomb them "months ahead of doing so"?
 
Kobie said:
When did Obama tell ISIS he was going to bomb them "months ahead of doing so"?
Click to expand...

He gave them well over 10 days notice. Long enough to move to civilian areas and to hide what they needed to. Our President is incompetent.

He should have made the announcement of strikes as they were happening.

As is all too often demonstrated with Obama-too little too late. Its like he's trying to sabotage himself.
 
US Conservative said:
He gave them well over 10 days notice. Long enough to move to civilian areas and to hide what they needed to. Our President is incompetent.

He should have made the announcement of strikes as they were happening.

As is all too often demonstrated with Obama-too little too late. Its like he's trying to sabotage himself.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's not exactly how it happened either, but I do not expect honesty from you.
 
US Conservative said:
Its exactly how it happened, Kobie. Obama gave them over a weeks notice. Why defend the lie?
Click to expand...

He did not say "we start bombing in 10 days." He did not say where we'd be bombing. I'm not the one lying here.
 
US Conservative said:
He GAVE them warning. Days of it, Kobie. Whats hard to grasp here?
Click to expand...

By your rationale, we gave Iraq "warning" before invading in 2003. But whatever, bro, keep on ****in' that chicken.
 
Cryptic said:
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Click to expand...

Define "ineffective." Is a little instability really such a bad thing?
 
Would you have preferred the USA troops be under Sharia law?

Would you have the USA in a never-ending war with thousands more dead soldiers, tens of thousands more maimed,
the additional costs similar to those incurred last decade, the ability to attack Obama for breaking his 2008 election promises,
and an already overloaded VA system unable to take care of all VFWs.

And how would that caliphate guerilla war be going right now ?
US Conservative said:
When you pull out and leave the nation to terrorists, they will fill the vacuum.
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
By your rationale, we gave Iraq "warning" before invading in 2003. But whatever, bro, keep on ****in' that chicken.
Click to expand...

Not really the same thing though, is it Kobie. We gave them a heads up, enough time to hide amongst civilians and to move assets.
 
NIMBY said:
Would you have preferred the USA troops be under Sharia law?

Would you have the USA in a never-ending war with thousands more dead soldiers, tens of thousands maimed,
the costs incurred last decade, the ability to attack Obama for breaking his promises,
and an already overloaded VA system unable to take care of all VFWs.

And how would that caliphate guerilla war be going right now ?
Click to expand...

I would prefer a small presence to maintain stability and preserve life. Precisely what Obama decided against and therefore put us in this mess.
 
And what gets me is charges by you that yer President could care less about Iraq.
And the constant lies about polls when the coward Boehner stays out of DC and deserts the troops.
Afraid of what one of his caucus may say before the election .
US Conservative said:
What gets me is that Obama could care less about Iraq. He's only there now because of polls, and he will likely revert after the election.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
And what gets me is charges by you that yer President could care less about Iraq.
And the constant lies about polls when the coward Boehner stays out of DC and deserts the troops.
Afraid of what one of his caucus may say before the election .
Click to expand...

Fact-Obama pulled out of Iraq for politics in an election season. Fact-Obama's generals, as well as the Iraqi's warned him what could happen if he left. Fact-Obama knew about ISIS 2 years ago, and did nothing as they expanded and grew.

Sorry if the truth stings.
 
Whose sons and daugters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters are you willing to send to fight the war you advocate.
We've had enough of this Cheney/Rumsfeld loss of treasure and lives.
And the residuals left over from Iraq that were NEVER planned for .
US Conservative said:
I think we should-but ONLY with the resolve to fight the war. That means an extended presence, likely for decades. But thats after killing the enemy.
Click to expand...
 
US Conservative said:
Fact-Obama pulled out of Iraq for politics in an election season.
Click to expand...
Fact--Obama followed Bush's timeline and Maliki disengranchised the Sunnis who now fight for ISIL.
Sorry you won't face the real truth let alone address my previous facts .
 
Cryptic said:
Here is an ISIS fighter boasting that the air strikes are not militarily effective.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/meast/isis-fighter-and-defector-interviews/index.

Sadly, he is probably right. ISIS is an army of militiamen operating is relatively small groups whose main armoured vehicles are pick up trucks turned into Mad Max style "technicals". Most supplies- and they dont need alot, are requisitioned from the locals (voluntarily, forcibly or coerced) and transported in individual civilian trucks. Likewise, there are not alot of easily demarcated front lines in the fighting.

As the similarily orgainized Serbs demonstrated in Kosovo, these types of forces mix in with civilians and can be very difficult to identify and stop. Then factor in that ISIS includes members who are veterans of both Iraq and Afghan conflicts who probably have a long list produced list of "dos and donts" produced by Darwinism when it comes to avoiding precision airstrikes.

In short, my guess is that effective air strikes need US spotters on the ground.
Click to expand...

That is certainly right as far as the structure of the organization is concerned. But the full fledged assault of a territory or siege of a city can be quite effectively broken by air strikes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom