ISIS Moves on Lebanon, gains foothold in Arsal

ISIS, the other "Ebola".

Ko3

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: daaskapital

At least from media reports (which could be overblown) this is starting to sound like the army that will cause WW3. They are to the ME what Germany was to EU.

Unlikely. They are just the new boogieman in the area. Mujahedin, Taliban, Al Qauda, ISIS. Gotta have a target.

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: Bilk22
ISIS has no air support, so how are they able to advance like this? Shouldn't any nation under threat by them be strafing them with gun fire from the air as well as bombing their ranks from the air. Something doesn't make sense and I'm no military expert.

I think that me and you....And 12 well trained Girl Scouts.

Could take a large part of the ME.

There is going to be a War...These idiots won't stop.

Add: They show up in Israel in those Toyotas...It will be a short war.

St. Hulka?

This is what has me perplexed. The initial introduction of this group was a pic of a huge line of Toyota Tundras heading into Iraq. I wondered why they didn't end up like the Highway of Death convoys did.

Me thinks this ISIS, ebola, et al, are obvious NWO strategies to manipulate the remaining masses who are still living in some false reality. I think at this point they feel they only need to fool the truly brain dead. When you see the President of the United States shooting pool while the borders are being inundated with bodies from all parts of the globe and a pandemic on the horizon, you know they don't feel the need to even keep up appearances.

The rest of us already know the score and await the end game.

Edit: I think I need to add - the Hamas / Israeli thing is a further distraction. Take a closer look and you will see it for that.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I was thinking along the same lines when I got to the "make a move on Israel" part. No matter what you think of Israel, it would be the stuff of ticker news legend to see them try. Although, the prospect of hidden agendas and our weapons might flank our thinking...

But still, move on Israel? Them and what army? I understand Israel has had quite a bit of help in their previous endeavors, but I think Toyota may want to pay somebody in the MSM to airbrush their emblems from the story the day ISIS moves on Israel.

originally posted by: MrSpad
The main reason they hit Arsal is that is a hot bed of support for the Free Syrian Army. The local popularion refuses to cooperate with the Lebanese army because they see them as pro Assad so Lebabon has only had control of this town on paper while in reality it is the FSA that run the place and supplies to the FSA. So this is just a raid. It will disrupt the FSA so that it can not conduct any major offensives anytime soon.

ISIS tactics as of late have been clear. They know that the Iraqi army along with the Shia militias are planning a massive offensive from the South of Iraq. ISIS will have to put everything it has on the line to slow that attack and hope the create enough casualties that it will have to pause and regroup buying ISIS time. To do that ISIS has to make sure none of the other combatants launch any offensives at the same time. So they have been launching spoiler attacks using their control of interior lines.

First they hit Assads forces whom had an unofficial cease fire with them while they both fought the FSA. However, if Assad broke that while the Iraqis were in the offensive ISIS would be in trouble. They hit first catching Assad forces asleep at the switch. They grabbed some territory and left small forces to hold it. They they hit the Kurds in the North, same way. Now the strike on Arsal as part of the FSA. None of these attacks are going to hold that territory for any amount of time. That however does not matter because those areas will have to be taken, then resecured and then the forces that could have been used to ISIS before will need resupply and rest.

ISIS is buying time. It has to be able to hold the Iraqis in the South without anybody else hitting them at the same time. If it can give up some territory and make them pay for it they will have to stop and regroup again. ISIS can then hit everybody else again. This is because none of ISIS enemies coordiante their efforts. So we will see ISIS slowy shrink while launching spoiler attacks over and over. If your wondering why not hit the Iraqis as well? Becuase their are just to many of them and they have to many heavy weapons now.

You raise some very valid points.

Arsal is indeed a hotbed of rebel (FSA) support, hence the Syrian government's activities against it in the past. That said, i don't think the attack on Arsal was merely a raid. It began with a raid, yes, but ISIS has since seized control, executed civilians, and taken hostages. If one considers ISIS modus operandi, it seems to be that ISIS is intending of retaining control of the town.

Additionally, ISIS has been holding off the advancements made by Iraq for a while now, without having the need to perform these types of raids on potential FSA supply lines. From what i've read, the FSA have become impotent, and are mostly active in Aleppo, with some outposts here and there. Considering that, i would think it to be illogical for ISIS to open another front, inside Lebanon, where the Lebanese government and Hezbollah have pledged to fight them. The FSA is in no position to take Arsal, and the majority of their supplies come through Turkey anyway. I don't think this was merely a raid on ISIS' part.

