Basar, your link only directs to the OP of this thread, just FYI.
Also, I'm sure this can only end well for Turkey in the long run, obviously. Shame on the EU for giving this moron carte blanche to pull this shit in their mad rush to make refugees not their problem.
I'm flying to Dubai today via Copenhagen. Slightly worried now, I gotta say.
Don't live in fear, that's what they want, you're far more likely to die of a lightning strike than of being in a plane hit by a terror attack. Remember that statistically the most dangerous part of your journey will be the car ride to the airport.
Also where are you leaving from, because Copenhagen to Dubai doesn't even go near Brussels.
I'm flying to Dubai today via Copenhagen. Slightly worried now, I gotta say.
You'll be fine, statistically speaking.
*
Its a good bet this is IS/sympathizers (though a co-ordinated attack requires significant planning and organization, its pretty unlikely to be a copycat) that carried this out. I'm wondering how this affects stuff inside Syria or Iraq and I'm not coming up with much. The cease-fire is mostly holding, foreign powers are already involved, everyone hates IS already and ground is being taken against them.
On the refugee issue, well that's dicey. Europe just made that deal (or are about to?) with Turkey over limiting people entering the Union. The backlash against refugees/migrants is large and growing, and most talk of Merkels "willkommen" policy seems pretty dead. This gives ammo to anti-Islam groups, but its not like they were really lacking before.
As depressing as it sounds, this comes across as "just another terrorist attack", which is a real shitty kinda normal.
Its a good bet this is IS/sympathizers (though a co-ordinated attack requires significant planning and organization, its pretty unlikely to be a copycat) that carried this out.
These attacks were probably rushed and not well coordinated as they probably feared Salah Abdeslam would start talking. One analyst on BBC speculated that the amount of explosives were capable of killing/wounding thousands of people. What a fricking shitty time we live in. I hope the EU stops kissing Erdogan's ass for taking back the refugees and does something about him letting ISIS use Turkey as a rest stop.
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
I'd say the attacks in Europe are in an effort to get European authorities to close their borders. The largest influx of people out of ISIS controlled territory are going to Europe. ISIS needs Europe's borders closed because they need the fleeing tax base to continue their war. This theory was brought up after the Paris attacks. And after reviewing it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the news about them running out of money and cutting soldiers salaries in half. They are running a state and collect taxes to pay for it. With so many people fleeing their brutal regime their tax base is evaporating. Like any state it requires money to run. If they run out of tax base they run out of the ability to pay their soldiers. Then the soldiers leave or turn on the regime. Either way they collapse. Cutting off the exodus is their best option at keeping their revenue flowing to pay for their war. That means getting the people accepting their tax base to stop accepting them.
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
I'd say the attacks in Europe are in an effort to get European authorities to close their borders. The largest influx of people out of ISIS controlled territory are going to Europe. ISIS needs Europe's borders closed because they need the fleeing tax base to continue their war. This theory was brought up after the Paris attacks. And after reviewing it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the news about them running out of money and cutting soldiers salaries in half. They are running a state and collect taxes to pay for it. With so many people fleeing their brutal regime their tax base is evaporating. Like any state it requires money to run. If they run out of tax base they run out of the ability to pay their soldiers. Then the soldiers leave or turn on the regime. Either way they collapse. Cutting off the exodus is their best option at keeping their revenue flowing to pay for their war. That means getting the people accepting their tax base to stop accepting them.
I think this doesn't make much sense.
Very few refugees flee from Syria and go directly to Europe. The vast majority go to Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon, before going elsewhere. These people (as well as internally displaced people outside of IS territory) no longer pay taxes. You could argue that a closed Europe would shut down the most prized destination and make people less keen to flee. However a refugee objectively weighing his or her options based on information might also consider the millions in limbo, trapped in various places.
More simply, someone has to flee a few hundred km to get out of IS taxes, their final destination doesn't matter, and most don't leave the region.
Since IS is being bombed by various European powers and also gets many recruits from there, striking back and alienating more muslims in the area makes a lot of sense.
