It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Reports Claim ISIS Just Captured al-Asad Air Base

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Heads are being stacked in piles south of your border and that doesn't bother the US enough to intervene. ISIS takes a half dozen heads and the US wants troop deployment....

a little consistency wouldn't hurt.



I you want the truth on this one, my opinion is this.
I don't think the reason we don't deploy troops to the Boarder of Mexico is because we are more concerned with Muslims than we are with illegal immigration.
We don't deploy troops to the southern boarder because we are more concerned with the profit of keeping up the "war on drugs" than we are will illegal immigration.




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: mbkennel


300 Marines defending a fortified compound could likely withstand thousands of IS fighters. It's not like IS has airstrike capability, accurate artillery, tanks, etc.


IS does have accurate artillery and tanks, but not airstrike capability.


Except that the location of the airbase makes it nigh impossible to move tanks or artillery into place. IS may have those implements SOMEwhere but not in the middle of Iraq attacking an air base full of Marines.


All these statements about what IS simply can or cannot do, yet IS are using artillery to attack the air base - this source here, posted earlier confirming the attack by suicide bombers states as much.



According to reports, ISIS has been regularly shelling Ain al-Assad for the past couple days, but there have been no reports of damage from the shelling or the attempted bombing on Friday.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The title of this thread is misleading. They didn't capture it and they all died in their attempt.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yet, they don't do they? IS have been shelling the base and fighting very close to it since before Christmas.

You mentioned Air superiority, but that doesn't mean Jack if you don't know where the enemy is. Take Kobane - months of fighting raged there, despite air strikes a plenty and IS rolled out artillery, tanks, the lot. It was the Kurds on the ground who won the battle in the end, not aircraft - the same as every war. Aircraft just tip the scales, but they're not infallible.

An awful lot of hubris on this thread. Reading some responses, you'd think people had confused US Marines with Space Marines! Hold off "several thousand"? With no heavy weaponry? Hmmmm....
edit on 13/2/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Having been in Iraq multiple times, rocket and mortar attacks were an every day, sometimes multiple times a day occurrence. It is no surprise that ISIS would employ the same tactics on an Iraqi base in Iraq....this falls under the been there done that category of not surprised they use the same TTPs (Thats Tactics Techniques & procedures for you non MIl out there).



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I’m not a military expert but this isn’t the jungle like Vietnam.

The reason the Isil adventure brings up my conspiracy meter is the picture of those guys in dump trucks riding on a stark desert as if to say:

Bomb me

They could find one guy with a drone but not the formation of Isil troops in a dry stark desert?

Isn’t it something strange about that?

Where do they run when you start bombing them?

Isil is surrounded on all sides by enemies

And there letting them have this small area of sadism and the world watches

Somethings not right about this war

Do you have any idea how many people died in the Eastern front in WWII

Now they have these super smart weapons and can't take out 30 thousand crazies running around in an open desert.

Is America pulling punches?



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Think about the level of force necessary to capture a base guarded by 300 marines, not to mention the Iraqi military personnel also present. Generally speaking you would need a 3:1 numerical advantage to consider attacking a defended position, especially when the defending force is more sophisticated and possesses better resources and equipment. So if the base had prepared defenses and were not caught completely off guard, which is not likely anyway, the attacking forces must have had well over 1,000 troops. I base this on ISIS having no aircraft that could aid in an attack, and unless they could have softened up defenses tremendously by using mortars or other distance weapons, I just do not see any other way they could succeed. They would have to have basically exceeded the defense ability of the base, meaning a massive, coordinated storm of troops from multiple sides, so that the defenders could simply not eliminate enough of the enemy's troops before they overran the defensive perimeter. There is also the possibility of the base being too large, and thus too difficult to defend adequately against a large attack, since the defenders would have to be spread relatively thin around the perimeter. But this should have been remedied early on in the attack, with the defenders pulling back and creating interior lines, which are more easily defended given the smaller area. Unless the attack was so swift that there was no time for such a maneuver.

