Bye Bye Baghdaddy!

SEPT 23 1989

Gael23 wrote: »

How were his remains disposed of?

Dogs can work up quite an appetite after an operation like that

Signore Fancy Pants

Turbo Bro wrote: »

Imagine being that much of a soyboy that you get offended over Trump calling the leader of ISIS a coward and a dog.

Imagine not being able to comprehend that the poster isnt in fact "offended" but actually right that Trumps word choice may spark potential global co-ordinated ISIS attacks in MENA, Asia and Europe.

Physically losing their territorial Caliphate in addition to losing their ideological figurehead, compounded by insults will have a tangible kinetic echo.

ISIS will want to show the World that they are not defeated. How do you do that? Widespread, low capability, asymetric attacks on western interests.

jmreire

Gael23 wrote: »

How were his remains disposed of?

In a situation like that, large blast in a confined space, I'd say that there were not a lot of remain's to dispose of.....

Spencerfreeman

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Imagine not being able to comprehend that the poster isnt in fact "offended" but actually right that Trumps word choice may spark potential global co-ordinated ISIS attacks in MENA, Asia and Europe.

Physically losing their territorial Caliphate in addition to losing their ideological figurehead, compounded by insults will have a tangible kinetic echo.

ISIS will want to show the World that they are not defeated. How do you do that? Widespread, low capability, asymetric attacks on western interests.

Trump has also disrupted their funding and arms supply put in place by McCain and others so probably less likely.
In any case to try to blame Trump for future attacks on the basis of the words he used is asinine.

jmreire

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Imagine not being able to comprehend that the poster isnt in fact "offended" but actually right that Trumps word choice may spark potential global co-ordinated ISIS attacks in MENA, Asia and Europe.

Physically losing their territorial Caliphate in addition to losing their ideological figurehead, compounded by insults will have a tangible kinetic echo.

ISIS will want to show the World that they are not defeated. How do you do that? Widespread, low capability, asymetric attacks on western interests.

As sure as God made green apples...there will be repercussions. If anyone had access to isis chatter on the net, I'd say that it's fairly hopping now with talk of revenge for their latest "Martyr's".

SEPT 23 1989

Eventually in time when the history books are written people will realise what Donald has done for peace on the global stage in his eight years of power

The damage Obama and his cronies did to the Middle East and the knock on effects in Europe will be the talking point for decades to come

Spencerfreeman

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Eventually in time when the history books are written people will realise what Donald has done for peace on the global stage in his eight years of power

The damage Obama and his cronies did to the Middle East and the knock on effects in Europe will be the talking point for decades to come

Good post, sanity will prevail!
I do worry that he may get involved in a war with Iran during his 2nd term.

jmreire

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Trump has also disrupted their funding and arms supply put in place by McCain and others so probably less likely.
In any case to try to blame Trump for future attacks on the basis of the words he used is asinine.

If you were speaking about any other people or group's except isis and their equal's, I'd agree with you, but these guys take their Islam and their martyr's seriously. And if you act or speak disparagingly about them, they will react. Remember Charlie Hebdo?

Gynoid

jmreire wrote: »

If you were speaking about any other people or group's except isis and their equal's, I'd agree with you, but these guys take their Islam and their martyr's seriously. And if you act or speak disparagingly about them, they will react. Remember Charlie Hebdo?

I think these people try to react anyway, all the time. There is constant disruption of terror plans ongoing all the time in Europe as far as I can make out.

Spencerfreeman

jmreire wrote: »

If you were speaking about any other people or group's except isis and their equal's, I'd agree with you, but these guys take their Islam and their martyr's seriously. And if you act or speak disparagingly about them, they will react. Remember Charlie Hebdo?

I agree, but I don't think speaking nicely will make any difference is all.

SEPT 23 1989

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Good post, sanity will prevail!
I do worry that he may get involved in a war with Iran during his 2nd term.

Only as the very last resort

If there is a deal to be done it will be done

What makes me laugh is the left whatever that means now seem to want war, boots kept on the ground with the usual poor working class kids coming home in boxes

He is not having any of it

Spencerfreeman

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Only as the very last resort

If there is a deal to be done it will be done

What makes me laugh is the left whatever that means now seem to want war, boots kept on the ground with the usual poor working class kids coming home in boxes

He is not having any of it

It's now easier to spot the war mongers on the left, but not yet as easy to identify the ones on the right.

I agree on the deal thing, he did publicly warn benny the yahoo to expect to compromise.
As he said "I'm keeping promises that I didn't even make".

Igotadose

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Only as the very last resort

If there is a deal to be done it will be done

What makes me laugh is the left whatever that means now seem to want war, boots kept on the ground with the usual poor working class kids coming home in boxes

He is not having any of it

Really? Didn't he just send a bunch of troops to Saudi Arabia?