I'd say the attacks in Europe are in an effort to get European authorities to close their borders. The largest influx of people out of ISIS controlled territory are going to Europe. ISIS needs Europe's borders closed because they need the fleeing tax base to continue their war. This theory was brought up after the Paris attacks. And after reviewing it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the news about them running out of money and cutting soldiers salaries in half. They are running a state and collect taxes to pay for it. With so many people fleeing their brutal regime their tax base is evaporating. Like any state it requires money to run. If they run out of tax base they run out of the ability to pay their soldiers. Then the soldiers leave or turn on the regime. Either way they collapse. Cutting off the exodus is their best option at keeping their revenue flowing to pay for their war. That means getting the people accepting their tax base to stop accepting them.
I think this doesn't make much sense.
Very few refugees flee from Syria and go directly to Europe. The vast majority go to Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon, before going elsewhere. These people (as well as internally displaced people outside of IS territory) no longer pay taxes. You could argue that a closed Europe would shut down the most prized destination and make people less keen to flee. However a refugee objectively weighing his or her options based on information might also consider the millions in limbo, trapped in various places.
More simply, someone has to flee a few hundred km to get out of IS taxes, their final destination doesn't matter, and most don't leave the region.
Since IS is being bombed by various European powers and also gets many recruits from there, striking back and alienating more muslims in the area makes a lot of sense.
Well, Daesh is also launching attacks in Turkey and Lebanon too. I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks in Jordan though.
I'd say the attacks in Europe are in an effort to get European authorities to close their borders. The largest influx of people out of ISIS controlled territory are going to Europe. ISIS needs Europe's borders closed because they need the fleeing tax base to continue their war. This theory was brought up after the Paris attacks. And after reviewing it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the news about them running out of money and cutting soldiers salaries in half. They are running a state and collect taxes to pay for it. With so many people fleeing their brutal regime their tax base is evaporating. Like any state it requires money to run. If they run out of tax base they run out of the ability to pay their soldiers. Then the soldiers leave or turn on the regime. Either way they collapse. Cutting off the exodus is their best option at keeping their revenue flowing to pay for their war. That means getting the people accepting their tax base to stop accepting them.
I think this doesn't make much sense.
Very few refugees flee from Syria and go directly to Europe. The vast majority go to Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon, before going elsewhere. These people (as well as internally displaced people outside of IS territory) no longer pay taxes. You could argue that a closed Europe would shut down the most prized destination and make people less keen to flee. However a refugee objectively weighing his or her options based on information might also consider the millions in limbo, trapped in various places.
More simply, someone has to flee a few hundred km to get out of IS taxes, their final destination doesn't matter, and most don't leave the region.
Since IS is being bombed by various European powers and also gets many recruits from there, striking back and alienating more muslims in the area makes a lot of sense.
Well, Daesh is also launching attacks in Turkey and Lebanon too. I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks in Jordan though.
Jordan's ability to keep its head down has been impressive, since 2011. I think there has been a bombing or two but its been remarkably quiet, especially with hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving there.
Part of me thinks this is overly optimistic--the assault began a few weeks ago--but I don't mind admitting I'm hoping for a quick military victory here, in light of the extensive damage ISIL did to the ancient city (as well as damage done as a general consequence of the fighting). Of course, the SAA and the air support they're getting from the Russian VVS are probably causing further damage (not to mention considerable collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths, like literally every other aerial campaign in history), but at this point I don't see any other alternative to preserve what's left of one of the country's most valuable ancient legacies (and that's before the strategic considerations of an ISIL defeat there).
I agree that Palmyra falling within the next day is unlikely. From the maps people are posting, the SAA still doesn't control the mountains to the immediate west of the city, and urban combat against IS strongholds can be slow and grinding when they try to hold out. Palmyra is strategic enough that I don't see IS withdrawing that easily. I do think the SAA will prevail, especially if the ceasefire with the rebels continues holding, but I think some days of fighting likely remain.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I saw some photos IS released of them destroying parts of the ruins, but I'm not sure how extensive the destruction has been.
edit - I think IS will fight harder for the city proper than for control the ruins, as well
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
Casual on
+3
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
He had committed a knife attack against and Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
They are, but they've only ratified two of the three additional protocols (one only as recently as 2007, the one indicating identification for religious and medical personnel in war zones) and have a list of convention violations a mile long.