It just seems very unlikely to me that this happened in this manner. It is more likely to happen if they perhaps targeted a weak point in the defenses with a mass of troops, probably in conjunction with mortar or artillery strikes. If the base had been besieged for any period of time then I also cannot understand how US or friendly aircraft did not strike and significantly weaken the force positioned around the base. The US has complete air superiority, the only concern being ground-based anti-aircraft facilities, probably of the mobile variety. These can be hard to pin down and strike due to their mobility, but still, you know exactly where the enemy is located when they are besieging a particular location. Thus I can only see a capturing of the base if it was a quick, unexpected strike. Or unless ISIS has been able to replenish losses and coordinate an attack with their forces numbering in the thousands. I mean 300 marines is a formidable enemy, granted that they were equipped. If ammunition was a factor then perhaps they could no longer offer any armed resistance. I cannot see the US allowing this to happen however. It is not as if supply should have been a major problem given the control of the air we have.
edit on 2/13/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

They don't move like that except in their propaganda videos. In reality they move in small groups that are easy to hide. One or two pickup trucks moving down a road could be them, or it could be a family going to visit relatives in the next village over.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

As I said months ago when this all started (with people claiming IS just popped into existence in July last year), when ewveryone else in the area is driving Hilux's and dressed the same way, how do you tell the difference? It's not like they drive around with their big black flags hanging out with special issue IS uniforms made of the finest velour!

Once the air strikes started, most analysts noted a stark change in tactics by IS to counter them and, by and large, it has worked. IS CnC is relatively unscathed and they continue to make gains and hold ground.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Yet, they don't do they? IS have been shelling the base and fighting very close to it since before Christmas.

You mentioned Air superiority, but that doesn't mean Jack if you don't know where the enemy is. Take Kobane - months of fighting raged there, despite air strikes a plenty and IS rolled out artillery, tanks, the lot. It was the Kurds on the ground who won the battle in the end, not aircraft - the same as every war. Aircraft just tip the scales, but they're not infallible.

An awful lot of hubris on this thread. Reading some responses, you'd think people had confused US Marines with Space Marines! Hold off "several thousand"? With no heavy weaponry? Hmmmm....


There is a big difference from shelling to wiping 300 marines out in a massacre Especially on a fortified base.

If 300 Marines were in danger im sure the US would pull out all the stops.

Yeah ISIS are making hit and runs on the base and engaging in skirmishes.

But a full on assault on the base? That wont end well.

ISIS cant go toe to toe well with well armed well equipped western troop.

That doesn't mean guerrilla tactics wont work.
edit on 13-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Think about the level of force necessary to capture a base guarded by 300 marines, not to mention the Iraqi military personnel also present. Generally speaking you would need a 3:1 numerical advantage to consider attacking a defended position, especially when the defending force is more sophisticated and possesses better resources and equipment. So if the base had prepared defenses and were not caught completely off guard, which is not likely anyway, the attacking forces must have had well over 1,000 troops. I base this on ISIS having no aircraft that could aid in an attack, and unless they could have softened up defenses tremendously by using mortars or other distance weapons, I just do not see any other way they could succeed. They would have to have basically exceeded the defense ability of the base, meaning a massive, coordinated storm of troops from multiple sides, so that the defenders could simply not eliminate enough of the enemy's troops before they overran the defensive perimeter. There is also the possibility of the base being too large, and thus too difficult to defend adequately against a large attack, since the defenders would have to be spread relatively thin around the perimeter. But this should have been remedied early on in the attack, with the defenders pulling back and creating interior lines, which are more easily defended given the smaller area. Unless the attack was so swift that there was no time for such a maneuver.

It just seems very unlikely to me that this happened in this manner. It is more likely to happen if they perhaps targeted a weak point in the defenses with a mass of troops, probably in conjunction with mortar or artillery strikes. If the base had been besieged for any period of time then I also cannot understand how US or friendly aircraft did not strike and significantly weaken the force positioned around the base. The US has complete air superiority, the only concern being ground-based anti-aircraft facilities, probably of the mobile variety. These can be hard to pin down and strike due to their mobility, but still, you know exactly where the enemy is located when they are besieging a particular location. Thus I can only see a capturing of the base if it was a quick, unexpected strike. Or unless ISIS has been able to replenish losses and coordinate an attack with their forces numbering in the thousands. I mean 300 marines is a formidable enemy, granted that they were equipped. If ammunition was a factor then perhaps they could no longer offer any armed resistance. I cannot see the US allowing this to happen however. It is not as if supply should have been a major problem given the control of the air we have.


I agree 100% however you are leaving out one crucial piece of information, the willingness of the INSF & Iraqi Police force to fight. The largest issue with training the Iraqis was getting them to give a darn in the first place, they dont get paid enough and half the time the person they are fighting is a relative, friend or neighbor, and Shia vs Sunni is really the only fight they are willing to take on.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Indeed and I said as much on page two - if the base came under genuine threat, massive air power will be brought to bear.

