ISIS having money woes

[FillJackson]

A lot of folks used to think that ISIS was mainly funded by outside sources, but, they got most of their money from the territory they controlled. Their main sources of incomes, were from the local population, kidnapping and mainly oil sales. As we gained a better understand of where their money was coming from, we starting attack their money infrastructure. Both the US and Russia were doing this.

Today comes another indication that they are getting squeezed financially. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-budget-crunch-slashes-salaries-kills-perks/)


The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group is suffering from a shortage of cash.

It has cut salaries across the region it calls a caliphate. And it's asking residents of the group's stronghold in Syria to pay utility bills in black-market American dollars. The militants are also now releasing detainees for a cut-rate price of $500 a person.

The group -- which once bragged about minting its own currency -- is having trouble meeting expenses, thanks to coalition airstrikes and other measures that have eroded millions of dollars from its finances since last fall. Last year both the U.S.-led coalition, as well as Russian fighters, began targeting their oil production capabilities and cash stores.

Those circumstances include the dramatic drop in global prices for oil - once a key source of income. Additionally, the targeted airstrikes have dramatically reduced cash stockpiles and oil infrastructure. And the Iraqi government has stopped paying civil servants in territory controlled by the extremists.

In Raqqa, the group's stronghold in Syria, salaries have been cut it half since December, electricity is rationed, and prices for basics are spiraling out of reach. That's according people exiled from the city.

[FillJackson]

With better intelligence on ISIS we were able to do things like this.

Do you remember this story from last month. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/us-bombs-millions-isis-currency-supply/)


In an extremely unusual airstrike, the U.S. dropped bombs Sunday in central Mosul, Iraq, destroying a building containing huge amounts of cash ISIS was using to pay its troops and for ongoing operations, two U.S. defense officials told CNN.

The officials could not say exactly how much money was there or in what currency, but one described it as "millions."

Two 2,000-pound bombs destroyed the site quickly. But the longstanding impact may be even more significant. The officials said the U.S. plans to strike more financial targets like this one to take away ISIS's ability to function as a state-like entity.

his is a similar expansion to the target list as happened several weeks ago, when U.S. warplanes began hitting ISIS oil trucks.

The U.S. considers the Mosul strike extremely sensitive, as the building is in an area where civilians are also located, and there was a significant risk of civilian casualties.

Officials would not say how the U.S. learned of the location. But after getting intelligence about the so-called "cash collection and distribution point," U.S. aircraft and drones watched the site for days trying to determine when the fewest number of civilians would be in the area.

[UK2K]

It'd be a whole lot cooler if we bombed these targets without warning them.

[FillJackson]

It'd be a whole lot cooler if we bombed these targets without warning them.
Warning them?

How the surveillance planes?

[UK2K]

Warning them?

How the surveillance planes?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-oil-tanker-drivers-warned-us-bombs-fell

No, dropping leaflets makes it pretty obvious.

[CeltsGarlic]

Ash Carter comments were pretty unconfident and out of place.

[Bosnian Sajo]

I read this as "ISH having money woes", wanted to see who was flexin with no muscle.

[FillJackson]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-oil-tanker-drivers-warned-us-bombs-fell

No, dropping leaflets makes it pretty obvious.
I have absolutely no problem with this because these truck drivers are not part of Isis.

[Town's Town]

Thanks Obama.

[UK2K]

I have absolutely no problem with this because these truck drivers are not part of Isis.

Sure...

[Lebron23]

They need to make a gofundaccount.

[Nick Young]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-oil-tanker-drivers-warned-us-bombs-fell

No, dropping leaflets makes it pretty obvious.
Israel does this before their bombing raids on targets in Gaza. It usually leads to civilians pouring in to the bomb target building so they die as martyrs and up the "civilian" death count.

[UK2K]

Israel does this before their bombing raids on targets in Gaza. It usually leads to civilians pouring in to the bomb target building so they die as martyrs and up the "civilian" death count.

Yep, great way to herd a group of women and kids into the area, and then take pictures of the aftermath.

We are fighting a war like we're playing little league baseball.

[FillJackson]

Sure...
you know the stuff you pull out of your ass is not evidence.

Let me break it down for you, ISIS owns the gas station. The people who buy gas are ISIS's customers.

They don't need to control the distribution of oil to get their money and they can do it without the hassles of distribution.