It probably won't do anything, but it's certainly more evidence of their consistent disregard for the other side.
Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem noted that the shooting by the soldier did not cause alarm at the scene, as the ambulance crews and others go about their business. "Although this occurs in the plain view of other soldiers and officers," she said, "they do not seem to take any notice.
Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem noted that the shooting by the soldier did not cause alarm at the scene, as the ambulance crews and others go about their business. "Although this occurs in the plain view of other soldiers and officers," she said, "they do not seem to take any notice.
I didn't watch it, and I'd rather not.
The most horrifying thing about it is how completely unremarkable the footage is. No one batted an eye.
I'm pretty sure shooting a wounded combatant violates the parts they signed. The article does say the soldier was detained after his commander filed a report, but only time will tell if they do anything about it; though history suggests they will not.
Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem noted that the shooting by the soldier did not cause alarm at the scene, as the ambulance crews and others go about their business. "Although this occurs in the plain view of other soldiers and officers," she said, "they do not seem to take any notice.
I didn't watch it, and I'd rather not.
It's edited (fades out for the shot, victim is obscured by vehicle after it fades back in), but the description is accurate. (Some civilians appear to notice, but there's all of 2 seconds of video to gauge it)
I agree that Palmyra falling within the next day is unlikely. From the maps people are posting, the SAA still doesn't control the mountains to the immediate west of the city, and urban combat against IS strongholds can be slow and grinding when they try to hold out. Palmyra is strategic enough that I don't see IS withdrawing that easily. I do think the SAA will prevail, especially if the ceasefire with the rebels continues holding, but I think some days of fighting likely remain.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I saw some photos IS released of them destroying parts of the ruins, but I'm not sure how extensive the destruction has been.
edit - I think IS will fight harder for the city proper than for control the ruins, as well
I agree that Palmyra falling within the next day is unlikely. From the maps people are posting, the SAA still doesn't control the mountains to the immediate west of the city, and urban combat against IS strongholds can be slow and grinding when they try to hold out. Palmyra is strategic enough that I don't see IS withdrawing that easily. I do think the SAA will prevail, especially if the ceasefire with the rebels continues holding, but I think some days of fighting likely remain.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I saw some photos IS released of them destroying parts of the ruins, but I'm not sure how extensive the destruction has been.
edit - I think IS will fight harder for the city proper than for control the ruins, as well
Granted, they could be routed out tomorrow, but in the meantime, something is happening.
And a new Peto Lucem (one of the better mapmakers IMO, pro-government but generally accurate from what I can tell) map from earlier today:
If true, the SAA has not only pushed IS out of most of the nearby mountains, but has retaken the airport as well, nearly surrounding the city. I wonder if they will try to encircle IS fully or if they'll leave an escape route in order to dissuade them from fighting to the last man.
edit - although a different pro-gov source is claiming that the airport is not actually in SAA control
I thought this article on the relationship between Hamas, IS's Wilayat Sinai, and Gazan IS supporters was very interesting. An alleged IS supporter decries Wilayat Sinai's cooperation with Hamas (the two allegedly smuggle goods and men back and forth through tunnels) while Hamas still represses IS in the Gaza Strip. I found this quote especially interesting:
“Oh sheikh of ours: Hamas is clever and is giving Sinai province everything it wants, so that it [Hamas] can gain a foothold in [Sinai], and so that it will have ‘stock’ in the province, and so that it will be able to protect itself against anything the province might do against it.
I'm not sure that's an accurate picture of events, and I'm not convinced that Hamas has any interest in expanding to the Sinai (though they could conceivably link up with repressed Brotherhood supporters in Egypt, who are closer to Hamas's ideology than IS is). If anything, I've been concerned that the reported relationship between Hamas and Wilayat Sinai could undermine the former and eventually lead to the Gaza Strip falling under IS control.
