What Do We Really Know About The Islamic State?

OK, let me get this house cleaning out of the way before I proceed with the topic.
There are numerous definitions of what is currently referred to by the current conquerors as The Islamic State. So here are the two other more prominently used ones. First is the one preferred by the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the state department and that is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL. Then there is the one that much of the media uses and that is Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (which information on this is available at the link above) or ISIS.
For me, they refer to themselves as the Islamic State and that is what I will refer to them as. It is not meant to grant them legitimacy as much as to not get into any contest about names and the like.
The fundamental question of this post is germane and that is what do we know about the Islamic State?
Lets start with the numbers of men under arms for this wannabe nation.
Supposedly low estimates are about 10,000 to 15,000. In the link above it suggests that as many as 80,000 to 100,000 are under allegiance to the Islamic State.
Now look at the map below.

The red-colored areas are under control of the Islamic State. Most of the land is in Iraq, but the Islamic State began in Syria as a direct result of the civil war and divisions among the opponents of the Syrian dictator, Basaar al-Assad. Once they separated they supposedly had about 4,000 men under their black banner of death. What was once known as ISIS, then ISIL began an invasion of Iraq in June and the Iraqi army in the north fled like chickens with their heads cut off. Supposedly at the point of invasion, the forerunner to the Islamic State only had about 2,000 to 3,000 members.
Really?! An army that at the most only had 3,000 members chased an American-trained army away with little if any resistance? Very doubtful.
The fact that few people agree on the numbers of those under arms in the Islamic State is one of the reasons that we have no real clue in how to deal with these degenerates. One of the reasons that I find the higher figure to be more accurate is the willingness to throw men into battle so freely. Even if one counts religious fervor, there is no way a supposed rag-tag army could have seized so much land so quickly.
So, what is life like under the Islamic State?
Compared to Western life, it is clearly stifling and downright scary.
There is a five-part series on the news website Vice in which they have unprecedented access to life in the Islamic State. Here are links to all five episodes. I find this to be compelling that life in the Islamic State is wonderful if one is a Wahhabi-Sunni Islamic fanatic and male. Everyone else, eh not so much. Watch all five episodes and you will notice something mostly missing. Women. Women are treated not only like property but barely above how one would treat an animal. And male children are being very quickly indoctrinated into the bizarre world of Wahhabi-Sunni Islamic fanaticism.
One thing is very clear is that the Islamic State is a certifiable death cult. There is no doubt about it.
For instance, here are a couple of photos of what they do with captured Iraqi soldiers. This is not for the weak hearted.

 Yes, you are seeing correctly. Islamic State soldiers forcing captured Iraqi soldiers to lie face down in their graves as mostly masked executioners open fire and summarily murder them. No sir, these dudes are not real clued in on the Geneva Convention and the proper way to treat prisoners of war. Nah, why should they? They are infidels and they do not need to be treated as human beings. Animals are put down more humane than what these vermin do.
Pretty gross, wouldn't you say?
But no, my friends. The above is nothing.
Below is some of the Islamic State's real gruesome handiwork. Videotape beheading. I will not show any video but two photos will suffice.

Above is a sword and or a machete being placed on the throat of a victim.

And voila! Off with his head!
I will not show how far gone these degenerates are but these beheadings are not limited to men or soldiers of Iraq or Syria. Men, women and children have been beheaded. The most savageness usually is saved for Christians or other infidels such as the Yazidi. And for good measure, many heads are stuck on pikes or paraded around by children.
And leave it to these guys to bring back an oldie but a goo die.
Crucifixion.
Yes, these vermin are really low. But there is a somewhat decent side to these folks. Most of the crucifixions are done after people are killed. But every now and then, one just gets nailed to a cross and left to die.
As I said, these fanatics are a roving cult of death. And they are teaching a potential whole generation of youth the way of the sword.
So, life in the Islamic State is harsh and very primitive. The only things modern these cretins like are their guns, pickup trucks and video cameras to show the world their handiwork.
But its what we are not being told that should be worrisome.
To this writing, we still do not have a real number of the force that we, the United States, could be dealing with. It can be as low as 10,000 (doubtful) to as much as 100,000 (more probable). We do not really know all the weapons seized in their march through Iraq. If you watch part one of the Vice report from the Islamic State, they paraded at least a large missile, tanks and armored personnel carriers.
And here is something to make you sleep well tonight.
Islamic State forces seized the al-Taqba air base on August 24 and yes, they captured Syrian fighter planes. And today, they showed off their conquered prize: fighter planes.
Now we have been assured that the Islamic State forces are not all that big. That is proving false. We are being assured that they are spread thin and can't keep control of all they have. Again, this is false as they continue to, if nothing else, tighten their grip on what they do control and seem to be fighting hard to gain more land and people. And we are being assured that while they may have these fighter planes, they probably can't fly them. I don't think that is reassuring. Does anyone really think that they do not have at least some men in their ranks that have the capability to fly fighter planes? I am sure that among 10,000 to 100,000 men, at least one can fly a fighter plane. And if one can, surely more can as well.
Keep this in mind.
Tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Shanksville, Pennsylvania and Washington, D. C.
Does the Islamic State have a special surprise for the United States?
And back to the original question.
With all that we have been wrong about the Islamic State, what do we really know about the Islamic State?

