quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Raqqa the Syrian city that IS chose as the capital of its 'caliphate' is now in the hands of Syrian and Kurdish forces following months of fighting. This marks a major blow against the extremist group, and the end of its caliphate. The Guardian reports:
US-backed forces say they have taken full control of Raqqa from Islamic State after defeating the last holdouts in the de facto Syrian capital of the terror group’s now-shattered “caliphate”.

The Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who have been fighting inside the northern city since they broke in on 6 June, said they had flushed the few hundred Isis fighters left in the city from their last positions in the main hospital and the national stadium.

“Everything is finished in Raqqa, our forces have taken full control of Raqqa,” the alliance’s spokesman Talal Sello told AFP.

The jihadists also suffered setbacks on Tuesday in the eastern Syrian region of Deir ez-Zor, where Russian-backed regime forces retook swaths of territory, further reducing a “caliphate” that three years ago was roughly the size of Britain.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said regime forces had brought the entire area stretching between Deir ez-Zor and Mayadeen, which was retaken on Saturday, under their control.

“These are not desert areas, they are villages along the Euphrates that were IS strongholds,” the Britain-based monitoring group said. “The Islamic State group is collapsing under pressure from the regime in Deir ez-Zor province.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/17/raqqa-recaptured-from-islamic-state-us-backed-forces-announce

One has to be happy for the citizens of Raqqa, finally free of IS's oppressive and murderous control. IS is reduced to a tiny parcel of land along the Iraqi border, and is expected to be evicted from that area before too long.

Is this the end for IS? Will it morph into a guerrilla group capable of occasional outrages but no longer a major player? Will it turn its attention to the West after losing its bases in Syria and Iraq? Will we see another extremist jihadi group arise out of IS's ashes? What implications does the fall of Raqqa and the end of the caliphate have for the region? Will it bring Syria closer to an end to its bloody civil war?

Your thoughts will be appreciated ...

quote:


Whether ISIL fighters are “brain-washed” or self-inculcated via the internet, the ISIL brand of radical Islam is turning men into remorseless killers. Western, African or Arab, these men are being deluded by End Times visions of reviving the Islamic Caliphate from which they believe that the Islamic messiah, the Mahdi, or “Guided One”, will one day rule and eventually conquer the world.

To that end, as a sophisticated, modern jihadist enterprise, ISIL has released its 3rd issue of Dabiq digital magazine. Its title, “A Call to Hijrah“, likens Muhammad’s “emigration” from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD, which first established Islam as a militant state. As described in the Qur’an, it was in Mecca that Muhammad’s message was shared as one of peace. However, in Medina, his message called for the violent overthrow of all non-Muslims. It is clear that ISIL is adhering to the call for the latter.

quote:

Is this the end for IS?

quote:

Will it morph into a guerrilla group capable of occasional outrages but no longer a major player?

quote:

Will it turn its attention to the West after losing its bases in Syria and Iraq?

quote:

Will we see another extremist jihadi group arise out of IS's ashes?

quote:

What implications does the fall of Raqqa and the end of the caliphate have for the region?

quote:

Will it bring Syria closer to an end to its bloody civil war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is as absurd to credit Trump for the liberation of Raqqa, or the demise of IS generally as it is to blame Obama for its rise.

The hard work was done by a mixture of Syrian and Kurdish forces in Syria, and a mix of Kurdish, Shiite Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. The US did offer some logistic and training support, and air support but that is the extent of the US contribution. IOW the US contribution was something more than minimal but not that much more, especially when one takes into account the enormous resources the US has at its disposal. As far as I know there wasn't a single US casualty, which tells its own story.

The credit lies with the forces on the ground, who risked their lives to liberate Raqqa, and all the other areas of the 'caliphate' in Syria and Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is as absurd to credit Trump for the liberation of Raqqa, or the demise of IS generally as it is to blame Obama for its rise.

The hard work was done by a mixture of Syrian and Kurdish forces in Syria, and a mix of Kurdish, Shiite Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. The US did offer some logistic and training support, and air support but that is the extent of the US contribution. IOW the US contribution was something more than minimal but not that much more, especially when one takes into account the enormous resources the US has at its disposal. As far as I know there wasn't a single US casualty, which tells its own story.

The credit lies with the forces on the ground, who risked their lives to liberate Raqqa, and all the other areas of the 'caliphate' in Syria and Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is as absurd to credit Trump for the liberation of Raqqa, or the demise of IS generally as it is to blame Obama for its rise.