In the past, IS has threatened Hamas, vowing to conquer Gaza and "make it run red with blood" or some similar horrible statement. I'm trying to imagine the consequences of an IS-controlled Gaza Strip, bordering Israel and the Sinai, where IS continues its insurgency against the Egyptian state (though they do appear to have been weakened there). The prospect is horrifying - direct warfare between "the Jewish State" and "the Islamic State" seems like an apocalyptic scenario.
Regardless of my opinions of Hamas, I'd much rather have them in charge of the Gaza Strip. So far they've been seemingly successful in preventing IS from gaining a significant foothold there; hopefully this will not change.
I wonder if the Administration's seemingly slow strategy against IS was a prep for this? Its been at least 2-3 years since IS really burst on the scene. I wonder if the Administration ordered a full court intelligence effort against them from the beginning. Identify the leaders. Build location patterns. Then when you have enough intel... cue the Godfather theme.
I wonder if the Administration's seemingly slow strategy against IS was a prep for this? Its been at least 2-3 years since IS really burst on the scene. I wonder if the Administration ordered a full court intelligence effort against them from the beginning. Identify the leaders. Build location patterns. Then when you have enough intel... cue the Godfather theme.
That's pretty much SOP for any group (from my training and experience).
Part of analysis on IS would involve building association matrices, profiles, patterns of life, and targeting packets even if those targeting packets didn't end with a Hellfire.
I was waiting on this because I didn't want to triple post, but:
The city of Palmyra has been retaken by the Syrian Arab Army. Here's a new map. This is a major victory against IS in Syria - perhaps the most important offensive victory in that country so far. Important government territory in Homs is now far more secure, and the SAA has opened a path to push into the IS strongholds of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. I think we'll probably see the SAA try to consolidate their position (retaking the town of Qaryatayn seems a likely next step, and possibly linking up with their forces in East Aleppo) before making a real push into IS's core Syrian territory. Nonetheless, this is an important strategic shift in the map - IS in Syria has been reduced from a series of unrelenting offensives to a defensive battle to retain its gradually diminishing territory, mostly along the Euphrates.
From what I've read, the beautiful Temple of Bel, a major arch, and the funerary towers in the ruins were destroyed by IS, but much else was left standing. The Temple was arguably the coolest part of the ruins, so its loss is tragic. Still, overall a good present to wake up to on Easter.
edit - in addition to its military significance, this is a big propaganda win for the Syrian government and Russia. UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon praised the city's recapture, and Moscow is trumpeting its own role. The SAA has taken advantage of the ceasefire with the rebels to move against IS in a big way, and if the Syrian government is seen internationally as succeeding against IS, it may curry favor in some international capitals. Realistically, the SAA appears to be the only force capable of taking the fight to Raqqa - the SDF doesn't appear especially motivated to do so, and it's questionable whether they'd even be capable (taking a major city is something they've never done). The rebels are weakened and not in a strategic position to push into IS strongholds (except for perhaps northern Aleppo). If the ceasefire with the rebels holds (I'm not too optimistic, but I really hope it does) and government forces are able to maintain its focus on IS, we could see the battle entering Deir Ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces in the coming weeks and months.
Media commentary on this (even in mainstream sources like NPR) brought up the argument that the utility of "decapitating" jihadist groups by assassinating their leaders is questionable, or even that it's a detrimental practice. I've considered this theory before, and I think it's sometimes true - we saw Boko Haram go from an ideologically extreme but well-controlled group under Mohammed Yusuf to a group of indiscriminately violent madmen pretty quick after Yusuf was murdered and Abubakar Shekau took over (though the Nigerian state's decision to also extrajudicially execute a few hundred of the group's members probably helped spur this transformation as well).
But since IS has established a formal state structure, and, in a less direct way, due to its struggle with al-Qaeda, I could see assassinating its leadership having more of a damaging effect on the organization. Especially if al-Baghdadi was announced dead. The idea of IS fracturing into various groups in the event of an internal power struggle does not sound implausible, and such a fracturing might not be a bad thing in that it might enable other actors to more easily take IS territory.
On the other hand, I've often wondered whether the results of IS collapsing as a global organization would actually be good or not. If its branches simply joined/reintegrated into the al-Qaeda network, the overall jihadist movement could present a unified front against their enemies, rather than succumbing to infighting as we've seen in Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, and this could possibly be the movement's most dangerous phase yet. Just speculation, though.