Or, were those a deal as the Saudis (who have denied it) are supposedly paying for it?

Spencerfreeman

The big question is, I can't find anything, is the dog alright?

Signore Fancy Pants

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Trump has also disrupted their funding and arms supply put in place by McCain and others so probably less likely.
In any case to try to blame Trump for future attacks on the basis of the words he used is asinine.

Well tbh, "disrupting arms supplies" only lessens the chance of a sustained ISIS insurgency...it does not prevent or lessen low capability attacks.

ISIS are not short of small arms nor components for the construction of various types of IED's. Nothing has changed there.

Its also not a case of "blaming Trump for future attacks", attacks are going to happen regardless. However, there will be a definitive link between the killing of al-Baghdadi and Trumps rhetoric, to think there wont be...is actually asinine.

I'm not an anti-Trump or an anti-U.S commentator, I am unbiased but can clearly identify a knock on effect. Rhetoric is as powerful as kinetic action, sometimes even more so.

Look at it this way, Trump thanked Russia and Turkey for not interfering with the U.S operation. Russia then announced that they had no prior knowledge and no radar confirmation (of 15+ aircraft and an airstike) in Idlib on the night in question. They have also suggested that it did not happen at all.

Why would Russia do that? They have multiple S-300 and S-400 air defence and radar systems very close to the attack site which would very clearly show air activity.

Russia have distanced themselves from the U.S operation because they dont want to get a whack or be targeted by ISIS. They have been subject to at least 2 ISIS IED attacks in southern Syria and 1 in central Syria over the last 3 months. They have now moved more troops into Raqqa and al-Hasakah where over 10 ISIL IED attacks have occurred in the last 2 weeks.

So yes, U.S actions and political rhetoric will indeed result in future attacks or at least legitimise ISIL support.

If you cant see that, then you are not at the races here at all.

Spencerfreeman

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well tbh, "disrupting arms supplies" only lessens the chance of a sustained ISIS insurgency...it does not prevent or lessen low capability attacks.

ISIS are not short of small arms nor components for the construction of various types of IED's. Nothing has changed there.

Its also not a case of "blaming Trump for future attacks", attacks are going to happen regardless. However, there will be a definitive link between the killing of al-Baghdadi and Trumps rhetoric, to think there wont be...is actually asinine.

I'm not an anti-Trump or an anti-U.S commentator, I am unbiased but can clearly identify a knock on effect. Rhetoric is as powerful as kinetic action, sometimes even more so.

Look at it this way, Trump thanked Russia and Turkey for not interfering with the U.S operation. Russia then announced that they had no prior knowledge and no radar confirmation (of 15+ aircraft and an airstike) in Idlib on the night in question. They have also suggested that it did not happen at all.

Why would Russia do that? They have multiple S-300 and S-400 air defence and radar systems very close to the attack site which would very clearly show air activity.

Russia have distanced themselves from the U.S operation because they dont want to get a whack or be targeted by ISIS. They have been subject to at least 2 ISIS IED attacks in southern Syria and 1 in central Syria over the last 3 months. They have now moved more troops into Raqqa and al-Hasakah where over 10 ISIL IED attacks have occurred in the last 2 weeks.

So yes, U.S actions and political rhetoric will indeed result in future attacks or at least legitimise ISIL support.

If you cant see that, then you are not at the races here at all.

But you did say that the words that Trump used would increase the likelihood of an attack which is what I was responding to.

Interesting analysis on Russia's statement, could be something to that.
Maybe they don't want what might be a build up to a big offensive disrupted at this time?

Will I Am Not

Matt Barrett wrote: »

'Squad' in comparing the Dem Ladies to Trumps pals is using an Americanism? Sure



Hardly a wanky GOP Alt-Right quote. Do the khaki bots own other words I should be aware of?

Pull the other one. “The squad” is an Americanism.
I could put up a dictionary definition of woke to explain why it’s not an Americanism in the same way you have.

You made a boo boo. Move on.

jmreire

Gynoid wrote: »

I think these people try to react anyway, all the time. There is constant disruption of terror plans ongoing all the time in Europe as far as I can make out.

Yes, you are right about that, but it's not everyday that the Commander-in-Chief of isis gets killed, and to add insult to injury, the American "Great Satan" say's about the Martyr " He died like a dog, a coward, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way,” So I'd expect there to be a reaction above and beyond the usual "level" of attack's.

jmreire

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

But you did say that the words that Trump used would increase the likelihood of an attack which is what I was responding to.

Interesting analysis on Russia's statement, could be something to that.
Maybe they don't want what might be a build up to a big offensive disrupted at this time?

