Islamic State releases new beheading

[cosmicalstorm]

Well don't go to Syria if you are white and / or have an American passport.

American hostage Steven Sotloff has reportedly been executed by jihadist terrorists. There was no immediate confirmation of the video.The video reportedly warns governments to back off from "this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State".

Sotloff, 31, disappeared while reporting in Syria in August 2013. His apparent kidnap was not widely reported until he appeared on a video released last month by the ISIL.

In the footage a masked militant beheads US reporter James Foley then parades Mr Sotloff, warning he will meet the same fate unless US President Barack Obama ends air strikes against the group in Iraq.

In the most recent video, British citizen David Cawthorne Haines is shown as the next beheading victim.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=04c_1409 ... hefVgZU.99

[TheHammer]

I have to wonder what they really hope to accomplish by these acts against the United States. If recent history has taught them anything its that violent acts and terroristic threats will only serve to piss off the American people and drum up support for more airstrikes not less. Giving the US more reason to use all the high-tech military toys at its disposal is about the dumbest thing for them to do at this point.

[Patroklos]

I think they are willing to let some of their pawns (some from the West at that) die in small scale largely symbolic airstrikes if it lets them show how ineffective the western response is overall. ISIL largely holds most of what it had in Iraq today and is still doing whatever it pleases in Syria. To their rank and file they are snubbing their nose at the powers of the world and doing as they please. Its probably a big rush from their point of view.

Now whether this all proves to be nothing more than a self congratulatory circle jerk on their part, the same but actually instigates a swift and decisive action of some sort by their enemies, or the same but actually provides some tangible benefit in the form of recruiting, funding generation or battlefield success has yet to be determined.

Brutality is a two edged sword, it can scare your foes into submission or galvanize their resolve. People may chose to submit to a ruthless battlefield enemy that is moderated in their governance, but there is little point in submitting to a fantic death cult.

[Thanas]

I have to wonder what they really hope to accomplish by these acts against the United States. If recent history has taught them anything its that violent acts and terroristic threats will only serve to piss off the American people and drum up support for more airstrikes not less. Giving the US more reason to use all the high-tech military toys at its disposal is about the dumbest thing for them to do at this point.

They get a significant part, if not all, of their funding from rich saudis who want to see the USA humiliated and opposed. ISIS does that very well right now. ISIS also knows that Obama will not commit ground troops, so they don't really have that much to fear, because unless the USA will partner with Syria there is no army around that really can hurt them. So it is a win-win for them in any case. More US bombs = more US expenditure = more martyrs for the cause = more money from Saudis.

There is no way ISIS can lose here until the USA escalates to the sort of aerial effort of Desert Storm and that is something the USA is unwilling (or unable) to do right now. And even if the US does, there is no way it will do anything unless the Kurds, Iraqis or Syrians start winning ground back.

[Tony Stark]

Isn't it simply that the more the US bombs the more they can drum up support from the locals? Plus the money keeps coming in.

[Patroklos]

In a sense yes, but there are many flavors of locals and some are all about bombing even if others are not just like some were all about ISIL invading in the first place while others were not.

[TheHammer]

I have to wonder what they really hope to accomplish by these acts against the United States. If recent history has taught them anything its that violent acts and terroristic threats will only serve to piss off the American people and drum up support for more airstrikes not less. Giving the US more reason to use all the high-tech military toys at its disposal is about the dumbest thing for them to do at this point.

They get a significant part, if not all, of their funding from rich saudis who want to see the USA humiliated and opposed. ISIS does that very well right now. ISIS also knows that Obama will not commit ground troops, so they don't really have that much to fear, because unless the USA will partner with Syria there is no army around that really can hurt them. So it is a win-win for them in any case. More US bombs = more US expenditure = more martyrs for the cause = more money from Saudis.

There is no way ISIS can lose here until the USA escalates to the sort of aerial effort of Desert Storm and that is something the USA is unwilling (or unable) to do right now. And even if the US does, there is no way it will do anything unless the Kurds, Iraqis or Syrians start winning ground back.