Kaputa on
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'll just say that it's reeeeally easy to make a martyr for a fanatical religious group and boy howdy if we wind up doing that I think we might be in for some trouble.
What I'm saying is maybe we should -grab- these guys and hand 'em over to the ICC or ICJ. Which is easier said than done of course.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
What I'm saying is maybe we should -grab- these guys and hand 'em over to the ICC or ICJ. Which is easier said than done of course.
Ah, but then you get the "living martyrs" phenomenon. Anything bad that happens to them, even if they're still alive, is going to be spun into propaganda.
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
The most disturbing part of this is not even the shooting per se, but rather how completely unconcerned about it everyone else appears.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
The most disturbing part of this is not even the shooting per se, but rather how completely unconcerned about it everyone else appears.
Why would anyone be concerned? Just another day in the IDF. :rotate:
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
The most disturbing part of this is not even the shooting per se, but rather how completely unconcerned about it everyone else appears.
I'm neither surprised nor disturbed. I've always thought the ability to surrender or get treated when incapacitated was not morally requisite, but purely transactional, and needed to be mutual in order to exist (though, to be clear, the law doesn't really agree). The entire idea of a gentleman's war is absurd. "Oh, say, chap! Jolly good attempt to kill my mate by trying to gut him, spilling shit from his intestines into his blood system, driving him into septic shock. However, we have bested you this round, so you will have to proceed to the holding area to wait there for a time. Cheerio!"
If they'd aimed better, he'd be dead beforehand anyhow, so it seems weird to suggest the people who were fighting him before ought be overly broken up by him being shot.
I don't blame the attackers for attacking agents of the apartheid state, but, OTOH, someone being killed in a battle is rather the entire point of battles.
A few people have already mentioned it, but as there was interest, I thought I'd bring up the situation at Palmyra, which (as Kaputa's excellent maps have demonstrated) is pretty decisively in government hands, following a fairly substantial ISIL route. I was going to post a Guardian article, but while I have admired their reporting in the past, they were frankly becoming a little too blatant with their anti-government/pro-rebel slant, which is certainly their prerogative--I suppose the hypocrite in me would like the publications I reference to at least pretend to be objective and neutral at times, like the BBC used to. No one's perfect, I suppose.
Some optimism is welcomed, though there is a case to be made that concern for antiquities, even ancient ruins, rings hollow amid the Islamic State's endurance (though apparently fighting has lessened somewhat--the Observatory for Human Rights reported 363 civilians killed since the government-rebel truce went into effect, the lowest monthly toll in 4 years).
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
The most disturbing part of this is not even the shooting per se, but rather how completely unconcerned about it everyone else appears.
I'm neither surprised nor disturbed. I've always thought the ability to surrender or get treated when incapacitated was not morally requisite, but purely transactional, and needed to be mutual in order to exist (though, to be clear, the law doesn't really agree). The entire idea of a gentleman's war is absurd. "Oh, say, chap! Jolly good attempt to kill my mate by trying to gut him, spilling shit from his intestines into his blood system, driving him into septic shock. However, we have bested you this round, so you will have to proceed to the holding area to wait there for a time. Cheerio!"
If they'd aimed better, he'd be dead beforehand anyhow, so it seems weird to suggest the people who were fighting him before ought be overly broken up by him being shot.
I don't blame the attackers for attacking agents of the apartheid state, but, OTOH, someone being killed in a battle is rather the entire point of battles.
Murdering people already lying incapacitated on the ground is not.
Mostly in the post I was quoting; Yemenis in the capital of Sana'a are demonstrating against the Saudi-led bombing of their country, a year after the war began. They're singing the Yemeni national anthem and holding up Yemeni flags (among other things).
An Egyptair domestic flight from Alexandria to Cairo was hijacked on Tuesday and landed in Cyprus, state radio said.
The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation reported that 55 people were on board, with a crew of 7. There were earlier reports of about 80 to 81 people on board.