The oil smuggling trade routes and infrastructure existed before the rise of ISIS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/sunni-tribes-oil-smuggling-syria_n_3250157.html

Insurgent armies generally don't do the shipping themselves because shipping involves moving across territories which is dangerous for belligerents, they just tax the shippers.

and here's me doing some pulling: I would think that it would be a terribly inefficient use of ISIS manpower. They have enormous ambitions and need fighters across two countries. Does it make sense to tie up lot manpower to do something that is peripheral to your goals? It makes a lot more sense just to use the local truckers.

http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2013/08/07/oil-truck.jpg

I think they would need to much, much larger to so "vertically integrated in the oil trade.

[zoom17]

ISIS sure getting lots of money from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

[JohnFreeman]

Eventually ISIS will turn into little groups of rebels and they will fight each other and fizzle

[Godzuki]

thank you Trump for coming up with this strategy thankfully Obama listened :applause:

[Dresta]

A lot of folks used to think that ISIS was mainly funded by outside sources, but, they got most of their money from the territory they controlled. Their main sources of incomes, were from the local population, kidnapping and mainly oil sales. As we gained a better understand of where their money was coming from, we starting attack their money infrastructure. Both the US and Russia were doing this.

Today comes another indication that they are getting squeezed financially. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-budget-crunch-slashes-salaries-kills-perks/)
Their oil revenue is coming from within Syria is it now? Yes, smuggling out oil with the help of the Turks has been one of their major sources of revenue, and yes, they've also received a load of arms from foreign powers, again smuggled through Turkey, with the help of Obama and the CIA. It is the concerted attempt of Russia and the Kurds to close this border crossing/smuggling routes that is hampering ISIS.

But then, not too long ago people like you were pretending the Russians were only bombing "moderates," or some other nonsense. I notice now that even the BBC, that was running hit piece after hit piece about Russia's involvement (and Russian and Putin in general), is now acknowledging they've played a decisive role, now that the aforementioned propaganda has proven to be complete buncombe.

[FillJackson]

Yeah, Russia has been dropping cluster bombs like this on non ISIS and Non combatants. https://youtu.be/CXoIy3IKEso?t=10

The Russian policy is to bomb the heart of populated areas and it often bombs
hospitals and schools (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-missiles-idUSKCN0VO12Y)first. The idea is to destroy the civilian infrastructure and depopulate the area. That is not a side effect that is the goal of the current campaign. When called out on this policy like the recent Russia bombing of a Doctor's Without Borders hospital, Russia says it must have been the Americans. (http://www.newsweek.com/kremlin-denies-russias-msf-hospital-bombing-syria-427034)

[QUOTE]Fourteen medical facilities in Syria (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russias-airstrike-on-a-syrian-hospital-was-no-accident-it-was-a-cold-blooded-attack-a6877046.html)have been hit and turned to dust since the start of the year. MSF has even gone so far as to say that hospitals are no longer places where civilians can recover safely. That

[FillJackson]

Of the 1400 civilians estimated to be killed last month, Russia killed 700 and the regime killed 500. Isis was estimated to kill 100.

[zoom17]

Of the 1400 civilians estimated to be killed last month, Russia killed 700 and the regime killed 500. Isis was estimated to kill 100.

How can they confirm it let me guess the Syrian observatory for human rights put out this stat. You know that is run by one guy who lives in the UK. :oldlol:

http://thetruenews.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/syrian-observatory-for-human-rights.jpg

This is the guy that spreads the most lies about what's happening in Syria yet the media finds him credible.

[Dresta]

Yeah, bruh, the Russians are purposely bombing schools and hospitals and "moderates," while the US only launches ultra-precision missiles that don't kill civilians and only hit terrorists :rolleyes:.

Bombs kill innocents, they always have and they always will; there's nothing more deplorable than the narrative plugged by western governments who try to pretend they can bomb people without large amounts of civilian casualties. 200 thousand plus killed in this conflict, and the shills will have you believe that because the Russians have killed a thousand or so civilians (still not sure how you're confirming those numbers, or those accusations), the fact that there is a possible resolution now in sight, is some kind of bad thing. The reality is that what kills the most civilians is the long and drawn out conflict that has been fostered by the incoherent and nonsensical American policy regarding Syria (which amounts to arming both sides and prolonging the conflict). Before Russia got involved, if you followed the twitters of any of the people reporting from and about Syria, you'd see endless pictures of blown apart children, dead babies and the like, all blamed on America--was that deliberate too?