I guess that's my point really. Acts like these tend to sway public opinion toward decisive action rather than the limited strikes they had seen. The use of beheading, particularly of Americans, is to the American public a blatant declaration that "Yes I/we are terrorists". Its at that point numerous people on the fence pick a side, and polls for military action swing towards "in favor of". History has shown time and again that if you get yourself "on tv" in this manner that eventually, the drones will be coming for you. It seems to me the smartest course of action is to go the "freedom fighter" route, and make it difficult politically for the US to intervene.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I have to wonder what they really hope to accomplish by these acts against the United States. If recent history has taught them anything its that violent acts and terroristic threats will only serve to piss off the American people and drum up support for more airstrikes not less. Giving the US more reason to use all the high-tech military toys at its disposal is about the dumbest thing for them to do at this point.

Beheading Americans isn't for American consumption. They know that American hostages are financially worthless (we don't negotiate with terrorists,) and just letting them go won't make the American government any less-inclined to launch Hellfires at them with drones. Therefore, beheading American hostages is done solely for extremist consumption. It sends a message to would-be radicals thinking about becoming extremist fighters ("We're not afraid of the Americans! We won't go all wishy-washy on you!") It also demonstrates to their rich Gulf Arab backers that they're getting good value for their money, for the reasons Thanas already outlined.

[Thanas]

I guess that's my point really. Acts like these tend to sway public opinion toward decisive action rather than the limited strikes they had seen. The use of beheading, particularly of Americans, is to the American public a blatant declaration that "Yes I/we are terrorists". Its at that point numerous people on the fence pick a side, and polls for military action swing towards "in favor of". History has shown time and again that if you get yourself "on tv" in this manner that eventually, the drones will be coming for you. It seems to me the smartest course of action is to go the "freedom fighter" route, and make it difficult politically for the US to intervene.

I very much doubt Obama has the stomach or money to send that many US forces into combat. We are talking a whole different kind of strike than sending a few drones into Somalia to bomb some leaders. We are talking here about a bombing offensive of several weeks, followed by even more sorties in ground support. I doubt the Iraqis are able of such a feat of combined arms, meaning you'd need to have american troops on the ground. That is something Obama will not do, he will not go back on his word to get out of Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the USA could deploy a few forces (one division might even be enough) and defeat ISIS. But what then? Will they stay to hold that territory? Do you really think that will happen?

And besides, "freedom fighter" is not what rich Saudis are paying for these days. Otherwise we would see the "sane" islamic rebels in Syria flourishing and not ISIS. The US reluctance to go hard on terror financiers is what enables the whole problem but there is not a chance Obama will go after the money trail.

[Frank the Tank]

The ironic thing is that ISIS/ISIL likely wouldn't exist in any robust form without the invasion of Iraq. It's possible the Syrian Civil War would still have erupted, but my understanding is a great deal of the financing and support for that uprising came about as a direct result of insurgencies in Iraq. Saddam Hussein may have been an evil son of a bitch, but at least he was fairly predictable and sane.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, there's a real chance that his state would have fallen apart at the seams after his death. And it's hard to predict how long he would have lived; if he were alive today he'd be... 77 years old, I think.

That said, you are essentially correct, I think- the invasion created a power vacuum that opportunists could use. One of the many arguments for not randomly invading people's countries out of some vague notion of 'making the Middle East safe for democracy' or whatever.

[Channel72]

I guess that's my point really. Acts like these tend to sway public opinion toward decisive action rather than the limited strikes they had seen. The use of beheading, particularly of Americans, is to the American public a blatant declaration that "Yes I/we are terrorists". Its at that point numerous people on the fence pick a side, and polls for military action swing towards "in favor of". History has shown time and again that if you get yourself "on tv" in this manner that eventually, the drones will be coming for you. It seems to me the smartest course of action is to go the "freedom fighter" route, and make it difficult politically for the US to intervene.