At least one man was thought to be armed. The hijacking occurred in Cyprus's flight information region and the airliner was diverted to Larnaca.
Posts
Ooops. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed the original link and here it is again just in case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/president-erdogan-says-freedom-and-democracy-have-no-value-in-turkey-amid-arrests-and-military-a6938266.html
“Those who stand on our side in the fight against terrorism are our friend. Those on the opposite side, are our enemy.”
Only sith deal in absolutes...
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Don't live in fear, that's what they want, you're far more likely to die of a lightning strike than of being in a plane hit by a terror attack. Remember that statistically the most dangerous part of your journey will be the car ride to the airport.
Also where are you leaving from, because Copenhagen to Dubai doesn't even go near Brussels.
You'll be fine, statistically speaking.
*
Its a good bet this is IS/sympathizers (though a co-ordinated attack requires significant planning and organization, its pretty unlikely to be a copycat) that carried this out. I'm wondering how this affects stuff inside Syria or Iraq and I'm not coming up with much. The cease-fire is mostly holding, foreign powers are already involved, everyone hates IS already and ground is being taken against them.
On the refugee issue, well that's dicey. Europe just made that deal (or are about to?) with Turkey over limiting people entering the Union. The backlash against refugees/migrants is large and growing, and most talk of Merkels "willkommen" policy seems pretty dead. This gives ammo to anti-Islam groups, but its not like they were really lacking before.
As depressing as it sounds, this comes across as "just another terrorist attack", which is a real shitty kinda normal.
These attacks were probably rushed and not well coordinated as they probably feared Salah Abdeslam would start talking. One analyst on BBC speculated that the amount of explosives were capable of killing/wounding thousands of people. What a fricking shitty time we live in. I hope the EU stops kissing Erdogan's ass for taking back the refugees and does something about him letting ISIS use Turkey as a rest stop.
I think this doesn't make much sense.
Very few refugees flee from Syria and go directly to Europe. The vast majority go to Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon, before going elsewhere. These people (as well as internally displaced people outside of IS territory) no longer pay taxes. You could argue that a closed Europe would shut down the most prized destination and make people less keen to flee. However a refugee objectively weighing his or her options based on information might also consider the millions in limbo, trapped in various places.
More simply, someone has to flee a few hundred km to get out of IS taxes, their final destination doesn't matter, and most don't leave the region.
Since IS is being bombed by various European powers and also gets many recruits from there, striking back and alienating more muslims in the area makes a lot of sense.
Well, Daesh is also launching attacks in Turkey and Lebanon too. I'm not aware of any terrorist attacks in Jordan though.
Jordan's ability to keep its head down has been impressive, since 2011. I think there has been a bombing or two but its been remarkably quiet, especially with hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving there.
Part of me thinks this is overly optimistic--the assault began a few weeks ago--but I don't mind admitting I'm hoping for a quick military victory here, in light of the extensive damage ISIL did to the ancient city (as well as damage done as a general consequence of the fighting). Of course, the SAA and the air support they're getting from the Russian VVS are probably causing further damage (not to mention considerable collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths, like literally every other aerial campaign in history), but at this point I don't see any other alternative to preserve what's left of one of the country's most valuable ancient legacies (and that's before the strategic considerations of an ISIL defeat there).
I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I saw some photos IS released of them destroying parts of the ruins, but I'm not sure how extensive the destruction has been.
edit - I think IS will fight harder for the city proper than for control the ruins, as well
He had committed a knife attack against an Israeli soldier but the footage shows he was clearly incapacitated at the time. I doubt anything will come of it? This seems to be a depressingly common occurrence and even getting it on camera probably isn't going to make much difference. Is Israel even signed up to the Geneva conventions?
They are, but they've only ratified two of the three additional protocols (one only as recently as 2007, the one indicating identification for religious and medical personnel in war zones) and have a list of convention violations a mile long.
It probably won't do anything, but it's certainly more evidence of their consistent disregard for the other side.
I didn't watch it, and I'd rather not.
The most horrifying thing about it is how completely unremarkable the footage is. No one batted an eye.
