ISIS Releases Global Takeover Map

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It's rational that they have been around a long time, even though you personally have not heard of them.

You have to have tons of support in place, I mean a serious lot of support before you can pull off being an effective army in combat anywhere. And they have been of reasonable effect.

Your only hearing of them now on the world stage since now they are a serious problem. But all these groups have the potential to be a serious problem. They are radicals and teaching radicalism and recruiting LONG before you ever hear of them in the msm.

These people have a track record that has the support, or so he believes, for everything he has done to this point. Whether or not he has hedged his bets correctly is anyone's guess.

a reply to: MrSpad

I do not agree. The ISIL offensive was not surprising. In fact I've personally been writing about this kind of thing happening for years. How could it be surprising when the west was deliberately setting the conditions by deposing of secular regimes, bombing everybody to incite violence, and directly supporting these radical groups? The west was doing it on such a large scale that the result could only be a large scale reactionary movement.

This is exactly what they wanted. You think 10,000 air sorties over Libya was to liberate Libya? It was to turn Libya into a base of operations for Islamists, providing Libyan state weaponry and facilities to the insurgency.

As for organization? ISIL most definitely is organized and controlled by regional players. It's also supported by the USA.

a reply to: Vovin

Your correct, American foreign policy is and has been so dumb that it is just too dumb to believe.

Dumb like a fox!

They have had a vendetta against the Arab strong men:

Libya: Libya was the most affluent country in Africa before this phony Arab Spring revolution started and now: Khadaffi dead and overthrown and now absolute chaos in that country.

Iraq: Saddam, of course wasn’t no saint and did much evil but at least had order: Protected Christians, had some woman’s rights and kept the sectarian violence under control and kept Islamists out, and now: overthrown and dead and Iraq is a crumbling basket case of a country

Syria: they are trying to do the same to Assad and Syria, to continue their agenda to overthrow any Mideast country that doesn’t tow their line.

After Syria, Iran is next

Egypt: their playing musical strong man in there, it’s no telling what their doing and have done there.

The Arab spring was likely an NGO CIA black op that worked to destroy these Arab countries administered by the US/NATO black ops

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: MrSpad

I do not agree. The ISIL offensive was not surprising. In fact I've personally been writing about this kind of thing happening for years. How could it be surprising when the west was deliberately setting the conditions by deposing of secular regimes, bombing everybody to incite violence, and directly supporting these radical groups? The west was doing it on such a large scale that the result could only be a large scale reactionary movement.

This is exactly what they wanted. You think 10,000 air sorties over Libya was to liberate Libya? It was to turn Libya into a base of operations for Islamists, providing Libyan state weaponry and facilities to the insurgency.

As for organization? ISIL most definitely is organized and controlled by regional players. It's also supported by the USA.

I am talking about reality and you talking about a variety of off the wall theories all mashed together. ISIS current make up has more to with the Iraqi goverments exclusion of Sunnis than it does anything else. That is what has given ISIS (at least for the short term) the manpower and trained leadership it needed to make a coventional move. Granted the second they were stopped short of Baghdad it was over. Trying to tie Libya into this is silly and shows a complete lack of understanding of the region. ISIS is a one off. It has no outside support and that is why is in a couple of years nobody will even remember who they were. Your theory would then be the US toppled Libya, Syria, and Egypt and for some reason that created ISIS (who have been around for over decade) to take over part of Iraq and then get beaten back all as some sort of plan that you will have to make up later.

RT news posted a map where even Spain is a territory of the expansion...

It's in spanish

LINK

LINK TO MAP

Watches Israel blow the dust off their nukes. Black is the new...oh, whatever. Good luck to them.

Sigh....

a reply to: ~Lucidity

"A third of the earth was burned up,
a third of the trees were burned up,
and all the green grass was burned up."

most likely nuclear blast,,,doing all the burning.




u know,, that does look to be about 1 third,,

curious.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vovin

Or, you can look it another way: the NWO Globalists want how many regions? And I think one of them was supposed to be a Middle Eastern Muslim region. This map is very close to the Club of Rome's region 7.

The three regions that must be controlled to assert global hegemony are, according to Brzezinski: Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia.

Losing the Middle East to ISIL opens up the ability to invade and occupy all territory claimed by ISIL. That is the point.