This is off topic, I'll slap myself later, and please don't respond to this but I just want to point out the civil discussion in this thread. This has been sadly lacking. Well done folks. THIS is how you do it.

originally posted by: Bilk22
ISIS has no air support, so how are they able to advance like this? Shouldn't any nation under threat by them be strafing them with gun fire from the air as well as bombing their ranks from the air. Something doesn't make sense and I'm no military expert.

ISIS has no air support, but they know how to form relationships and alliances with others.

I can't remember the source, but apparently, ISIS only makes up a minority of the opposition forces in Iraq right now. They get a lot of their support from Pro-Hussein forces and tribal leaders.

That said, Iraq has been using airpower against ISIS, to limited effect.

I think the attack in Lebanon is a feint,unless they are dumb enough to get in a battle of attrition with hezbollah.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Bilk22
ISIS has no air support, so how are they able to advance like this? Shouldn't any nation under threat by them be strafing them with gun fire from the air as well as bombing their ranks from the air. Something doesn't make sense and I'm no military expert.

ISIS has no air support, but they know how to form relationships and alliances with others.

I can't remember the source, but apparently, ISIS only makes up a minority of the opposition forces in Iraq right now. They get a lot of their support from Pro-Hussein forces and tribal leaders.

That said, Iraq has been using airpower against ISIS, to limited effect.

Look, I don't care what regional alliances they have, those Iraqi military we trained could have turned that formation to look like the Highway of Death. So we can only assume someone didn't want that to happen. Someone high level. Maybe someone that doesn't even live in Iraq.

I don't think Israel has much to worry about from these guys, yet anyway. They have a long way to go to get anywhere near that border. The bigger threat from them would be either Baghdad or Damascus under their control and, at the moment, either of those possibilities don't seem likely.

Although the ineffectiveness of al-Maliki, or his successor, to form any real offense against these guys should be troubling to anyone paying attention. The Iraqis have all kinds of issues with desertion, defection and basic ineptness. Their big advantage, for now, is numbers, although the ranks of ISIS seem to be swelling by the day. Also, the Iraqis have the advantage of only fighting on one front, whereas ISIS is spread very thin, geographically and fighting on several fronts at once. If their opponents could coordinate an offensive on several fronts at once, I'm not sure the Caliphate would last but that seems highly unlikely, due to the make up of the factions facing ISIS.

I'm very interested in where this is going to go; whether ISIS tries to push further into Lebanon or if it was just a "smash and grab" for lack of a better descriptor. If they plan to push into Lebanon, they have some rough terrain and some very heavily and densely populated areas to get to either Beirut or Tripoli.

I have never been extremely familiar with the geography of the Middle East, but having always been interested in studying military strategies and tactics I have been following this conflict quite closely. I am less interested in the politics and more interested in the movements and logistics of the forces involved. It has been extremely difficult for me to actually get a detailed sense of what is going on, because there is so much sporadic fighting, so many different groups, and so many ISIS or rebel forces isolated from their support.

Long ago I stated that for any group like ISIS to achieve its ultimate goals it would have to transition from more than a purely guerilla force, as it is virtually impossible for bands of guerilla forces to truly capture and hold key locations. Yet ISIS has concentrated much of their efforts on holding key locations along the major river arteries in Iraq, the Tigris and Euphrates. This is quite clever, and as a matter of fact a portion of their targets were well chosen.

But because they have been thinking big they have been trying to accomplish things that their forces are not prepared for. The result of this has been their RETREAT into Lebanon. They are running from government forces who have been pushing them back from south west Syria, so they've gone into Lebanon. In no way, shape, or form is this a good thing for ISIS' forces in the area. They are essentially isolating themselves even more, and if I am correct they will ultimately be surrounded in Lebanon. Of course they are not likely to be rooted out or destroyed, but they can do no more than harass the forces pursuing them at this point, on a larger scale I mean.

