Nigee,

You have been docked 100 abge points.

Told you he was a tosser...

@semck,

I was quoting the first sentence of the site rules, I hope you've read them...

I occasionally lock threads relating game side issues, ie ongoing gunboat, advertising live games, and every time I sign the post. I do not silence people, haven't since well before Zultar took over. That's his jurisdiction. And no, I don't ban people for things on the forum. Though I will occasionally be the front person for decisions made by the entire moderator team as the senior admin. As far as I am aware, there has never been a ban based solely on forum content (advertisements for lamps, etc being the exception).

"As far as I am aware, there has never been a ban based solely on forum content"
Good to hear it .... so I can carry on abusing abge, we all know that smug bastard deserves it

Nigee, when you learn to love me, you'll learn to love yourself.

#FuckThucy

I'm not sure if I should respond to SYnapse as he's banned and perhaps I shouldn't engage with what he said at all, but I'm concerned that others may share his critical view of me. So:

"Oh no, a rich white guy died! It wasn't barbaric last week when 80 people were beheaded in the town square Jamie?"

Yes, that was barbaric too. I'm not the one who created this thread. Of course the other murders perpetrated by IS are also barbaric. However, this thread is about the journalist who was killed (or it was until it became a thread about how SYnapse is a nuisance and Abgemacht is a +1 whore).

The murder of a journalist is a particularly worrying. If it was not for brave war reporters like Mr. Foley, you wouldn't even know about the 80 beheadings, because there would have been no-one to report about them.

"Good to hear it .... so I can carry on abusing abge, we all know that smug bastard deserves it"
Of course what I meant to say is that he is a good egg and that we are lucky to have him, his on-going presence on this site brings a sense of perspective and sobriety to what can be a crazy and unpredictable environ, sometimes I get my words mixed up

Semck The Legalist is here to protect the santicity of board-game website volunteer moderator professionalism once again. What a relief

Yeah Thucy, I'm definitely the guy who's always arguing for more rules on the forum and asking for stricter enforcement. Legalist all the way.

I've been watching some of the news coverage of this, and one thing I find very interesting is that the major media outlets won't play the video.

I'm not talking about the beheading - I don't want to see that. I'm talking about the words that the ISIS people are speaking. I want to hear them say why they are doing this, not some talking head's filtered version.

The fact that I'm being "protected" from such sensitive information alone is enough to make me wonder about a great many things. What is it that I'm not supposed to hear?

I get that, YJ. But perhaps they just don't want to reward them with that much of a voice? "Kill an American journalist, get your message played live on Cable TV!" Not the best message.

The strangest thing about the rise of the Islamic State is how we aren't panicking more. This is an unmitigated disaster. All of upper Mesopotamia is ruled by a death cult that wants to impose brutal religious law on as much of the world as they can conquer. They have the resources to launch as spectacular a terrorist attack in the West as their imaginations can conceive due to the oil money they rake in every day. It's crazy how lackadaisical the world is being about this.

This makes the communists winning in China or the Shah being overthrown in Iran look like when you get the shopping cart with the bad wheel at the super market.

That's a gross overestimate Invictus. IS do not own ALL of upper msopotamia, but largely throughways between Syria and western Iraq. They can do this because they are largely a mobile force that is spreading across the great flat plains in that area. They can't go much further north or south because the geography is much more rocky and full of hills and mountains, areas where their trucks and other vehicles won't work. Their foreign reach is severely limited by their local aspirations. We havent seen an IS attack outside their region because they simply don't have the force projection to do so.

They will not spread much further precisely due to geography and because they are still a very undisciplined and underequipped force. They're still getting their ass beat by the Syrian army and are starting to lose their gains in Iraq because of air strikes they cannot counter.

and that's without going into the basic sunni vs shia support structures that help them along. IS exists only because they are backed by local militias in the sunni triangle. Outside this area, they aren't going to have an easy time conquering and holding land or winning supporters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg

Sure looks like all of upper Mesopotamia to me. Or at least more that a collection of "throughways."