Except ISIL is at its peak. All it is going to do now is try and hold on to what it can as it is slowy forced to retreat,

I think you are right,by looking at the maps of their conquered territory,it appears they are overextending themselves.They are at a standstill in Tikrit and have made little progress on the Kurdish lands.The momentum is over, it is now going to be stalemate and therefore logistics comes into play.

a reply to: Sunwolf

"They are at a standstill

would be a very wrong assumption,,


Fortress America: The US Embassy in Iraq,,

so anyone with a bit of military/geopolitical/ATS background,,

its obvious ISIS is massing,,, to take the only real obstacle in there way,,

The US Embassy in Iraq,, after all,,cant have American soil, on thier new Caliphate,,,
would not pass muster.

so,,,
an extra/extra 300
aint gonna do it,,,This isn't a movie Mr President,,
and your not Xerces,,

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: Sunwolf

"They are at a standstill

would be a very wrong assumption,,


Fortress America: The US Embassy in Iraq,,

so anyone with a bit of military/geopolitical/ATS background,,

its obvious ISIS is massing,,, to take the only real obstacle in there way,,

The US Embassy in Iraq,, after all,,cant have American soil, on thier new Caliphate,,,
would not pass muster.

so,,,
an extra/extra 300
aint gonna do it,,,This isn't a movie Mr President,,
and your not Xerces,,

Anyone with a military background knows you do not give up the initiative to larger force that is getting a surge reinforcements, volunteer shia miltias, missles, drones, Russian aircraft, US advisors, Iranian special forces etc. While at the same time to your north the Kurds are getting mobilized. You do not do give that initiative to the emeny unless you have lost it. Iraqi forces are no longer spead out to deal with terrotist attacks they are now concentrated. ISIS now will have to fight a defensive war.

a reply to: MrSpad

unless they attack fortress america,, in Bagdad,,,

Bagdadhi,,,,Bagdad?,, coincidence,, not on his life,,he is being, shall we say,, sent,, do his divine mission,,take Bagdad, or its all for nothing.

in my opinion.

a reply to: BobAthome

Taking the U.S. Embassy by force would be kicking Uncle Sam in the family Jewels so hard, it'll be a couple generations to fully recover in image and standing.

I don't see a good answer to it, either. If we pull out and clear the property in advance, without a fight? It may be even worse than losing it while at least standing to defend it. I'm thinking how outsiders or the other side would view it. After all, if they aren't stopped by regional powers or their own over-reach (which they aren't doing..unfortunately) then we'll eventually see them in a far more direct way, I'm sure.

A Caliphate wouldn't stop until stopped by geography and water or by politics and power. One of the two....but I believe that fanatic side believes their 'Manifest Destiny' is a global kinda thing.

a reply to: Vovin

You and Willtell hit the nail on the head, imo.

I've predicted this very outcome since the Arab spring started getting western support and governments were dropping like flies. Saddam was first, but it became really obvious in Libya, and painfully obvious with Syria. All along I knew the goal was a new Caliphate, and people called me crazy. Well now ISIS has declared a new caliphate. Not so crazy, was I?

Here is the kicker (and people will call me crazy for this too): The real reason the west is helping to clear the path for this caliphate? To help usher in the coming of the Antichrist.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

There is a real simple solution. Carpet bomb the # out of them. Fly some B-52's over there with some A-10's and a gunship or 3 and let them go to town. Time it so that the Syrian border is cut off before they know what is coming. It would be really easy for Obama to put a serious dent in ISIS plans without even having to put boots on the ground. He just doesn't seem to want to do it. Why is that, do you think?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I don't know. I can make guesses...but they are so politically nasty without more proof, I'll just say he is baffling right now.

I think Obama received one of the best educations money could literally supply in his later life. So he has no excuse for not knowing the key strategic points, ways they've fallen in the past and ways they are falling now. The bad thing is, Baghdadi is ALSO highly educated and equally aware of history and what has or hasn't worked across those same places.

The best case scenario is that Obama thinks he can control this, and for our great luck, he turns out to be right. I think that's the absolute BEST case scenario...and highly unlikely.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: MrSpad

I do not agree. The ISIL offensive was not surprising. In fact I've personally been writing about this kind of thing happening for years. How could it be surprising when the west was deliberately setting the conditions by deposing of secular regimes, bombing everybody to incite violence, and directly supporting these radical groups? The west was doing it on such a large scale that the result could only be a large scale reactionary movement.

This is exactly what they wanted. You think 10,000 air sorties over Libya was to liberate Libya? It was to turn Libya into a base of operations for Islamists, providing Libyan state weaponry and facilities to the insurgency.

As for organization? ISIL most definitely is organized and controlled by regional players. It's also supported by the USA.

I am talking about reality and you talking about a variety of off the wall theories all mashed together. ISIS current make up has more to with the Iraqi goverments exclusion of Sunnis than it does anything else. That is what has given ISIS (at least for the short term) the manpower and trained leadership it needed to make a coventional move. Granted the second they were stopped short of Baghdad it was over. Trying to tie Libya into this is silly and shows a complete lack of understanding of the region. ISIS is a one off. It has no outside support and that is why is in a couple of years nobody will even remember who they were. Your theory would then be the US toppled Libya, Syria, and Egypt and for some reason that created ISIS (who have been around for over decade) to take over part of Iraq and then get beaten back all as some sort of plan that you will have to make up later.