I very much doubt Obama has the stomach or money to send that many US forces into combat. We are talking a whole different kind of strike than sending a few drones into Somalia to bomb some leaders. We are talking here about a bombing offensive of several weeks, followed by even more sorties in ground support. I doubt the Iraqis are able of such a feat of combined arms, meaning you'd need to have american troops on the ground. That is something Obama will not do, he will not go back on his word to get out of Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the USA could deploy a few forces (one division might even be enough) and defeat ISIS. But what then? Will they stay to hold that territory? Do you really think that will happen?

And besides, "freedom fighter" is not what rich Saudis are paying for these days. Otherwise we would see the "sane" islamic rebels in Syria flourishing and not ISIS. The US reluctance to go hard on terror financiers is what enables the whole problem but there is not a chance Obama will go after the money trail.

I think you're wrong. Again, as I've said numerous times, ISIS has no fucking friends other than their anonymous "Saudi backers". (BTW, there are as many members of the house of Saud who would love to see ISIS eradicated.) Iran doesn't like ISIS, and by extension Russia doesn't like ISIS, the EU doesn't like ISIS, the USA doesn't like ISIS, the Kurds don't like ISIS, and like 60% of Iraqis don't like ISIS either, etc. ISIS has literally alienated the entire world with their unrelenting brutality and puritanical values.

Fucking nobody, except fanatical Sunni extremists (which unfortunately, includes some GCC billionaires as well as European expatriates) wants ISIS around. I don't think ISIS has a chance in hell, whether or not Obama decides to commit serious military force. ISIS won't last beyond January 2015.

[Thanas]

I'd be very surprised if ISIS collapses before that time.

[Channel72]

Well, we'll see I suppose. I'll likely come up with some excuse/justification if it doesn't happen. (Just kidding, feel free to mock me ruthlessly if I'm wrong)

[TheHammer]

I guess that's my point really. Acts like these tend to sway public opinion toward decisive action rather than the limited strikes they had seen. The use of beheading, particularly of Americans, is to the American public a blatant declaration that "Yes I/we are terrorists". Its at that point numerous people on the fence pick a side, and polls for military action swing towards "in favor of". History has shown time and again that if you get yourself "on tv" in this manner that eventually, the drones will be coming for you. It seems to me the smartest course of action is to go the "freedom fighter" route, and make it difficult politically for the US to intervene.

I very much doubt Obama has the stomach or money to send that many US forces into combat. We are talking a whole different kind of strike than sending a few drones into Somalia to bomb some leaders. We are talking here about a bombing offensive of several weeks, followed by even more sorties in ground support. I doubt the Iraqis are able of such a feat of combined arms, meaning you'd need to have american troops on the ground. That is something Obama will not do, he will not go back on his word to get out of Iraq.

Obama has plenty of stomach for it. And the beheading videos have essentially served to get both Democrats and Republicans to both agree that military action is needed. Essentially, this reaction is exactly the one I've said it would have been wise for them to avoid. More forces are already being deployed... And no worries, we will always find the money. Building munitions and military components is one of the few things we haven't outsourced. Money spent there is money spent creating American Jobs. Besides, the pentagon was already planning to destroy about a billion dollars worth of munitions this year.

And I expect that's only the start. See, while the general US consensus was that this was a middle eastern matter, one that we would prefer to stay out of, publicly beheading American journalists are quick to change that.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the USA could deploy a few forces (one division might even be enough) and defeat ISIS. But what then? Will they stay to hold that territory? Do you really think that will happen?

Hold territory? No, we'll let the next tinpot dictator/warlord take over and crush the people under his boot so long as he doesn't cross us. What the US will do is destroy ISIS capability to take and hold territory itself, leaving them like every other rag tag terrorist group, hiding from US drone strikes.

And Yes I think it will happen. Do you really think Obama and affiliate congress critters are going to let ISIS embarrass the US on international TV without retribution?

