It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
yeah I'd agree with most of that. Perceived bad guy has always been Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc. The apparent leader of the 9/11 plot was a Saudi man, and something like 15 of the hijackers where too. The white house need for 'a new pearl harbour' and the Close ties with the country who had a massive hand in events that day seem too convenient for my liking. It suits S.A to give isis backing and training because it means rivals in neighbouring countries are getting weakened. And I highly doubt that the group's leadership have plans for a trip to Saudi Arabia any time soon. It would be complete suicide. Every day isis wealth and power will be growing and young muslims the world over are flocking to them. But it's Iran and the likes that are being kept on their toes not S.A. now isis didn't build up power and momentum like that on their own they must have had training and support.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Everyone always seems to be up in arms over Israel's actions, which I completely understand, but I think Americans should be much more concerned about Saudi Arabia. I think their ties to terrorism in general run much deeper than most people think...For those who have even considered the possibility. And some of this funding is most definitely coming from Saudi royalty. I have few doubts about that, but some of it is also likely coming from wealthy people within the country. The US is too tied to Saudi Arabia economically to want to alienate them.
Saudi Arabia would not be seen directly confronting the United States, therefore anything that is done is done via proxies. ISIS very well could be one of these proxies, and although I believe they have ties with Saudi Arabia, I am not sure how strong these bonds are. It is no secret that ISIS is destabilizing the region, and we have to ask ourselves whether the Saudi government thinks this is a good thing or a bad thing. I mean ISIS is literally on their border, and if incursions into Saudi Arabia never happen I will wonder why this is the case. I haven't started wondering that as of now, because ISIS does not have control over all of the areas it has overrun at the moment, and it wouldn't make sense militarily to attempt to spread even further when you can't control what you've already taken...Unless you had a secondary and larger force closing up from the rear, sort of like the idea of "deep battle" or "blitzkreig," where the initial force bypasses enemy strongholds, isolating them from the rest of the area and any support, while allowing a secondary force to finish them off.
It is hard to have an idea of the strength of ISIS, or the deployment of what numbers they have, and without such information it is very difficult to predict what they might do, or even what areas they will hold or lose in the near future. They themselves are facing partisan opposition, especially from the Kurds, as well as military forces from Syria. They are fighting multiple enemies on multiple fronts. I don't want to equate their actions to that of a larger, more conventional force, without knowing their strength, and for now I think it is safe to say they are still a small force of guerilla fighters, and along with that their logistics are more self-contained. So I think of them as a single group, but this group is made up of many smaller groups acting somewhat autonomously toward a single objective.
Their stated objectives are quite broad as we all know, and quite unrealistic at this point, and I wonder if they have strategic objectives of any form. I know they captured key locations along the major Iraqi rivers, which makes perfect sense, but some of their attacks seem sporadic and not militarily important. But I don't have a clear operational picture, and have no idea what potential resources exist in the different towns and cities of the region. Their goal of eliminating all other religious groups, as well as certain sects within their own religion, will likely conflict with their strategic goals as well. Hitler made horrible decisions in WWII because he placed the Nazi Party, or ideology, before military common sense. If good military strategy conflicted with his belief system, then he made bad decisions that lost certain advantages or even battles. That is just an example of what I see happening with ISIS. What effect this will have overall I do not know at the moment, but we will see.
For instance, if they focus core strength on capturing locations simply because they want to root out and/or kill certain peoples, then they are likely neglecting some strategically important target, and they are wasting manpower and time. The larger their forces get the more susceptible they will be to conventional military problems like that I just mentioned, along with many others. And they will also be much more vulnerable to conventional military tactics. This is 4GW on a scale that the US has not witnessed before, even with its prior experience with insurgencies, because even Al-Qaeda was not as well-funded as ISIS, nor did they behave in the same way. This is a completely new type of warfare in my opinion. It is an insurgency blended with a conventional force who has the aid of modern technology. We live in interesting, and dangerous, times.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), which is now known as the “Islamic State” after declaring an Islamic caliphate, says it won’t fight Israel - for the time being.
According to Israel’s Channel 2 News, an ISIS spokesman said Monday on Twitter, in response to questions about the organization’s intentions with regards to Israel, that ISIS first has to deal with “Muslims who have become infidels”.