The idea of them pushing into Israel is preposterous for the fact that Israel would not allow it. There are not nearly enough ISIS forces in Lebanon to even attempt to stage a push into Israel. As a guerilla force, a small one, it can be done, but even then it will not accomplish anything strategically. Again, I don't wish to get into the politics or the potential political objectives in this post. I was never worried about ISIS gaining a large foothold outside of Iraq, and although we have seen what has gone on in Syria, ISIS will only remain there for a matter of time. For the most part they will be driven out. The southern and western flanks of Syria are being secured by government forces, and the rebels are isolated in pockets in the rest of the country, with the exception of portions of the Syrian Eastern Front. That is my two cents anyway, but again, it is hard to have a clear operational picture considering ISIS is not a military, and we have little information on their movements. And finding English reports is even more difficult. Most of the junk I find is months old, which doesn't help very much.

What I don't understand is why they are referring to ISIS as a terrorist group still. From what I've heard they are starting to sound like a full blown army that has the means to establish a country and then expand at an exponential rate. I feel as though this situation requires western intervention before this group gets it's hands on weapons that would assist them in gaining European territory. I realize nobody wants the west to intervene but when it comes down to it it's a priority for them to be quelled before they do start become a legit problem for the western nations. They seem to have the will and persistence to do what is needed to achieve their overall goal.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
But because they have been thinking big they have been trying to accomplish things that their forces are not prepared for. The result of this has been their RETREAT into Lebanon. They are running from government forces who have been pushing them back from south west Syria, so they've gone into Lebanon. In no way, shape, or form is this a good thing for ISIS' forces in the area. They are essentially isolating themselves even more, and if I am correct they will ultimately be surrounded in Lebanon. Of course they are not likely to be rooted out or destroyed, but they can do no more than harass the forces pursuing them at this point, on a larger scale I mean.

Good point.

If they really did retreat into Lebanon though, it would be contrary to other reports which state that ISIS and Al-Nusra raided the area in response to a commander being detained. I haven't seen any mention of ISIS being pushed into the region by government forces.

Further still, a ceasefire brokered between Lebanon and ISIS collapsed today, when ISIS fired on a Lebanese army position.

In my opinion, it sounds like they're in there for the long run. Why else would they overtly establish their presence in Arsal, execute civilians and take hostages? It mimics the tactics behind their establishment in every other town they have seized in their conquest. Not to mention that if they were retreating, violating an established ceasefire by firing on army positions would be a damning action.

The idea of them pushing into Israel is preposterous for the fact that Israel would not allow it. There are not nearly enough ISIS forces in Lebanon to even attempt to stage a push into Israel. As a guerilla force, a small one, it can be done, but even then it will not accomplish anything strategically. Again, I don't wish to get into the politics or the potential political objectives in this post. I was never worried about ISIS gaining a large foothold outside of Iraq, and although we have seen what has gone on in Syria, ISIS will only remain there for a matter of time. For the most part they will be driven out. The southern and western flanks of Syria are being secured by government forces, and the rebels are isolated in pockets in the rest of the country, with the exception of portions of the Syrian Eastern Front. That is my two cents anyway, but again, it is hard to have a clear operational picture considering ISIS is not a military, and we have little information on their movements. And finding English reports is even more difficult. Most of the junk I find is months old, which doesn't help very much.

My reference to Israel was a passing idea, but i wouldn't write it off completely.

No rebel force is going to take Damascus or the south-westernpart of Syria. But the northern and eastern areas are what concerns me. ISIS has a large presence there, and it would take a very long time for them to be completely rooted out by the government. I think it's about time that the west supports the Syrian and Iraq governments in defeating ISIS. Because the moderate rebels are incapable of doing much anymore.

originally posted by: samsamm9

originally posted by: unphased
ISIS is just a trained/sponsored group of fighters under the guise of Islam helping Zionists reclaim the biblical Israel.....

yea, I said it...

Can you please explain what you mean ?

I'm of the opinion, that ISIS is a ruse with several objectives:

1. To stir up a new wave of "civil war" within middle eastern nations, between Sunni and Shia.

2. To establish a false caliphate (Baghdadi has connections to the CIA, ISIS has connections to US money and training that took place in Jordan) thus giving Zionism one unified faction who they can take the rest of the ME from.

3. They are there to distract and destabilize ME governments.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Bilk22
ISIS has no air support, so how are they able to advance like this? Shouldn't any nation under threat by them be strafing them with gun fire from the air as well as bombing their ranks from the air. Something doesn't make sense and I'm no military expert.

ISIS has no air support, but they know how to form relationships and alliances with others.

