PDA

View Full Version : ISIS: The End is Nigh?



Nickdfresh
04-23-2016, 12:18 PM
Is This the Beginning of the End of the Islamic State?
Riyadh Mohammed,The Fiscal Times Fri, Apr 22 9:15 AM PDT

Just as the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS is making real progress on the ground, political chaos in Iraq is threatening to undermine those hard-fought gains.

Iraq’s ongoing political crisis is reaching another turning point. This week, several ministries are under siege in Baghdad by demonstrators who are trying to break into the heavily fortified Green Zone, home to the American embassy and the Iraqi national government. Iraq now has a divided parliament with two speakers; one is supported by Shiite demonstrators, the other backed by Sunnis and Kurds.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials are trying to maintain recent momentum. On Monday in Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced the deployment of 200 additional U.S. Special Forces to Iraq. He also added Apache helicopters and financial support of $400 million to fund the Iraqi Kurds. Secretary of State John Kerry said in Baghdad a week ago that ISIS’s days are numbered.

The U.S. has spent nearly $7 billion of taxpayer money and launched more than 11,000 air raids against ISIS over the past twenty months. ISIS has lost almost every major battle it fought in Iraq and Syria in the last year. The overall effect of these losses on the group’s funding, leadership, arms, propaganda communications and manpower is immense.

We are seeing not only a shift in the dynamic and the momentum of the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS; it is quite possibly the beginning of the end for the group as a state-based actor.

How the Momentum Shifted

Iraq: North of Baghdad, the Iraqi army and Shiite militias retook the strategic city of Baiji in October 2015, where Iraq’s largest oil refinery is located. The October offensive was one of the largest of the war, with enough forces not only to clear the city and its refinery but also to advance further north and maintain security in the area.


ISIS Targets Destroyed By American Air Strikes | Graphiq
The following month, the Kurds launched a major offensive on Sinjar in northwestern Iraq. They reclaimed the city they lost in August 2014, cutting a major supply line between Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and Raqqah, ISIS’s capital in Syria.

The U.S. military advised the Iraqi army to surround ISIS in the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. The maneuver worked and Ramadi was liberated in December 2015. A large area to the north of Ramadi and to the southwest of Baiji was also cleared last month.

The Iraqi army continued its push in Anbar this month and recently liberated the city of Hit.

Syria: Supported by U.S.-led air strikes, the Syrian Kurds launched three major successful offensives on ISIS-held territories. The first liberated the strategic city of al-Hawl and the surrounding areas in northeastern Syria in November 2015.

The second offensive reclaimed the Tishrin Dam and the surrounding areas in northern Syria the following month. The third offensive was a further advancement from al-Hawl to the city of al-Shadadi and its surrounding areas in February 2016. The Kurds captured six cities and towns and more than 650 villages from ISIS. Two dams, four oil fields, two gas stations, six border posts and a military base were taken as well.


Supported by the Russian military, Syrian government forces also achieved multiple victories. The ISIS siege on the government-held Kweires Airbase in northern Syria was lifted in November. The cities of Palmyra and al-Qaryatayn in central Syria were retaken last month. Finally, Syrian rebels with Turkish military support reclaimed part of the Turkish–Syrian border that had been controlled by ISIS.

Overall, ISIS has lost more than a quarter of the lands it controlled a year ago and now rules 3 million fewer people. The recently reported famine in Fallujah indicates the difficulties ISIS is facing now in feeding some of the people it controls.

ISIS fighters have reportedly been fleeing the battlefield in greater numbers. Of course, if they’re caught, they are executed by ISIS. But the myth of the ISIS fighter who fights to the death is less and less true. The anti-ISIS forces used to need several months to break the will of ISIS soldiers in combat. Now they need just a few weeks.

The Change in Military Tactics

Leadership changes within the U.S. military have contributed to the improved performance against ISIS. The new leader of the U.S. Central Command is General Joseph Votel, who previously ran Special Operations Command. General Raymond A. Thomas, who served as commander of the secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has taken Votel’s old job.

Votel and Thomas come from the shadowy world of Special Ops, a service responsible for hunting down America’s enemies, from Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden.