"Those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget ... that our reach is long and that justice will be served..."

That may sound like jingoistic dick waving, and that's because to an extent it is. But that makes it no less of a fact.

And besides, "freedom fighter" is not what rich Saudis are paying for these days. Otherwise we would see the "sane" islamic rebels in Syria flourishing and not ISIS. The US reluctance to go hard on terror financiers is what enables the whole problem but there is not a chance Obama will go after the money trail.

Alive and poor, or dead swimming in cash. I guess that's the choice they have to make.

Take Ukraine for example. You've got Russia taking more and more chunks of it, lying about it at the same time, but for the Average American we ask "Why should we give a shit? Ukraine IS Russia as far as we're concerned." If Putin were going on live TV though and publicly executing American Journalists, suddenly you'd see quite a different story. ISIS could have had the same deal - Most Americans were content to let them have their little kingdom of sand and rocks so long as they didn't cross us or appear to be too insane. Now, they've fucked that up and the writing is on the wall. Its only a matter of time at this point.

[Tribble]

Thanas is essentially correctly here. No matter what the response, ISIS wins.

USA refuses to escalate? ISIS wins, as they have proven that they can kill Americans with impunity.
USA escalates their attacks? ISIS wins, as every civilian casualty will just encourage more people to join it (or another extremist group).

[Borgholio]

every civilian casualty will just encourage more people to join

Are there any numbers on civilian casualties suffered when we have attacked ISIS? It always seemed like we were targeting units that were out in the desert for the most part, where there would not be any civilians.

[TheHammer]

Thanas is essentially correctly here. No matter what the response, ISIS wins.

USA refuses to escalate? ISIS wins, as they have proven that they can kill Americans with impunity.
USA escalates their attacks? ISIS wins, as every civilian casualty will just encourage more people to join it (or another extremist group).

What a laughable way to look at it...

ISIS itself has been brutalizing the populations under its control. They aren't going to be viewed as the saviors of the people. In fact, I'd expect at least an equal number would blame them as much as anyone else for any civilian deaths. And I think we've learned that in a situation like this the US will always escalate. Its politically impossible not to. If you're at the top of the organization with a target on its back you lose. You might be a short term annoyance to the United States, but the empire marches on long after you've been squashed. Does ISIS accomplish its goals by having the US destroy their ability to hold a territory? No, their stated goal is to establish an Islamic State. You can't do that if you have no means of enforcing your rule. If their organization does survive, it does so a shell of its former self. Some other organization may rise up after it, but if they fail to learn the lessons ISIS failed to learn their fate will be the same.

And if anyone still doubts US resolve, the President stated that tye US will "Destory ISIS", and the VP just said in a speech that we will "pursue them to the gates of hell". That's not rhetoric to be taken lightly...

[Channel72]

Yeah, I agree with Hammer. More US intervention isn't any sort of "win" for ISIS. The only "win" they had was taking over Mosul. Now they're losing territory. And US air strikes certainly aren't convincing any Kurds or Shi'a to take up arms alongside ISIS. Most Iraqis want ISIS gone.

Even if the US decided to sit back and do nothing, how long do you think ISIS would last if Iran decided to invade in order to take control of Mesopotamia save their Shia brethren?

And if anyone still doubts US resolve, the President stated that tye US will "Destory ISIS", and the VP just said in a speech that we will "pursue them to the gates of hell". That's not rhetoric to be taken lightly...

Meh... Bush said the same about bin Laden, and then gave up/lost interest. Rhetoric is meaningless.

But overall, I agree that Obama is pretty committed to continuing a campaign of air strikes, which, along with the Kurds and Iraqi army, will probably reduce ISIS to irrelevancy within a few months.

[Borgholio]

I think ISIS would crumple if Iran invaded. They do have a rather large military and they won't care about civilian casualties. The only hard part will getting them to leave once ISIS is gone.