Yes, Trumps statement and description of the death of Baghdadi will trigger a response, for sure
The way things are now, the Russian's will denigrate any kind of successful action carried out by either the West or America...maybe for home consumption, or else just poking the West and America.....they are doing a lot of that, and have been for a long time.

Signore Fancy Pants

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

But you did say that the words that Trump used would increase the likelihood of an attack which is what I was responding to.

Yeah I believe so because he made it personal. Im not just lashing words down here or off the cuff statements. However its also not definite, I grant you that but it is accurate analysis of the situation.

Al-Baghdadi saw himself as no better than the average ISIS fighter, this earned him global reverance and a solid allegience. In the last 2 years when the Caliphate was in decline, it was al-Baghdadi that was believed in, more so than the Caliphate. Now both of those things are gone. Adding insults to a Martyr on top of everything else is sure to either increase, prolong or accelerate an ISIS response.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Interesting analysis on Russia's statement, could be something to that.
Maybe they don't want what might be a build up to a big offensive disrupted at this time?

Not bad thinking but unlikely, there is a large offensive planned for eastern Latakia and northwest Hama. However Russian involvement will be from air assets. ISIS will not be in any cohesive operational position to affect that.

However, they will certaintly be able to target Russian ground troops in northern and southern syria. Troops in transit is Russias weak link and will be exposed to ISIS tactical operations.

We will see, could be an interesting month.


Edit: Just to add to this, al-Baghdadi's successor will be expected to act and act fast. If he does not, he risks losing operational control of the group. He needs to show swift leadership and he needs to do it now.

jmreire

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I agree, but I don't think speaking nicely will make any difference is all.

Neither do I... when Bin Laden was killed, Obama did a lot of explaining, and was very careful not to offend Muslim's, ...he made sure that Bin Laden was buried according to Islamic rite's. He did everything in his power to avoid a Muslim backlash.

Spencerfreeman

jmreire wrote: »

Neither do I... when Bin Laden was killed, Obama did a lot of explaining, and was very careful not to offend Muslim's, ...he made sure that Bin Laden was buried according to Islamic rite's. He did everything in his power to avoid a Muslim backlash.

They also made sure to kill him. "dead men tell no tales".
It was telling to me that Trumps orders were to capture if possible.

Dyr

jmreire wrote: »

As sure as God made green apples...there will be repercussions. If anyone had access to isis chatter on the net, I'd say that it's fairly hopping now with talk of revenge for their latest "Martyr's".

Because Isis have wanted for motivation to kill westerners up until now..




Any word on how the hero dog is doing?

jmreire

Bambi wrote: »

Because Isis have wanted for motivation to kill westerners up until now..




Any word on how the hero dog is doing?

isis have always been motivated to kill anyone who does not share their interpretation of Islam....and they have killed many more Muslims than "westerner's", it was normal operating practice for them, in "normal" time's. But this is not a "normal" time. Their Leader has been killed, so this calls for an "abnormal" response.
No update on the injured dog though....

Spencerfreeman

Wo ist die Hund? If the poor fcuker died I'll be upset.

Spencerfreeman

NIMAN wrote: »

So he blew himself to smithereens, but luckily the special forces were carrying a DNA analysis kit with them, so were able to verify his identity.

Right .....

Where did they get a sample of his DNA to begin with?

I can now answer this, He was held by US forces at Camp Bucca in 2009 and released on the orders of the Obama White House.

osarusan

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I can now answer this, He was held by US forces at Camp Bucca in 2009 and released on the orders of the Obama White House.

Baghdadi was held by U.S. forces at a detention facility in Iraq called Camp Bucca, but not when Woods said. According to the Defense Department, Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009.


"Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as 'Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi' was held as a 'civilian internee' by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released," the Pentagon told us in a statement. "He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended 'unconditional release' of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/06/james-woods/actor-james-woods-obama-ordered-release-islamic-st/

Spencerfreeman

osarusan wrote: »

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/06/james-woods/actor-james-woods-obama-ordered-release-islamic-st/

That seems to be more accurate. I had seen a number of reports of his death being reported from 2017.

As you're on the money, any news on the dog?

Auguste Comte

jmreire wrote: »

He can claim responsibility for killing Bagdadi.

All positives for Trump heading into an election campaign.

There were American military people being quoted today as saying that this operation went ahead despite Trump and his recent actions not because of him.

Spencerfreeman

osarusan wrote: »

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/06/james-woods/actor-james-woods-obama-ordered-release-islamic-st/

May still be disputed, not sure if I trust the Pentagon who were obviously an interested party in clearing Obama.
The fact that Col. King refused to later comment must also be considered.
He did say he was 99% certain.

"I could be mistaken," King told ABC News, "but I’m 99 percent. He’s a dead ringer for the guy I had the run-in with … His face is very familiar."

King declined to comment to PunditFact.