The change in leadership accompanies a notable change in military tactics. U.S. air strikes against ISIS have become more focused over the last few months. Air raids have crippled ISIS’s oil operations, with 1,200 oil-related targets destroyed, according to Kerry. Another campaign has targeted ISIS’s banks and finances. Now a third campaign is targeting ISIS’s communication centers. The U.S.-led strikes have led to a sharp decrease in ISIS fighters’ salaries, causing frustration among fighters and decreased recruitment.

According to an IHS Jane’s report, about 25,000 ISIS fighters have been killed since the U.S.-led campaign started. The C.I.A. estimates that ISIS currently has 20,000 to 25,000 soldiers, the lowest force level since the end of 2014. The loss of land, people and oil have led to a drop of its monthly revenues from $80 million to $56 million.

Meanwhile, the campaign to hunt down ISIS leadership continues. Last month, two top ISIS leaders were killed in Syria by U.S. air raids -- Abu Ala al-Afri, the ISIS second in command, and the Georgian-born Abu Omar al-Shishani, ISIS’s top military commander. (Both men were erroneously reported dead previously.)

Even ISIS’s massive propaganda operation has been weakened. Twitter announced on February that it has closed about 125,000 pro-ISIS accounts in the last seven months. A George Washington University study on extremism found that there are about 1000 pro-ISIS accounts that actively tweet in English. ISIS’s videos, which were always available on YouTube, are being vigorously removed.

The Risks Ahead

Despite the great progress made in the last few months, two worrisome developments in Syria and Iraq threaten to reverse all that has been achieved so far. In Iraq, the weak government of Prime Minister Haidar al Abadi is facing resistance on multiple fronts: one organized by the Shiite half of the Iraqi members of parliament who toppled the speaker, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the liberal and leftist activists who have been demonstrating against corruption for several months. If Iraq sinks further into political chaos, the security apparatus will be helpless against ISIS attacks.

In Syria, the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and Russia is collapsing . If the fragile ceasefire -- which allowed the government and the rebels to focus on fighting ISIS instead of each other -- is completely abandoned, ISIS could retake what it has lost. In fact, this chain of events might have already started in the Turkish–Syrian border area. The Obama administration is said to have a backup plan that involves arming the Syrian rebels heavily if and when the ceasefire collapses.

But all it not lost. If Iraq’s political crisis could be resolved and the Syrian ceasefire continues, and the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS builds on the current momentum against ISIS, we could see an end of the terror group’s control of large parts of Iraq and Syria, including the cities of Mosul, Fallujah and Raqqa, within a year or so.

What would be the fate of ISIS’ world franchises? After losing strategic cities in Iraq and Syria, what could be the impact on its operation in Libya, its chemical weapons arsenal, its European terror cells, its inspired followers in the U.S. and Europe? ISIS has shown that whenever it suffers on conventional battlefronts, it sends suicide attackers throughout the Middle East and Europe to assert its continuing existence and lethality.

ISIS’s efforts to inspire more Americans to commit atrocities like the San Bernardino shooting might escalate. Absent the important strongholds in Syria and Iraq, its Libya operation could become the center of its caliphate. Chemical weapons could become more developed and used more often. Another chapter in ISIS’s story might have just begun.

From The Fiscal Times Link (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/beginning-end-islamic-state-161700436.html)

Rising Sun*
04-24-2016, 03:41 AM
According to an IHS Jane’s report, about 25,000 ISIS fighters have been killed since the U.S.-led campaign started. The C.I.A. estimates that ISIS currently has 20,000 to 25,000 soldiers, the lowest force level since the end of 2014. The loss of land, people and oil have led to a drop of its monthly revenues from $80 million to $56 million.

It still perplexes me how ISIS, which has never fielded much more than a division on a WWII scale and at best about two divisions on some modern scales, and which has no air force while its opponents control the air, has been so successful.

Or, more accurately, why is it that the forces opposing ISIS haven't been able to defeat it a lot earlier?