The Islamic Caliphate Revealed

Today this map of the Middle East, Central and North Africa and a swath of Southern Europe appeared on The Daily Mail Facebook page.
It is a map of the Caliphate of the Islamic State as envisioned by the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq.
In this photo of the Islamic map as envisioned, it is in Arabic. But in this accompanied article, we are treated to the names of regions in English.

The above maps are a restoration of the Sunni Islamic Caliphate of the 7th century.
In the linked article, The Islamic State wants the map to be a reality within the next five years.
I suppose that many if not most of the brain trust in the Western world pretty much dismisses all of this as wishful thinking.
But these are the same people that did not see the rise of ISIS in the first place and how they all but became the dominant force in the Syrian civil war. And with their power expanded that war directly into Northern Iraq with little to any resistance. This is the current area under control of The Islamic State.

I do not know about you, but this is a very wide area under control of what we have been told is but a rag-tag army of maybe 10,000 men. And consider that as the Iraq army in Northern Iraq essentially turned tail and ran, The Islamic State obtained a lot of hardware including many, many American arms including HumVees and tanks and possibly fighter planes, and most important, new recruits.

When one puts all of that together, it does show the above caliphate map to be as The Daily Mail wrote, Chilling.

Maybe The Islamic State picked their battle in the weakest areas of the Middle East and by doing so are stronger than they appear.

But then what about this parade of the spoils of war? Does anyone think that The Islamic State does not have some people knowledgeable enough to use a SCUD missile? And forget that they would only be happy to do what Saddam Hussein did during the First Gulf War and lob some to Israel. They would be more than glad to use them against Shi'a fighters in Iraq. Needless to say that they also are freshly gaining conventional weaponry as well.

Make no mistake about this.

The Islamic State will make trouble around the region beyond what they control. They will try to undermine Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arabian peninsula. They will then try to wrest control of Lebanon from the Shi'a, Syrian and Hezbollah influence. At this writing, Lebanon has the largest Christian population in the region. If The Islamic State takes over, they will flee as fast as the Iraqi Christians are doing today.

But, as is wont of many Americans, there is a substantial minority that would like to bury it's collective head in the sand and retreat to a semi-Fortress America. While most of those who would, essentially, like to do nothing, are on the left, there is a substantial number of libertarians and yes, some conservatives that want us out of the region entirely. Many believe that the United States is simply blindly following an "Israeli" foreign policy. That if the United States was not so enamored with Israel, we might even get some love from those that are now our enemies.

Sadly, this is where they are wrong.

This radical Islamic hate for anything non-Islamic precedes the founding and, before that, settling of the United States. As the United States has developed and became the world's superpower, radical Islam sees the United States as a threat period. The nation's third president, Thomas Jefferson, had the first encounter with Islamics in Tripoli and this quote is worth reading. Pretty current, isn't it?

And as far as Israel goes, let me point out something that I have said before with this caveat. What I have said is actually happening before my scenario. If tomorrow, Israel ceased to exist for whatever reason, after the two minutes of joy among all of its enemies in the Arab, radical Islamic world, they would turn their guns on each other. That is what we are seeing now in Syria, Northern Iraq and between Sunni and Shi'a and everything else in between. There is even hope against hope among some that current allies of The Islamic State will turn against them because of their strict interpretation of Islam.

This the radical Islamic figures that eventually, they will just wear down those opposed to it. It may be on it's way in Western Europe. However there are people waking up to the real threat. Note that the map of The Islamic State goes to the. . .Gates of Vienna. That is why they fight. That is why they show the brutality. That is why they propagate fear to wear down opposition. Maybe this is why the army in Northern Iraq fled. They just are tired of fighting. Being that the current Iraq army is pretty corrupt (and the biggest mistake Team Bush made, disbanding the Iraqi army after ousting Saddam.)

and they are defending a predominantly Sunni area, many thought better to defend their Shi'a brethren in Baghdad and the south of the country than people in the north.

We in the United States have to take this The Islamic State seriously. The fact that they have such a wide swath of territory and are bold enough to proclaim their new caliphate is a serious matter. If they didn't have advanced weapons of war, they sure as hell do now with the retreat of the Iraqi army and leaving behind advanced American weaponry.