And every time you're proven wrong, it's on to the next propaganda point, completely ignoring that if Russia's advice had been headed:

1. The Iraq invasion would not have been launched.
2. The Syrian war would have ended long ago.
3. Libya would still be a liveable country.
4. Ukraine wouldn't be divided along an East/West split engendered by NATO expansion and trying to force it into the European Union when it clearly doesn't belong there.

But yeah, it's the Russians who are the bane of civilian security all over the world. It's an easy sell to the gullible, I suppose.

[zoom17]

I think you are the alt of KevinNYC.

[FillJackson]

Yeah, bruh, the Russians are purposely bombing schools and hospitals and "moderates," while the US only launches ultra-precision missiles that don't kill civilians and only hit terrorists :rolleyes:.

You think there's a possible resolution in sight. I do not.

Yes, Russians are not accidentally or collaterally bombing healthcare infrastructure. They are deliberately doing it. It's being done strategically. They are deliberately bombing with cluster bombs over heavily populated areas. Just as previously and still the regime did with barrel bombs. I think Russia knows it can't keep up this campaign for another year without hardships at home. The ground troops for this offensive are in large part foreign Shia fighters from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. How long do they stay? Assad's fighters/militias have used the slogan, "Al Assad or we'll burn the country" from the beginning of the war. I think they are in process of doing that. I think Assad's long term strategy is to make these areas uninhabitable because he knows in 5 years or 10 years down the road, he still won't have enough forces to govern them, when the Shia leave.

Syria in 2010 had a population of about 22 million people. Iraq's population in 2002 was roughly the same. Yet, the Syria war produced a worse refugee problem.


Here's Doctors Without Borders comment on hospital attacks.

MSF International ‏@MSF 5h5 hours ago
Healthcare in #Syria is in the crosshairs of bombs and missiles. It has collapsed.
pic.twitter.com/rljYeZJnzl

[Dresta]

And every time you're proven wrong, it's on to the next propaganda point, completely ignoring that if Russia's advice had been headed:

1. The Iraq invasion would not have been launched.
2. The Syrian war would have ended long ago.
3. Libya would still be a liveable country.
4. Ukraine wouldn't be divided along an East/West split engendered by NATO expansion and trying to force it into the European Union when it clearly doesn't belong there.

But yeah, it's the Russians who are the bane of civilian security all over the world. It's an easy sell to the gullible, I suppose.
fyi, the reason there are less Iraqi refugees is:

1. The fighting has not been anything like as fierce.
2. War has become such a norm in Iraq that most who were going to leave already have.

Nor did the refugee crisis, or the death count, really pick up until the US and its allies got heavily involved in freighting arms to the region. Sorry to tell you this, but people who are losing in an incredibly violent and destructive war (their soldiers being beheaded in propaganda videos and such), tend not to care about civilian casualties. It's just the way war is, which is why you don't traipse around the world starting them in the first place.

And you're completely wrong yet again. Things are looking more promising in Syria than they have for years. You have no idea what you're talking about, and keep churning out what (if it was in Russia or Syria) would be called propaganda of the regime. You were parroting the same kind of nonsense about their "not bombing ISIS" only a few weeks/months ago. As i said: wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Patrick Cockburn:

[QUOTE]The greater Russian and Iranian involvement in the war is unsurprising. It was clear from about 2012 that Russia and the Shia axis were not going to let President Bashar al-Assad be overthrown, and would counter any escalation by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni powers. This happened last year when an offensive by Syrian non-Islamic State (Isis) rebels led by the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham won a series of military victories in Idlib province in northern Syria. Their success provoked Russian military intervention on 30 September which shifted the balance of power in the war in favour of Assad to a degree that could only be reversed by the direct intervention of the Turkish army.

It is getting a bit late even for this. On 2 February, the Syrian army, assisted by heavy Russian airstrikes, cut the road between Aleppo and Turkey. The Russian and Syrian governments are getting close to sealing off northern Syria from Turkey in a tacit alliance with the Syrian Kurds who have been advancing from the east. These are crucial moments of the war as Turkey and Saudi Arabia debate military intervention.

A striking feature of the Russian-Syrian-Iranian offensive is the mute response so far of the US and allies.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey no longer have the arm lock over Western policy in the war that they once had, when it was assumed that their Syrian allies and proxies would win and Assad would go. Not only did this not happen, but the rise of Isis in 2014 and its sweeping victories in Iraq and Syria showed that the Syrian war could not be allowed to fester. The hope by Western powers that the crisis could be contained was destroyed last year by two events: the flood of migrants from Syria and Iraq making their way to western Europe and the massacre of 130 people by Isis gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris on 13 November.