It seems that, man for man, ISIS is a much better fighting force than its opponents, in attack and defence, which perhaps isn't all that surprising given the injection of former Iraqi senior and other officers who support its Sunni cause.

imi
04-24-2016, 04:44 AM
I do not believe that the Arab resistance to the disappearance, only in name will change over time as another organization revives
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Isis is the same program only the names changes by time to time
In my opinion, direct military infantry steps would be needed like Afganistan, rather than bombing
These countries require constant military supervision from the soldiers of the NATO

Chevan
04-24-2016, 07:53 AM
It still perplexes me how ISIS, which has never fielded much more than a division on a WWII scale and at best about two divisions on some modern scales, and which has no air force while its opponents control the air, has been so successful.

maybe coz the isis has a rich sponsors?;) Like Saudi arabia as example.I agree they have no more then single devision , but that devision has a regular replenishment by cannon meat from abroad - such a division may fight eternally. Another one great sponsor is the Iraqi army , supplied with hummers, tanks and ammo directly from USA- and becouse this army has no absolutly wish or ability to fight- the isis finally get a tonns of newest american equipment at their hands.


Or, more accurately, why is it that the forces opposing ISIS haven't been able to defeat it a lot earlier?

Maybe coz there was no a united force opposed to isis previously;) Don't know for Iraq , but in Syria the "moderate resistence" fought more the SAA then isis, just like the pro-turkish warriors on the north. Isis just use the situation for own profit to parasite and grow like a cancer attacks an organism.


It seems that, man for man, ISIS is a much better fighting force than its opponents, in attack and defence,

its' maybe true for Iraqi forces, but SAA fight very desperatively and succesfully agains isis.All they need is a effective air support, but not the separate air war like US coalition wage in iraq.When SAA works in close military cooperation with aviation - just look at the fine resault!!!
isis is runing ;)bas..rds now is getting what have deserved..

Rising Sun*
04-24-2016, 08:17 AM
maybe coz the isis has a rich sponsors?;) Like Saudi arabia as example.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest and worst source of Islamic jihadist cancer eating into the rest of the world, but it has oil and huge investments in the US and elsewhere and, like Israel for different and less understandable reasons, gets away with conduct that wouldn't be tolerated by Western countries from any other minor power which causes international problems out of all proportion to their size, population and objectively assessed significance.

And Saudi Arabia is protected by America's refusal to release the 9/11 report relating to Saudi involvement in 9/11. So much for truth, justice and the American way.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/911-court-row-reveals-saudis-and-americans-trapped-in-a-most-unhappy-marriage-20160422-gocmzm.html?skin=text-only


its' maybe true for Iraqi forces, but SAA fight very desperatively and succesfully agains isis.All they need is a effective air support, but not the separate air war like US coalition wage in iraq.When SAA works in close military cooperation with aviation - just look at the fine resault!!!
isis is runing ;)bas..rds now is getting what have deserved..

Well, my old Russian mate, one of the great benefits of Russian involvement in Syria so far as ISIS is concerned is that Russian rules of engagement are closer to WWII (i.e. see the enemy and attack), while Western rules of engagement tend to be wrapped up in a lot legalistic restraints on hurting anyone, which is laughable given that there is no legal basis for the Western forces being there in the first place.

Chevan
04-24-2016, 08:23 AM
In my opinion, direct military infantry steps would be needed like Afganistan, rather than bombing
These countries require constant military supervision from the soldiers of the NATO
They have already been there with whole "military coalition ground forces" , on both in Iraq and Afganistan. Which is resault - the thousand of dead soldiers of coalition with absolutly no visible harm for taliban. How much they need to repeat this else?

Chevan
04-24-2016, 08:44 AM
Well, my old Russian mate, one of the great benefits of Russian involvement in Syria so far as ISIS is concerned is that Russian rules of engagement are closer to WWII (i.e. see the enemy and attack), while Western rules of engagement tend to be wrapped up in a lot legalistic restraints on hurting anyone, which is laughable given that there is no legal basis for the Western forces being there in the first place.
Hello dear sir Rising Sun:) really laughable restraints coz i think the west is repsponsible for the fate of the Iraqi army and entire iraq population after the libaration of Iraq in 2004. Why not to assist iraqi forces more actively and effective fighting the most cruel threat for entire western ideology and way of life- the isis. They supplied the Bahdad with weapon - but withous proper training that weapon almost totaly got into isis hands.