But my comments are dealing with the here and now, coupled with the hubris on display here. People boldly declaring that "artillery and tanks" will be wiped out, when IS has been using both and they haven't. And it won't be the Marines heroically holding off any IS advance on the base like some genetically-enhanced super warriors, but the rain of death from above.

That said, air power alone has never achieved a damn thing. You need boots on the ground and as we've seen from reports in Iraq, even where the Iraqi's are willing to fight, they are up against it.

After 4-5 months of this air campaign, precious little ground has been recaptured from IS and at best, it has only slowed them up as they've had to change how they operate to avoid being hit. As we saw in Kobane, IS had valley's near the town full of thousands of vehicles and fighters untouched by Air strikes and it took a full 4 months of fighting to get them to relent and pull back, even then they still totally surround the town in the nearby villages and hills.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Willtell

They don't move like that except in their propaganda videos. In reality they move in small groups that are easy to hide. One or two pickup trucks moving down a road could be them, or it could be a family going to visit relatives in the next village over.


Easy to hide in a desert?

Maybe you’re right Im not claiming any thing conclusive but it seems that often the US so easily overturns armies, the Gulf war and in Libya for instance and Bosnia the first onslaught in Afghanistan

The US whipped them pretty quick and decisive

It seems to me some of these wars the US is pulling punches as if they want to enemy to stick around.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I think the big mystery is how this phantom army got so big and bad without the US knowing it?

What was the NSA doing?

All those AWACS in Saudi Arabia and the US military intelligence.
What were they doing?
The CIA, ONI, DIA

Were they all on vacation?



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Easy to hide in a desert?


It's not quite as barren as you think - many villages, full of people dressed the same and driving the same vehicles. What do you suggest?


originally posted by: Willtell
Maybe you’re right Im not claiming any thing conclusive but it seems that often the US so easily overturns armies, the Gulf war and in Libya for instance and Bosnia the first onslaught in Afghanistan


First Gulf War - it took 4 months of air attack and a massive flanking manoeuvre by the UN forces to make Iraq surrender.

Second Gulf War - it had more to do with a covert campaign by the US to bribe Iraqi commanders to abandon their men and give their positions up that caused the collapse of the defence. Even then, heavy fighting went on in many places for many years.

Libya - The Libyan Army was deliberately kept weak by Gaddafi and was ill-prepared for any conflict, much less taking on NATO. Even then, the campaign went on for many weeks.

Bosnia? The NATO campaign was (on and off) over a period of 2-3 years.

Afghanistan - While Allied air power was brought to bear in considerable amounts, it was the Northern Alliance who drove the Taliban back.


originally posted by: Willtell
The US whipped them pretty quick and decisive


Hmm.. Seems like you're also forgetting each and every one of those campaigns there were other nations and players involved.


originally posted by: Willtell
It seems to me some of these wars the US is pulling punches as if they want to enemy to stick around.


The US seems to be concentrating it's air strikes on IS CnC and financial targets, with the thinking this will cripple them. So far, it seems to have failed. IS have decentralised their command and have other means of fund raising other than Oil. The only way to beat IS is to get boots on the ground - until then, it's just going to be this boil that gets lanced when politically convenient (see Kobane - at first, the US refused to assist at all - only with growing pressure did they send any air support)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Why is it people seem to think the US has the ability to know everything that is going on everywhere at all times? Sometimes things happen you didn't plan for and you also seem to think the US operates in a vacuum where it is the only power pulling strings - IS grew with substantial backing from powerful people in Saudi and Qatar, for example.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You're comparing an organized army, fighting in units, with a group of people driving around in the exact same kind of vehicle that everyone else in the area is driving around in. So should we just say screw it and slaughter everyone to get at ISIS?



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Or maybe were just chumming the waters using Marines as bait . When they get enough gathered to attack then the show begins. Just sit back and relax and see if they amass 5000 fighters to attack and THEN see how it works out for them.

Reel em in boys!!!




posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Of course not.

I wouldn’t advocate that at all and haven’t done such

Of course the US on many occasion haven’t been to concerned with this



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

you might be forgetting the ship that Israel straffed a while back when the other battle ships were told to stand down and not to assist . i forget the name but i am sure the Americans boys do .



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join