As for force projection, they have captured vast amounts of American military equipment. Basically everything the Iraqi Army had on their bases. So it could very easily be that they are just biding their time before a decisive strike on the Kurds, Baghdad, Aleppo, or anyplace else.

"They're still getting their ass beat by the Syrian army and are starting to lose their gains in Iraq because of air strikes they cannot counter."

Assad is about to lose his last military base in Mesopotamia to the Islamic State. The only real gains in Iraq so far have been to get them off the Mosul dam.

And even if you're right that they won't grow more, there's still no sign that they are headed towards defeat. We won't see national armies marching through a liberated Raqqah or Mosul any time soon.

lmao that's quite a map. Here's something a bit more realistic
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/140611_ISISmapiraq06102014.jpg

from here:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/11/the_beginning_of_a_caliphate_the_spread_of_ISIS_in_five_maps#img2

"As for force projection, they have captured vast amounts of American military equipment. Basically everything the Iraqi Army had on their bases. So it could very easily be that they are just biding their time before a decisive strike on the Kurds, Baghdad, Aleppo, or anyplace else."

Ah yes, the ol' waiting for the perfect moment to strike. Fact is that the majority of these vehicles were armored humvees, which still blow up all the same, and some troop carriers and tanks which they can certainly drive but would be untrained in combat for. They'd be mince meat against any real armor brigade. And they have been attacking the Kurds for a few weeks now and were close to the norther capital of Irbil but have been repulsed by US air strikes.

As for Assad, IS is still largely stuck in the northern bit of Syria where the fighting has stalled for months, even before they grew into prominence. The capture of the army base was inevitable because it's kind of situated in IS hotbed territory.

And you're right, it's going to take a while, but it's inevitable. IS simply don't have staying power.

They may not continue to grow as far as the land they control, but their numbers will always increase.

always? as in forever? into eternity? what makes you say that?

Your map is from June 10. Mine's August 16. Yours doesn't even have their advance to the Jordan border, for crying out loud.

It's not just humvees. It's everything. Everything the Iraq Army had, these people have. That how they got so close to Erbil to begin with.

The Islamic State isn't "stuck" in the norther bit of Syria. It rules a third of the country.

It's not inevitable that they are defeated. In fact, they probably can't be without a large ground invasion, which is politically impossible for the West.

"Your map is from June 10. Mine's August 16. Yours doesn't even have their advance to the Jordan border, for crying out loud."

You're right but my map is more realistic in its assessment, which is what I was trying to show. ISIS do not control large blocks of land like your map asserts. Their control is largely limited along the pathways throughout the country, major highways, villages along the Euphrates, etc. Your map seems like an effort at scare-mongering.

"It's not just humvees. It's everything. Everything the Iraq Army had, these people have. That how they got so close to Erbil to begin with."

You said American military equipment, which was primarily humvees, bradelys, abrams, etc. Light equipment as well for sure but that doesn't exactly change things.

"The Islamic State isn't "stuck" in the norther bit of Syria. It rules a third of the country."

And haven't made any advancements in territory south in months.

"It's not inevitable that they are defeated. In fact, they probably can't be without a large ground invasion, which is politically impossible for the West"

Uh yeah, it is inevitable dude, one way or another. No one wants these dudes around, including many neighboring Arab states

Guys, the reason I created this thread was not because killing an American is any worse than anyone else, but because I was wondering how it would affect US action. To quote the OP,
"How will this impact the US intervention with the IS?"

Notice I didn't say, "oh, now the IS is so terrible because they started killing Americans." This was only to discuss the affect on US policy.

"always? as in forever? into eternity? what makes you say that?"

The steady flow of Muslim men from Europe and other parts of the world, for one. The fact that the restoration of the caliphate is something that a huge amount of Muslims support in the abstract, and if Ibrahim keeps winning he keeps gaining legitimacy as basically the pope of Islam.