Rising Sun*
04-24-2016, 09:41 AM
Hello dear sir Rising Sun:) really laughable restraints coz i think the west is repsponsible for the fate of the Iraqi army and entire iraq population after the libaration of Iraq in 2004. Why not to assist iraqi forces more actively and effective fighting the most cruel threat for entire western ideology and way of life- the isis. They supplied the Bahdad with weapon - but withous proper training that weapon almost totaly got into isis hands.

What makes you think that Western nations / leaders / politicians / armies could possibly care about the poor bastards on the ground in countries affected by their decisions and warlike actions?

After Gulf War I the first Bush President and his mates encouraged the Kurds to fight Saddam and, when they did, abandoned them and let the poor bastards get wiped out by Saddam's forces.

Of course the West supplied Saddam with weapons and military training for these and other purposes, although not with the intention of them being used that way.

It doesn't matter whether it's the US, Russia, France, UK, China etc etc etc. All the big powers shit on everyone else when it suits them, and the medium to minor powers like my country which are aligned with the big powers join in shitting on the latest victim.

Meanwhile, none of the major powers gives a flying f**k about endless massacres and other abuses of innocent people all over the planet, unless there is oil or some other strategic or national advantage that makes it worthwhile.

Take this for an example. In 1942-43 when Australia, ably and hugely assisted by America, was fighting Japan for Australia's survival, but with no guarantee that Australia would survive, there were machinations in America by its airline industry to ensure that if Australia survived it would be American civilian planes which controlled the seaplane routes to and from Australia.

Soldiers die for principles espoused by their nations, which nations have no principles.

Nickdfresh
04-24-2016, 10:03 AM
Saudi Arabia is the biggest and worst source of Islamic jihadist cancer eating into the rest of the world, but it has oil and huge investments in the US and elsewhere and, like Israel for different and less understandable reasons, gets away with conduct that wouldn't be tolerated by Western countries from any other minor power which causes international problems out of all proportion to their size, population and objectively assessed significance.

And Saudi Arabia is protected by America's refusal to release the 9/11 report relating to Saudi involvement in 9/11. So much for truth, justice and the American way.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/911-court-row-reveals-saudis-and-americans-trapped-in-a-most-unhappy-marriage-20160422-gocmzm.html?skin=text-only



Well, my old Russian mate, one of the great benefits of Russian involvement in Syria so far as ISIS is concerned is that Russian rules of engagement are closer to WWII (i.e. see the enemy and attack), while Western rules of engagement tend to be wrapped up in a lot legalistic restraints on hurting anyone, which is laughable given that there is no legal basis for the Western forces being there in the first place.

Yeah, the "redacted 28 pages"...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-secret-28-pages-may-hold-clues-about-saudi-support-for-911-hijackers/

Nickdfresh
04-24-2016, 10:05 AM
Hello dear sir Rising Sun:) really laughable restraints coz i think the west is repsponsible for the fate of the Iraqi army and entire iraq population after the libaration of Iraq in 2004. Why not to assist iraqi forces more actively and effective fighting the most cruel threat for entire western ideology and way of life- the isis. They supplied the Bahdad with weapon - but withous proper training that weapon almost totaly got into isis hands.


We were, then we turned it over to the Iraqis that decided to hollow out their Army with corruption and with a tyrannical Baathist regime that alienated the Sunni population the U.S. forces largely won (or bought) over with "The Surge"...

Chevan
04-24-2016, 10:12 AM
What makes you think that Western nations / leaders / politicians / armies could possibly care about the poor bastards on the ground in countries affected by their decisions and warlike actions?

Well ,if to avoid the pure hunamity and principles of democracy( which has been declared prior to invasion) the west , i think , should care about ...its finantion investitions, mate. A billions of dollars has been invested into the Iraq economy and its military and police forces. What is for? To see how the religious barbarians from isis retakes the Iraq and devastates it back into the middle-age regime? It's sounds at least non-logical;) Even if US so rich to print the dollars by billions per day - the memory of killed soldiers of american army shouldn't let them to forget about Iraq.

Chevan
04-24-2016, 10:20 AM
We were, then we turned it over to the Iraqis that decided to hollow out their Army with corruption and with a tyrannical Baathist regime that alienated the Sunni population the U.S. forces largely won (or bought) over with "The Surge"...
So the iraqis are guilt?;)is that not that democratic regime that US so kindly installed after the Saddam?