You're the one who has a complete lack of understanding. I've been following this situation for years and producing reports and following the observations by others in the field. Yet you're telling me that my theories are "off the wall" while you claim that this is just a few bad apples and the threat will be eliminated with a few bombs. That ignorant line of thinking has led to this situation, it is no solution.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: Sunwolf

"They are at a standstill

would be a very wrong assumption,,


Fortress America: The US Embassy in Iraq,,

so anyone with a bit of military/geopolitical/ATS background,,

its obvious ISIS is massing,,, to take the only real obstacle in there way,,

The US Embassy in Iraq,, after all,,cant have American soil, on thier new Caliphate,,,
would not pass muster.

so,,,
an extra/extra 300
aint gonna do it,,,This isn't a movie Mr President,,
and your not Xerces,,

Anyone with a military background knows you do not give up the initiative to larger force that is getting a surge reinforcements, volunteer shia miltias, missles, drones, Russian aircraft, US advisors, Iranian special forces etc. While at the same time to your north the Kurds are getting mobilized. You do not do give that initiative to the emeny unless you have lost it. Iraqi forces are no longer spead out to deal with terrotist attacks they are now concentrated. ISIS now will have to fight a defensive war.

Anyone with background knowledge in military tactics knows that ISIL is not a conventional army. ISIL benefits greatly from their gained territory, mostly in the way of logistics. They are bringing American-made tanks and helicopters from Iraq to Syria while bringing US-supplied weapons from Turkey to Iraq (a recent article said $500,000,000 worth so far, another $500,000,000 just promised by Obama).

And did you even look at my post where ISIL declared their captured territory as its own state? Obviously they have stopped their expansion because they are satisfied with what they have for now, not because they are being pushed back. Hate to break this to you but I really don't think they care about 5 attack jets when they are too busy massacring thousands of Iraqis. Or maybe they could just hold a few thousand hostage and start making demands.

One MAJOR plus ISIS has going for it is the social economics of the whole middle east. Most nations never really pushed public schools which left schooling to the Imams . Add very poor people with little room to be upwardly mobile and extremely wealthy rulers . Now add hopeless people dirt poor with radical Clerics teaching kids hope is in heaven with 72 virgins, you could get a multitude of warriors for ISIS.

Germany was beaten down and demoralized after www1 so when a charismatic leader came along they followed with out good judgment . They looked back at the strength Germany had in years past.

These people belonged to a larger country till Www1 the old caliphate now they too are looking back to glory days. The Governments in the region will fight tooth and nail for status quo but the masses of the lower class devout believers may well abandon national pride for a renewed caliphate .

You get people walking away from outposts deserting instead of fighting in a MAJOR publicity coup . If the Military men of other countries desert to ISIS thats when we will know how serious this is.

Look back Jimmy Jones with his charismatic cult got 900 people to kill them selves and their kids. Oh heck I for got he was a community organizer also . I f this guy could do that there the right guy in the middle east where the area is full of violence they could cause major mayhem and success if the other player dont play their cards right.

a reply to: Vovin

Another thing he does not take into calculation is the effect of declaring a caliphate,if he has done it in the proper manner then the Sunni's must make a choice to support him or not,it is a very high risk move he's made but if he's done it correctly then he cant be denounced without the denouncers revealing their own apostacy theres more than strategy and tactics in this play he may well pick up whole areas without a shot due to Islamic eschatology...theres more to this than Jay Carney talking points.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Vovin

Another thing he does not take into calculation is the effect of declaring a caliphate,if he has done it in the proper manner then the Sunni's must make a choice to support him or not,it is a very high risk move he's made but if he's done it correctly then he cant be denounced without the denouncers revealing their own apostacy theres more than strategy and tactics in this play he may well pick up whole areas without a shot due to Islamic eschatology...theres more to this than Jay Carney talking points.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Declaring the new caliphate means a lot in terms of Islam and its geopolitical organization. Even if state leaders of Islamic countries do not recognize it, I'm sure there are top officers that will.

Islamic revolution is the exact same as Communist revolution, except that the difference is that the mode of production is in the hands of the already established Islamic class (instead of the workers). Within the Islamic system, anybody can gain upward mobility based on their dedication to Islam. It is a very tempting system for countries with very devoted Muslims that are controlled by secular dictators or western puppets. It most definitely appeals to the masses, especially in the countries that ISIL has mapped out.