It's edited (fades out for the shot, victim is obscured by vehicle after it fades back in), but the description is accurate. (Some civilians appear to notice, but there's all of 2 seconds of video to gauge it)
On that subject: it's still contested overall, but SAA troops have reached mansions on the outskirt of Palmyra.
Granted, they could be routed out tomorrow, but in the meantime, something is happening.
And a new Peto Lucem (one of the better mapmakers IMO, pro-government but generally accurate from what I can tell) map from earlier today:
If true, the SAA has not only pushed IS out of most of the nearby mountains, but has retaken the airport as well, nearly surrounding the city. I wonder if they will try to encircle IS fully or if they'll leave an escape route in order to dissuade them from fighting to the last man.
edit - although a different pro-gov source is claiming that the airport is not actually in SAA control
I'm not sure that's an accurate picture of events, and I'm not convinced that Hamas has any interest in expanding to the Sinai (though they could conceivably link up with repressed Brotherhood supporters in Egypt, who are closer to Hamas's ideology than IS is). If anything, I've been concerned that the reported relationship between Hamas and Wilayat Sinai could undermine the former and eventually lead to the Gaza Strip falling under IS control.
In the past, IS has threatened Hamas, vowing to conquer Gaza and "make it run red with blood" or some similar horrible statement. I'm trying to imagine the consequences of an IS-controlled Gaza Strip, bordering Israel and the Sinai, where IS continues its insurgency against the Egyptian state (though they do appear to have been weakened there). The prospect is horrifying - direct warfare between "the Jewish State" and "the Islamic State" seems like an apocalyptic scenario.
Regardless of my opinions of Hamas, I'd much rather have them in charge of the Gaza Strip. So far they've been seemingly successful in preventing IS from gaining a significant foothold there; hopefully this will not change.
An explosion in Lahore Pakistan leaves at least 50 people dead. Speculation that the timing was related to Easter Sunday.
The US has been killing IS leadership really quickly lately.
I wonder if the Administration's seemingly slow strategy against IS was a prep for this? Its been at least 2-3 years since IS really burst on the scene. I wonder if the Administration ordered a full court intelligence effort against them from the beginning. Identify the leaders. Build location patterns. Then when you have enough intel... cue the Godfather theme.
A Iranian-Turkish financier has been arrested in America. He could sit at the heart of a web of corruption that makes FIFA look honest. Hahaha. I am kidding. There is nothing that can make FIFA look honest.
Some arrests in the murder of that Italian student in Egypt. Since the main suspects are conveniently dead cries of "Bullshit!" abound.
That's pretty much SOP for any group (from my training and experience).
Part of analysis on IS would involve building association matrices, profiles, patterns of life, and targeting packets even if those targeting packets didn't end with a Hellfire.
The city of Palmyra has been retaken by the Syrian Arab Army. Here's a new map. This is a major victory against IS in Syria - perhaps the most important offensive victory in that country so far. Important government territory in Homs is now far more secure, and the SAA has opened a path to push into the IS strongholds of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. I think we'll probably see the SAA try to consolidate their position (retaking the town of Qaryatayn seems a likely next step, and possibly linking up with their forces in East Aleppo) before making a real push into IS's core Syrian territory. Nonetheless, this is an important strategic shift in the map - IS in Syria has been reduced from a series of unrelenting offensives to a defensive battle to retain its gradually diminishing territory, mostly along the Euphrates.
From what I've read, the beautiful Temple of Bel, a major arch, and the funerary towers in the ruins were destroyed by IS, but much else was left standing. The Temple was arguably the coolest part of the ruins, so its loss is tragic. Still, overall a good present to wake up to on Easter.
edit - in addition to its military significance, this is a big propaganda win for the Syrian government and Russia. UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon praised the city's recapture, and Moscow is trumpeting its own role. The SAA has taken advantage of the ceasefire with the rebels to move against IS in a big way, and if the Syrian government is seen internationally as succeeding against IS, it may curry favor in some international capitals. Realistically, the SAA appears to be the only force capable of taking the fight to Raqqa - the SDF doesn't appear especially motivated to do so, and it's questionable whether they'd even be capable (taking a major city is something they've never done). The rebels are weakened and not in a strategic position to push into IS strongholds (except for perhaps northern Aleppo). If the ceasefire with the rebels holds (I'm not too optimistic, but I really hope it does) and government forces are able to maintain its focus on IS, we could see the battle entering Deir Ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces in the coming weeks and months.