Nickdfresh
04-24-2016, 10:24 AM
So the iraqis are guilt?;)is that not that democratic regime that US so kindly installed after the Saddam?

Pretty much. The Shias had the majority so they elected a **** al-Maliki. I believe large swaths of the Iraqi Army gave half their salaries to corrupt commanders in order not to have to show up to work and so on. He's since been deposed and supposedly things are improving. But the sectarianism still haunts Iraq, largely an artificial country...

Rising Sun*
04-24-2016, 10:31 AM
What comes out of the posts in this thread is, distressingly:

1. Ordinary people have little confidence in their leaders, regardless of their nation.
2. Ordinary people suffer in some nations because of the bad decisions of their leaders and other leaders, in most, if not all, nations.
3. If ordinary people's interests and concerns were pursued by politicians, the world would be a very much better place.

Chevan
04-24-2016, 10:37 AM
Pretty much. The Shias had the majority so they elected a **** al-Maliki. I believe large swaths of the Iraqi Army gave half their salaries to corrupt commanders in order not to have to show up to work and so on. He's since been deposed and supposedly things are improving. But the sectarianism still haunts Iraq, largely an artificial country...
But there is a lot of artificial multi-national countries in the region - pick any of neighbourd. Like Israel;) Had it been soundly to overtake the Saddam to install the another regime , that wasn't proper for that country

Chevan
04-24-2016, 10:41 AM
What comes out of the posts in this thread is, distressingly:

1. Ordinary people have little confidence in their leaders, regardless of their nation.
2. Ordinary people suffer in some nations because of the bad decisions of their leaders and other leaders, in most, if not all, nations.
3. If ordinary people's interests and concerns were pursued by politicians, the world would be a very much better place.
Signed under each statement!! But this seditious posts, mate, make me to conclude that the main enemy of ordinary peoples like you and me - are our own politicans and govenments. Is this sort of thinking legal on this forum?;)

Nickdfresh
04-24-2016, 10:44 AM
But there is a lot of artificial multi-national countries in the region - pick any of neighbourd. Like Israel;) Had it been soundly to overtake the Saddam to install the another regime , that wasn't proper for that country

Point taken. There was talk of splitting Iraq into three nations: "Sunnistan", "Shiastan", and Kurdistan. But the complexity of dividing oil revenue and the objection of the Turks and Iranians to creating a home for Kurds killed the idea. The latter is probably going to happen anyway at the expense of Iraq and Syria...

Rising Sun*
04-24-2016, 10:59 AM
Signed under each statement!! But this seditious posts, mate, make me to conclude that the main enemy of ordinary peoples like you and me - are our own politicans and govenments.

Reality posts, mate, not sedition!

Politicians are by nature power-seeking arseholes, otherwise they wouldn't want to run other people's lives instead of being content with their own lives.

The rest of us just want to live good and reasonable lives with a fair chance for our children and ourselves in every aspect of life, be they education, jobs, etc



Is this sort of thinking legal on this forum?;)

Yes.

Alas, it's not legal in some countries and pretty much impossible in most countries where thinking of fairness is overwhelmed by the power which comes with the money which gets power-seeking arseholes into positions where they can profit for themselves and their mates at our expense.

EDIT: And I don't mean necessarily minor countries. Consider only this: Trump could be US President = Money wins.

Chevan
04-24-2016, 11:18 AM
EDIT: And I don't mean necessarily minor countries. Consider only this: Trump could be US President = Money wins.
if the election exists for power-seeking arseholes to take the profit at our expense- what sense to go to the election for us? Is this circus exist as expensive tv-show - and we select nothing- why to participate in the show. Don't know how you - but i ignore the putin's election last 15 years;) Nothing is depend on us- why to lose time then?