Everything you're saying, Chairman Shen-Ji Yang, is supporting my initial point. People are much too relaxed about what's going in along the Tigris and Euphrates right now. Things are very, very bad.

here is something more up to date for just Iraq itself but it hits at my point.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QBuUugVGAac/U_JaY2AiWMI/AAAAAAAABts/zn_C8c3WWpc/s1600/2014-08-%2B18%2BControl%2BZone%2BMap.png%2BHIGH-01.png

"The steady flow of Muslim men from Europe and other parts of the world, for one. The fact that the restoration of the caliphate is something that a huge amount of Muslims support in the abstract, and if Ibrahim keeps winning he keeps gaining legitimacy as basically the pope of Islam.

Everything you're saying, Chairman Shen-Ji Yang, is supporting my initial point. People are much too relaxed about what's going in along the Tigris and Euphrates right now. Things are very, very bad. "

It's fairly clear you're way over-estimating their impact because you're taking your news from cable media sources. The flow of foreign fighters fluctuates but will not be enough to support them perpetually; they need a local basis or they just become another shoot-and-hide insurgency. The caliphate is in name only and you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims adhere to the IS's special brand of Wahhabism.

""How will this impact the US intervention with the IS?""

More bombing, maybe more direct influence from special forces units, but just today Obama stood by his no ground troops policy. That's about it.

"You're right but my map is more realistic in its assessment, which is what I was trying to show. ISIS do not control large blocks of land like your map asserts. Their control is largely limited along the pathways throughout the country, major highways, villages along the Euphrates, etc. Your map seems like an effort at scare-mongering."

You forget this all is taking place in an areas where wide sawths of land are uninhabited desert. The Islamic State controlling the areas you mention MEANS it controls the places people live. You're nitpicking in the extreme.


"You said American military equipment, which was primarily humvees, bradelys, abrams, etc. Light equipment as well for sure but that doesn't exactly change things."

Link? And tanks are not "light equipment."


"And haven't made any advancements in territory south in months."

Because they were planning the wildly successful attack on Iraq. So now they have a third of that country too. They also have steadily been consolidating their hold on Syrian territory.


"Uh yeah, it is inevitable dude, one way or another. No one wants these dudes around, including many neighboring Arab states"

People do want them around. That's why they have endured as they have. That's why they advanced as they did. That's why people keep joining.

And who's going to remove them?

"The caliphate is in name only and you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims adhere to the IS's special brand of Wahhabism."

It's not in name only. What else would he need? He controls territory. He has support from some religious authorities. It's a done deal.

I never said all Muslims were Wahabis. I said a huge amount support the idea of a caliphate in the abstract. If Ibrahim keeps winning he keeps gaining legitmacy, and that pushes more people to join him.

"You forget this all is taking place in an areas where wide sawths of land are uninhabited desert. The Islamic State controlling the areas you mention MEANS it controls the places people live. You're nitpicking in the extreme."

Uh no I didn't forget that, that's actually exactly what I'm trying to point out. That's why I'm posting more realistic assessments of their control. Your map has them effectively manning large swaths of desert. Just because some wiki editor used the fill tool in paint doesn't make it so.

"Link? And tanks are not "light equipment.""

I didn't include tanks as light equipment. Light equipment is stuff like small arms, body armor, radio stuff, etc. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Here's your link
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-military-equipment-breakdown-2014-7?op=1

"Because they were planning the wildly successful attack on Iraq. So now they have a third of that country too. They also have steadily been consolidating their hold on Syrian territory."

Where you see maniacal planning I see looking for a way out. And they don;'t own a third of Iraq, give me a break.

"People do want them around. That's why they have endured as they have. That's why they advanced as they did. That's why people keep joining.

And who's going to remove them? "

Oh yeah I forgot that all insurgencies follow Moore's Law. If they increase in the past they'll increase in the future for sure!!

And the better question is who is removing them. A combination of US air power, ISF, Kurdish forces along with Iranian support is what's working now. We'll see what happens in the future.

As I said before, you're making my initial point.