Media commentary on this (even in mainstream sources like NPR) brought up the argument that the utility of "decapitating" jihadist groups by assassinating their leaders is questionable, or even that it's a detrimental practice. I've considered this theory before, and I think it's sometimes true - we saw Boko Haram go from an ideologically extreme but well-controlled group under Mohammed Yusuf to a group of indiscriminately violent madmen pretty quick after Yusuf was murdered and Abubakar Shekau took over (though the Nigerian state's decision to also extrajudicially execute a few hundred of the group's members probably helped spur this transformation as well).
But since IS has established a formal state structure, and, in a less direct way, due to its struggle with al-Qaeda, I could see assassinating its leadership having more of a damaging effect on the organization. Especially if al-Baghdadi was announced dead. The idea of IS fracturing into various groups in the event of an internal power struggle does not sound implausible, and such a fracturing might not be a bad thing in that it might enable other actors to more easily take IS territory.
On the other hand, I've often wondered whether the results of IS collapsing as a global organization would actually be good or not. If its branches simply joined/reintegrated into the al-Qaeda network, the overall jihadist movement could present a unified front against their enemies, rather than succumbing to infighting as we've seen in Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, and this could possibly be the movement's most dangerous phase yet. Just speculation, though.
What I'm saying is maybe we should -grab- these guys and hand 'em over to the ICC or ICJ. Which is easier said than done of course.
The most disturbing part of this is not even the shooting per se, but rather how completely unconcerned about it everyone else appears.
edit - meanwhile, al-Qaeda reportedly shoots down an Emirati (French Mirage) fighter jet near Aden with a surface to air missile.
US foreign policy in a nutshell.
Wow! That might be the largest crowd I've ever seen.
I'm neither surprised nor disturbed. I've always thought the ability to surrender or get treated when incapacitated was not morally requisite, but purely transactional, and needed to be mutual in order to exist (though, to be clear, the law doesn't really agree). The entire idea of a gentleman's war is absurd. "Oh, say, chap! Jolly good attempt to kill my mate by trying to gut him, spilling shit from his intestines into his blood system, driving him into septic shock. However, we have bested you this round, so you will have to proceed to the holding area to wait there for a time. Cheerio!"
If they'd aimed better, he'd be dead beforehand anyhow, so it seems weird to suggest the people who were fighting him before ought be overly broken up by him being shot.
I don't blame the attackers for attacking agents of the apartheid state, but, OTOH, someone being killed in a battle is rather the entire point of battles.
The government's antiquities chief for Palmyra, Maamoun Abdulkarim, has optimistically given that with five years of work, what is left at Palmyra could be restored. I say optimistically because, naturally, this is no small order (and it will be an expensive endeavor)--the general number of 80% of Palmyra's significant historical ruins being intact seems to be agreed upon by multiple sources, a few have more pessimistically stated that restoring what is left might be an impossible goal. For some further background, Dr. Abdulkarim, as the director general for antiquities and museums (a government agency), was a friend to Dr. Khaled al-Asaad, the Palmyra chief of antiquities who was beheaded after being captured by ISIL (to my knowledge, no relation to Pres. Assad).
Some optimism is welcomed, though there is a case to be made that concern for antiquities, even ancient ruins, rings hollow amid the Islamic State's endurance (though apparently fighting has lessened somewhat--the Observatory for Human Rights reported 363 civilians killed since the government-rebel truce went into effect, the lowest monthly toll in 4 years).
Context?
Murdering people already lying incapacitated on the ground is not.
dw.com/en/report-turkey-summons-german-ambassador-over-satirical-song/a-19147253
It' really a shame that how the EU is continuing to turn two blind eyes to the shit going down in Turkey because of the refugee crisis.
edit: There is some critique by diplomats at least
theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/28/turkish-president-erdogan-british-diplomat-selfie-journalists-trial