Chevan
04-24-2016, 11:34 AM
Point taken. There was talk of splitting Iraq into three nations: "Sunnistan", "Shiastan", and Kurdistan. But the complexity of dividing oil revenue and the objection of the Turks and Iranians to creating a home for Kurds killed the idea. The latter is probably going to happen anyway at the expense of Iraq and Syria...
Yeah the Kurds is a disaster for entire region. Seems the national-separation is waiting for Syria as well. Hard to reach a peace in society after civil war . This is however a pure cynism and act of agression toward the previously independent state - is the separation of Ukraine , folowed the crimea annextion , not the such an attempt to resolve the national troubles by dividing the teritories, which is damnable by the west?

tankgeezer
04-24-2016, 05:11 PM
Reality posts, mate, not sedition!

Politicians are by nature power-seeking arseholes, otherwise they wouldn't want to run other people's lives instead of being content with their own lives.

The rest of us just want to live good and reasonable lives with a fair chance for our children and ourselves in every aspect of life, be they education, jobs, etc




Yes.

Alas, it's not legal in some countries and pretty much impossible in most countries where thinking of fairness is overwhelmed by the power which comes with the money which gets power-seeking arseholes into positions where they can profit for themselves and their mates at our expense.

EDIT: And I don't mean necessarily minor countries. Consider only this: Trump could be US President = Money wins. >>>>>>

JR*
04-25-2016, 09:04 AM
Whether the end is nigh, I am not sure. One thing I am sure of is that the attempts of the (normally very well organized) ISIS to establish a territorial Caliphate in Iraq and Syria may have been a serious mistake. Guerilla-type movements that have tried the same, without strong direct support from a "sponsor", tend to come to grief when confronted by conventional opponents. ISIS might be in much worse trouble, in their territorial manifestation, if their many opponents could combine effectively against them. Even the Kurds can't seem to do this between themselves. Guerilla-type movements that commit themselves to occupying territory make themselves targets. It might be an argument for the West to gird its loins, and do something about Libya. The ISIS threat there might evaporate fairly quickly.

The "incorpeal Caliphate" might prove another matter. There have been reports that ISIS is considering "splitting" into two semi-autonomous divisions, one defending the terrestrial Caliphate, and one concentrating on spreading attacks into Europe and the Americas. If this happened, it would converting the latter ISIS division into something more like Al-Quaeda This seems a much more feasible mode of operation for ISIS. We may not be rid of the swine yet ... Yours from Palmyra, JR.

witman111
04-27-2016, 07:59 PM
be smart.
which neighboring country/race is silently running the black-hud-monkey 13th. century show behind the scene (among many other shows) ?

Chevan
04-28-2016, 02:42 AM
Seems we've meet a well informed member here;)
So which country do you mind? The same one which i think?

Nickdfresh
09-13-2016, 09:28 AM
Sniper takes out ISIS executioner from a mile away

By Emily Saul

September 11, 2016 | 5:00pm
Modal Trigger
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/e629ac874ffd622d1a0292f36660bf6d
A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.

The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.

The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.

The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner.

He and his band of wicked men had been traveling around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians labeled as spies.

Their prisoners were tied to stakes or thrown in cages before being torched by the executioner, according to the report.

ISIS started using flamethrowers after the torture method was popularized in North Korea.

The ISIS killer was so feared that his victims would beg to be shot rather than be set on fire.

Just before the sniper rescue operation outside of Raqqa, Syria, “the SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place,” a source told the Star.

“Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women.

“The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire,” the source said.

The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.

The rescue comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking both out.

Source: The NY Post (http://nypost.com/2016/09/11/sniper-takes-out-isis-executioner-from-a-mile-away/)

tankgeezer
09-13-2016, 05:41 PM
Many thanks to all of those men for taking out the trash. (Thanks also to Barrett )

Rising Sun*
09-14-2016, 07:03 AM
Sniper takes out ISIS executioner from a mile away

By Emily Saul

September 11, 2016 | 5:00pm
Modal Trigger
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/e629ac874ffd622d1a0292f36660bf6d
A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.

The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.

The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.

The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner.

He and his band of wicked men had been traveling around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians labeled as spies.

Their prisoners were tied to stakes or thrown in cages before being torched by the executioner, according to the report.

ISIS started using flamethrowers after the torture method was popularized in North Korea.

The ISIS killer was so feared that his victims would beg to be shot rather than be set on fire.

Just before the sniper rescue operation outside of Raqqa, Syria, “the SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place,” a source told the Star.

“Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women.

“The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire,” the source said.

The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.