The hard work was done by a mixture of Syrian and Kurdish forces in Syria, and a mix of Kurdish, Shiite Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. The US did offer some logistic and training support, and air support but that is the extent of the US contribution. IOW the US contribution was something more than minimal but not that much more, especially when one takes into account the enormous resources the US has at its disposal. As far as I know there wasn't a single US casualty, which tells its own story.

The credit lies with the forces on the ground, who risked their lives to liberate Raqqa, and all the other areas of the 'caliphate' in Syria and Iraq.

Except that the actual defeat of ISIl couldn't have happened without US and Russian air support, logistics and coordination. All of which Obama couldn't or wouldn't do because he was more in to making imaginary red lines in the sand and leading from behind so he wouldn't appear to be a war president.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is as absurd to credit Trump for the liberation of Raqqa, or the demise of IS generally as it is to blame Obama for its rise.

The hard work was done by a mixture of Syrian and Kurdish forces in Syria, and a mix of Kurdish, Shiite Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. The US did offer some logistic and training support, and air support but that is the extent of the US contribution. IOW the US contribution was something more than minimal but not that much more, especially when one takes into account the enormous resources the US has at its disposal. As far as I know there wasn't a single US casualty, which tells its own story.

The credit lies with the forces on the ground, who risked their lives to liberate Raqqa, and all the other areas of the 'caliphate' in Syria and Iraq.

Except that the actual defeat of ISIl couldn't have happened without US and Russian air support, logistics and coordination. All of which Obama couldn't or wouldn't do because he was more in to making imaginary red lines in the sand and leading from behind so he wouldn't appear to be a war president.

Exactly. Under Obama, Isil prospered and made Raqqa their capital. Trump promised to defeat them and so it is with American forces providing leadership and support on the ground and in the air. To deny he is fulfilling his campaign promise is to live in a fantasy world full of participation trophies on your shelf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is as absurd to credit Trump for the liberation of Raqqa, or the demise of IS generally as it is to blame Obama for its rise.

The hard work was done by a mixture of Syrian and Kurdish forces in Syria, and a mix of Kurdish, Shiite Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. The US did offer some logistic and training support, and air support but that is the extent of the US contribution. IOW the US contribution was something more than minimal but not that much more, especially when one takes into account the enormous resources the US has at its disposal. As far as I know there wasn't a single US casualty, which tells its own story.

The credit lies with the forces on the ground, who risked their lives to liberate Raqqa, and all the other areas of the 'caliphate' in Syria and Iraq.

Except that the actual defeat of ISIl couldn't have happened without US and Russian air support, logistics and coordination. All of which Obama couldn't or wouldn't do because he was more in to making imaginary red lines in the sand and leading from behind so he wouldn't appear to be a war president.

Exactly. Under Obama, Isil prospered and made Raqqa their capital. Trump promised to defeat them and so it is with American forces providing leadership and support on the ground and in the air. To deny he is fulfilling his campaign promise is to live in a fantasy world full of participation trophies on your shelf.

It is that, but also more. Trump dealt with the Russians. As far as I see, since Trump bombed the Syrian air base we've had no more squabbles with the Russians popping up at cross purpose to fighting ISIL. We made have problems with Assad in the future, but for now ISIL is being dealt with first. While Obama was paralyzed with indecision, at least now we have priorities and are handling one thing at a time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE
The GDP is higher than it ever was under President Red Line.

quote:


Is this the end for IS? Will it morph into a guerrilla group capable of occasional outrages but no longer a major player?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Is this the end for IS? Will it morph into a guerrilla group capable of occasional outrages but no longer a major player?

If there was just one IS sympathiser left, and even if he were a schoolboy living in his mum's house in Neasden, London, who'd only ever read about IS on the net, he could still be a major player as a bogeyman. After any atrocity that might occur anywhere in the world, he could make a phone call to a local radio station, say that the relevant atrocity was down to ISIS, and millions of meatheads everywhere would believe it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Is this the end for IS? Will it morph into a guerrilla group capable of occasional outrages but no longer a major player?

If there was just one IS sympathiser left, and even if he were a schoolboy living in his mum's house in Neasden, London, who'd only ever read about IS on the net, he could still be a major player as a bogeyman. After any atrocity that might occur anywhere in the world, he could make a phone call to a local radio station, say that the relevant atrocity was down to ISIS, and millions of meatheads everywhere would believe it.

It must be dreary living in a world where everyone else is a meathead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Since DAESH (and eightysome percent of Muslims) believe that the only victory is our annihilation, we're not anywhere near victory, yet.



Michael