I can't remember the source, but apparently, ISIS only makes up a minority of the opposition forces in Iraq right now. They get a lot of their support from Pro-Hussein forces and tribal leaders.

That said, Iraq has been using airpower against ISIS, to limited effect.

And that is ISIS biggest threat right now that the Iraqi Sunnis and Baathist will turn on them. Their have been clashes already and it would seem only the threat of Iraqi offensive coming is keeping the from full on fighting each other. If the leadeship in Iraq had been willing to form a true unity government ISIS would be toast right now. Instead they prefer a military solution. In the long run the will win but, it will much more bloody than if they would just share some power with the Sunnis and the Kurds.

Nobody ever wants the share power....the ensuing consequences be damned......this will be a blood bath of significant proportions even compared to other historical conflicts I think.....its like watching a train derail in slow motion.....I anticipate many more massacres to come.....on both sides...

I suspect that the ISIS situation will quieten for a while as they slowly progress further into Lebanon. I do see this as a worring move in the mess that is ME politics. I would very much like to know how many fighters they have in their ranks as they are having an increasingly large area to manage.

Posted Aug. 5 2014 @ 9:29 AKA: the 1st White Horse of the Apocalypse 4 horsemen)
is now involved in Lebanon, way before it was supposed to be making Chaos in that nation...

ISIS Gains First Ground in Lebanon

The Atlantic Wire
By David Ludwig
news.yahoo.com...


Militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captured the Lebanese city of Arsal in fighting that began on Friday and continued Monday.

According to The Telegraph, a Syrian rebel group set up check-points in the border city but have not yet declared the area as part of the caliphate. In addition to 40,000 residents, there are roughly 120,000 refugees living in Arsal.

The conflict broke out after the Lebanese Army arrested Abu Ahmad al-Jumaa, a former commander in the Free Syrian Army who later declared allegiance to ISIS.
Officials said they arrested Jumaa because he planned to attack an army outpost.

[...]

The Sunni insurgents said they will leave Arsal if the government releases Jumaa, something Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Slama flatly rejected on Monday.

I think readers of this thread should reference shoebat.com
He seems to be on my side of the fence regarding the Caliphate & the Caliph (#1, the first in a series of despicable men as leaders of the bloodlust, sex Jihad fixated Army of Madhi blossoming from the Caliphate terrorist army
( ISIS )






I have a feeling that al-Jumma, now linked with the IS Caliphate, was on a recon mission probably for a future mission inside Lebanon

Kinda funny how the US is so willing to invade stable countries of no actual threat to them, and then when a group actually becomes a legitimate threat to literally everyone, there's not a peep. No not funny, terrifying, is the word.

I think they must be supporting all these opposition groups to set up proxy wars against their enemies... hoping their enemies and isis will take each other out. Whoever survives in the aftermath would be easy for the US to mop up...

Well it seems Hezbollah is going to use this as chance for political gain. In Lebanon the Army is very popular and people do not like the idea of Hezbollah operations in internaly. So Hezbollah is not going fight along side the Army and instead have formed a red zone outside the city where they will get involved if the Army fails. It would seem Hezbollah would like to see the Army fail so the can save the day gaining popular and political support as the protectors of Lebanon.

For people wondering why the US would not get directly involved in this mess the answer should be clear. They do not need to. The forces against ISIS are more that capable of dealing with ISIS if they would just put local rivalries apart and work together. The entrance of US forces would just make that situation more complicated and give ISIS a huge recruiting tool. In other words Western forces would just makes things worse and while they would be able deal with ISIS as a conventional threat they would blow up the region with a massive insurgency that would simmer until those troops left and then they would rise up and we would right back where we are again.

The second part of why the US will not get involved is where does it stop? If ISIS is retreating and the Kurds and Iraqis start fighting to take over the territoy left behind what do the US troops in the middle of that do? Same happens in Syria, If ISIS if finished why would the US forces not just deal with Assad while they are there? How long with the Iranian foces in Iraq stay allied with the US? It goes on and on.

The third reason is Iraq refusing to form a unity government. A large part of ISIS support is from Sunni and Baathist who want that as a goal. ISIS would be all but, done but, then the Shias would have to share power with the Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq and they refuse to that. The only way they would do that is if they thought that they were still under threat from ISIS which they are not.

So to some it up US or Western intervention would lead to more death, more conflict and make ISIS look like a tiny problem with mess that would be left over.