The caliphate has been revealed and the protagonists believe they can fulfill their dream in five years or less. The job of the West is not just to contain that threat but to defeat it.

 

 



 

The More We Know About Syria, The Less We Need To Get Involved With Bombing Or Any Other Military Action

The more that I hear the Dear Leader, President Obama, and even conservative supporters regarding bombing Syria for the use of chemical weapons the less inclined I am to support such a mission and oppose it stronger each and every day and more so by the hour.
Today in a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the G20 summit, the Dear Leader, President Obama, may have said one of the most idiotic things in regard to the situation yet. Here is the quote:

"Over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we fabricated, this is not something we are using as excuse for military action . . .I elected to to end wars, not start them."

Oh Dear Lord, this is douchbrainery on steroids.
Lets take the estimate of those killed in the attack.
According to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the number is over 1,400. Yet even in this article many do not believe that number and in fact believe that the numbers are less than 1,400. Granted some of that skepticism comes from Russia, an ally of the current Bashar Assad regime in Syria. But again in the article it suggests many leaders have skepticism about the claims.
But the whopper is the left's always fall back position whenever "action" needs to be done.
It's because or for the children.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, cited a number of over 400 who died being children.
It is an awful way for children that are innocent victims to die. No matter who was behind the attack. But my question for the Dear Leader, President Obama is this. What about the 98,000 plus that died as a result of conventional warfare? And the second question is what about the many children who died out of that 98,000? What their lives were not important until one side or the other used chem weapons? That is sure the implication I get from such a comment.
And the real zinger is why the Dear Leader, President Obama, thinks that he was elected.
To stop wars, not start them.
UGH!
Really that is a sophomoric comment because he is not starting a war but becoming an active participant in a civil war. A war that not only the majority of Americans oppose but one that is not in our national interest.
Again, understand that everyone in Syria just plain sucks.
The current dictator, Bashar Assad, is certainly no friend to the United States. He is allied as noted with Russia and worse, Iran. Assad is an Alawite Islamic which is an offshoot of Shi'a Islam. Alawites are serious Twelvers and like some Christians who believe in the End Times, these people do to from a radical Islamic perspective. And many would have no problem speeding up the Islamic End Times.
Oh, but those that oppose Assad, from the Free Syria Army, the least objectionable group to the Al-Nusra Front, well they are primarily Sunni Islamics and even worse than what is in power now.
While some proponents of bombing Syria, such as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, say the Free Syrian Army are pretty cool, they dismiss the other groups allied with the FSA as a minority. Well, like so many things Sen. "F--- You" McCain is wrong about, he is here too. In fact if you read this post I wrote and start adding the numbers, well they are roughly equal in numbers. The substantive difference is that the FSA were former members of the Assad armed forces.
And while both sides practice brutality, the rebels are really more brutal than people want to realize. Even the Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, reported on this yesterday when a former rebel smuggled video of an execution of seven Syrian soldiers. The following video does not show the actual execution but is graphic none the less. And it shows the dead soldiers being thrown in an unmarked grave.



.

But if that is not enough for you, here is Abu Sakkar a rebel fighter and watch what he does.

Yes, this sick degenerate eats the heart of a dead Syrian soldier.

And the Dear Leader, President Obama, our illustrious secretary of state, John F. Kerry (Reporting for duty*), Sen. John "F--- You" McCain want to shed American blood and treasure to support these bastards.

Again, ALL SIDES in this civil war suck. Not one is in the interests of the United States to see in power. But in this case, you have to go with the Devil you know against the people that we do not know about or want to bury our collective heads in sand and ignore. It is not just the atrocities but what the rebels could do once the overthrow, execute Assad and his family and implement. Radical Islam right on the Mediterranean Sea.

Yet those that want to attack Syria are planning, adjusting and refining what action the armed forces of the United States will take. No doubt it will be the navy with warships and aircraft carriers, and the air force. For now.

And remember, we do not know for certain who committed the chem weapon attack. We are asked to believe Team Obama and the rebels that it was the forces loyal to Assad blindly. Remember these people did not want to and did not blindly follow former president George W. Bush and the much more verifiable evidence of WMDs in Iraq, And also the fact that Saddam Hussein used the weapons and invaded another nation, Kuwait, in 1990. Without more absolute verifiability, we can not do what our president is asking us to support.

The more we know about the Syrian civil war, the more that we should not get involved in the matter that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new allies such as Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham. We need to continue to let our leaders know that We The People just say no to bombing or any other military action in Syria.

 

Why We Should Not Get Involved In Syria's Civil War

UPDATE:

To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.

09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:

YES
Sen.  Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)

NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen.  Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.