[K. A. Pital]

I will come back to this thread in 2015, guys, and I will see what happens. If your predictions are wrong...

[Channel72]

I will come back to this thread in 2015, guys, and I will see what happens. If your predictions are wrong...

I think I'm the only one who mentioned a specific timeframe. So you can mock me if I'm wrong... but really, I just don't see any likely path of success or sustainability for ISIS. They have Saudi backers? Who cares? So did the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Throwing money at something isn't equivalent to getting what you want all the time. The interests aligned against ISIS far outweight factors in their favor.

Given the rate that the US is escalating airstrikes, and the recent ground victory from the Iraqis, I think 4 to 5 months more for ISIS is a reasonable estimate, but I wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed a lot quicker.

[Elheru Aran]

These things take time. The US Govt is currently hot and heavy right now to squish the IS, but next week some celebrity is going to be talking about vaccines or some other stupid BS and the public will have forgotten about it until the next atrocity pops up.

Obama only has about another couple of years in office, and he's going to be extremely cautious about blackening the last part of his term with another invasion of the Middle East. Drones and air strikes, yes; boots on the ground, apart from perhaps a strike team like the guys who killed Bin Laden, possibly not. It would take something more extreme such as, say, IS attacking Baghdad or attacking Israel directly, for him to commit troops.

Not that I think the IS would attack Israel. They have to be aware of Israel's policy of disproportionate retaliation. They probably make noises about 'the illegal Zionist aliens' or some such, but I doubt they'd even consider it seriously unless they managed to amass a serious army and get the Kurds out of their hair.

The IS has to be aware that venturing outside the rough Syria-Iraq area that they've been fighting in will bring retaliation from one country or another upon their heads. The Iranians won't shy from coming down on them, and the Kuwaitis and Saudis are a couple of well-placed phone calls away from American air strikes. The Kurds have them in their sights already as they've started getting into that turf. Nobody is willing to go far enough east to get into Afghanistan (and to do that they would have to cross through Iran anyway, or sail the Persian Gulf).

Frankly, all the US needs is a serious reason that holds public interest more than a few days. Before then, it's quite possible Iran, a loose coalition of Arab powers, or even the Israelis, will come down on them. When all is said and done, the IS is ultimately a small extremist group that has managed to build up an army of reasonably loyal followers, take some territory in Syria and Iraq, and make loud noises. They have not attained anything near the status of a nation, and if the surrounding countries have their way, they never will.

[Thanas]

Obama has plenty of stomach for it.

Don't make me laugh.

And I expect that's only the start. See, while the general US consensus was that this was a middle eastern matter, one that we would prefer to stay out of, publicly beheading American journalists are quick to change that.

Oh please. Up until 9/11 the US response has always been to bomb and not to invade.

And Yes I think it will happen. Do you really think Obama and affiliate congress critters are going to let ISIS embarrass the US on international TV without retribution?

Yes. Just like the US routinely lets itself get embarrassed on national TV.

"Those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget ... that our reach is long and that justice will be served..."

That may sound like jingoistic dick waving, and that's because to an extent it is. But that makes it no less of a fact.

Oh yes, I suppose democracy in Iraq was also established. After all, somebody said so in a nice speech. Just like Obama said he would stay in Afghanistan until the job was done, or that he would close Gitmo or that he would not let Putin take Ukraine's east....yes yes.

[Channel72]

Thanas, I'm not even sure what your point is.

TheHammer's flag-waving rhetoric aside, he's essentially correct. Releasing these videos was a really stupid move - the only way for ISIS to have any long-term success is to make sure the US and it's allies just don't give a fuck. By making all this noise and publically beheading Americans, the only thing they've done is create more political pressure for Obama to give a fuck.

And... that's exactly what has happened. Obama is now calling for an increase in air strikes, the UK is considering airstrikes as well. ISIS already lost the dam and Amerli, etc. It's only a matter of time now before ISIS is yesterday's news.