The rescue comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking both out.

Source: The NY Post (http://nypost.com/2016/09/11/sniper-takes-out-isis-executioner-from-a-mile-away/)

Much as I'd like it to be true, I doubt it.

Basic science is that petrol won’t burn, never mind explode the tank it is in, without oxygen.

There is no oxygen in a full tank of petrol, so it can’t burn in the tank regardless of an ignition source penetrating the tank. One assumes that the ISIS thug would have a full tank if he’s about to burn 12 people. Even if the tank isn’t full, the fuel / air ratio necessary for explosion wouldn’t be reached until the tank is close to empty.

Even if the necessary fuel / air ratio was present, and bearing in mind the basic principle of the internal combustion engine, an uncompressed mixture of fuel and air will only burn, not explode (Okay, an explosion is just a very fast rate of burn, but that rate won't be achieved with an uncompressed fuel / air mixture.) I doubt there was sufficient compression in the flamethrower tank to cause an explosion.

Assuming this ISIS butcher fiend and his band of wicked flunkies (Emily Saul's writing style would be more at home in a 1950s edition of Boys Own Paper, along with the improbable story about exploding the flamethrower guy and his wicked flunkies) had any sort of vaguely modern military flamethrower, such as one made during or after WW1, it wouldn’t be a petrol in the tank but probably something more like napalm, which is even harder to ignite than petrol.

I very much doubt any standard rifle projectile, .50 cal or otherwise, is going set fire to a closed flamethrower tank, let alone explode it and wipe out four people. I seem to recall Mythbusters or some other crew trying to do this with normal rounds and even tracer, and failing.

Apart from the problems with basic science, the story is based on anonymous sources and is probably the fanciful invented military reporting equivalent of a women’s magazine latest breathless article on the size of the Kardashians’ arse implants or Jennifer Aniston’s latest baby bump / miscarriage / resumption of relationship with Brad somebody / betrayal by her current bloke etc etc etc. (I catch up on this bullshit every six months when I have a dental check, as my dentist is too cheap to buy decent car magazines and has rejected my request to put a pole dancer in his waiting room.)

leccy
09-18-2016, 05:29 PM
The possibility of setting alight to a fuel tank may be remote to non existant with a standard round - but Tracer? I have set alight to rather a lot of grass land with that.

I believe there are HEIAP type rounds used for anti material use with various 0.5" rifles (the British mostly use the Accuracy International L121A1 rather than the Barret)

tankgeezer
09-18-2016, 09:45 PM
For the U.S. military, the standard round for any .5" weapons is an API (armor piercing, incendiary,) Also available in Trace. APIT There are also the MK211 Roufoss rounds that have explosive bullets with some additional refinements. Either of these would be likely to cause a fireball if used on pressurized tanks. There are of course several different marks of non A.P. incendiary etc. 50 BMG which would not be likely to set off the flame thrower tanks. I don't have a pic of the API, but I do of a raufoss round.

leccy
09-19-2016, 04:14 AM
For the U.S. military, the standard round for any .5" weapons is an API (armor piercing, incendiary,) Also available in Trace. APIT There are also the MK211 Roufoss rounds that have explosive bullets with some additional refinements. Either of these would be likely to cause a fireball if used on pressurized tanks. There are of course several different marks of non A.P. incendiary etc. 50 BMG which would not be likely to set off the flame thrower tanks. I don't have a pic of the API, but I do of a raufoss round.

A quick look at the Raufoss round does says it is in use with the British Military and does sound like one of the rounds we were instructed about for use for anti material work (I never got to actually play with the weapon or rounds though, just told they were out there).

Rising Sun*
09-19-2016, 05:46 AM
The possibility of setting alight to a fuel tank may be remote to non existant with a standard round - but Tracer? I have set alight to rather a lot of grass land with that.

I'd suggest that the difference between setting grass alight with tracer and, as the article which started this discussion says, causing a flamethrower fuel tank to explode with one round, tracer or otherwise, is that:

1. Dry grass is already in the required combination with oxygen in the air to meet the first and second basic fire requirements of fuel and oxygen, which will be ignited by the third, being the ignition source of tracer.

2. Jellied petrol, or whatever the fuel was, in the presumably full or largely full flamethrower tank in the article lacks oxygen inside the tank. The fuel is more likely to quench the tracer than to be ignited by it. (There is a separate issue, well beyond my knowledge, of whether there could be oxygen inside the tank as it might be fed by some inert gas to force the fuel out. Where is flamethrowerguy when we need his expertise?)

I don’t doubt that tracer could ignite various petroleum based fuels and other items under the right conditions, but the issue in the article is one round hitting the fuel tank which seems to me to be unlikely for the reasons I previously mentioned.

If it was a burst of tracer which penetrated the tank and caused a leakage with a fuel : air ratio that could be ignited by following rounds, that seems quite possible.

Even then, I can’t see how it would cause an explosion which could take out a number people in the vicinity rather than just starting a fire up to the point where fuel is leaking from the tank, unless the tank has several large punctures and is bleeding lots of fuel which allows the fire to rage.

I’m happy to be proved wrong, but when I read the article it set my journalistic bullshit meter towards the heavy end of the bullshit scale.

Rising Sun*
09-19-2016, 05:55 AM
For the U.S. military, the standard round for any .5" weapons is an API (armor piercing, incendiary,) Also available in Trace. APIT There are also the MK211 Roufoss rounds that have explosive bullets with some additional refinements. Either of these would be likely to cause a fireball if used on pressurized tanks. There are of course several different marks of non A.P. incendiary etc. 50 BMG which would not be likely to set off the flame thrower tanks. I don't have a pic of the API, but I do of a raufoss round.

No idea of the relevant law, but I'm inclined to suspect that current laws of war prohibit intentionally using API / APIT rounds against a human target (for the sake of the discussion, I'm treating ISIS as human, despite all evidence to the contrary).

tankgeezer
09-19-2016, 01:33 PM
I seem to remember being told that use of the 50 specifically against troops only was against the conventions, but practically, speaking we were told to "use what you had to." I recall seeing in various tv documentaries, accounts of U.S.snipers in the present theaters using the Mk. 211 Raufoss rounds against individuals who were using barricades, or walls for protection. I can say that on the M-60's of my time, all we had available was the API, and APIT. The .30 cal Coax machine gun had only the usual 4 Ball, one Trace mix, no AP or Incendiary.
The ammunition I use in my sporting 50 BMG Rifle has a steel core, but is not hardened as is the core of AP bullets . This is I'm guessing just to reduce the amount of Lead used in making them. The very accurate match grade stuff for the 50 BMG is usually a solid Brass, Copper, or in some cases Bronze, lathe turned bullets having features that allow for extreme distance use against individuals, and light vehicles. So to answer the question, (sorry for going the long way around the shed) I don't know if any prohibitions remain pertaining to use of 50 BMG on troops. I just use it on those evil paper targets. (They remind me of Mr. Green ) ;) :)

tankgeezer
09-19-2016, 03:34 PM
I'm a big fan of the 50 Rifle, whatever the configuration, the Raufoss munitions are new to me, we never had such things in the olden days. I hope all NATO forces have them. If I were a rich man, I could buy some to try out, but it is costlier than ammo for my Finn 20 mm. If you ever get a chance to fire a 50BMG rifle, don't hesitate to try it, they are great fun. Get some walking wounded medication for any lingering shoulder discomfort, (Single Malt is quite effective) ..

Nickdfresh
09-21-2016, 11:16 AM
I seem to remember being told that use of the 50 specifically against troops only was against the conventions, but practically, speaking we were told to "use what you had to."...


We were told to make sure we aimed a .50 round at their kevlar helmets, rifles, and web gear so we would destroy their equipment but not kill anyone intentionally... :)

tankgeezer
09-22-2016, 11:12 PM
When we trained on the use of the M-2 50 cal, we fired at lines of silhouette targets, same for the Tank mounted M-85 .50 cal. Part of the crew qualification tests were to have the Commander use his 50 against ground troops (a simulation of the coax machine gun failing, and the TC taking over with the 50.). Well, targets of them anyway. Though mostly it was used against Trucks and Artillery pieces. It was useful against regular buildings but not so much on Bunkers unless they were the Log construction types . We carried plenty of Main Gun High Explosive Plastic ammo for harder targets.