The agreement in Munich is bad news for Isis. [B]The Western claim that the Russians were not fighting Isis but focused on eliminating a mysterious

[FillJackson]

Interesting.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKCN0VR287

[FillJackson]

Why the quotes around barrel bombs? Do you claim they don't exist?

ISIS has always been last priority for Assad just as it has been for the Russians in this go around. Assad let jihadists out of his jail at the beginning of the war to kickstart a sectarian dimension to the war and has pursued that sectarian strategy ever since.

And in the cases of Libya, Syria and Ukraine the US did not start those wars.

[UK2K]

you know the stuff you pull out of your ass is not evidence.

Let me break it down for you, ISIS owns the gas station. The people who buy gas are ISIS's customers.

They don't need to control the distribution of oil to get their money and they can do it without the hassles of distribution.

The oil smuggling trade routes and infrastructure existed before the rise of ISIS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/sunni-tribes-oil-smuggling-syria_n_3250157.html

Insurgent armies generally don't do the shipping themselves because shipping involves moving across territories which is dangerous for belligerents, they just tax the shippers.

and here's me doing some pulling: I would think that it would be a terribly inefficient use of ISIS manpower. They have enormous ambitions and need fighters across two countries. Does it make sense to tie up lot manpower to do something that is peripheral to your goals? It makes a lot more sense just to use the local truckers.

http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2013/08/07/oil-truck.jpg

I think they would need to much, much larger to so "vertically integrated in the oil trade.

Do you think I was inferring that ISIS fighters were driving the trucks? :lol :lol

[Dresta]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35602288

Turks (unsurprisingly) blaming YPG for Ankara bombing.

Why the quotes around barrel bombs? Do you claim they don't exist?

ISIS has always been last priority for Assad just as it has been for the Russians in this go around. Assad let jihadists out of his jail at the beginning of the war to kickstart a sectarian dimension to the war and has pursued that sectarian strategy ever since.

And in the cases of Libya, Syria and Ukraine the US did not start those wars.
I claim that it is a propaganda term aimed at making a distinction between types of bombings that in no way ought to be distinguished from one another. A US missile that incinerates people is not morally superior to a 'barrel bomb'--they are both bombs, and they will both kill innocent people.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, a minute ago they were avoiding IS completely, now IS is only their 'last priority'--keep shifting the goalposts buddy, it saves you from having to admit how completely wrong you've been about everything.

Sorry, but the US funded and aided the illegal putsch in Ukraine that started that crisis (the director of the CIA was in Kiev when it happened even); it's also been expanding the long-defunct NATO organisation despite the protests of non-western powers; this same organisation (which is American led) is what drove the bombing campaign that turned Libya into an anarchic wasteland; and the CIA helped escalated the conflict in Syria by running arms from Libya to Turkey (and into Syria), while also encouraging the surrounding gulf states (and Turkey) to do the same. US intelligence was aware of the potential establishment of a caliphate, but they went ahead with the destabilization of Assad anyway. Saying the US is somehow not responsible because it didn't fire the first shot is either disingenuous or idiotic: you choose.

[FillJackson]

I claim that it is a propaganda term aimed at making a distinction between types of bombings that in no way ought to be distinguished from one another. A US missile that incinerates people is not morally superior to a 'barrel bomb'--they are both bombs, and they will both kill innocent people.
Then you make want to distinguish between the way they are used. The Syria regime has rountinely used barrel bombs on civilian areas.


(the director of the CIA was in Kiev when it happened even);
No, he was not.


He was in Ukraine in April 2014.

By that time,
the president of Ukraine voted against the Ukraine

[Dresta]

Then you make want to distinguish between the way they are used. The Syria regime has rountinely used barrel bombs on civilian areas.


.
Why?

Obama's drone strikes have been estimated to kill 90% civilians, and yet these are portrayed as some kind of precision strikes that take out enemy combatants with minimal "collateral damage" (the western means of excusing their own atrocities).

The regime and Russia have no reason to deliberately target civilians: they're simply indiscriminate in their bombing, and don't allow civilian deaths to get in the way of their military aims; America doesn't really do this either, it just pretends to do so, and has plenty of propaganda shills to help push such a narrative (that their bombs are special bombs that don't kill civilians, despite all the evidence to the contrary).

[Dresta]

USA bombing children:

https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/status/700691167692763145


See how easy it is to find civilian casualties and play them up FillJackson--why do you only do this for the Russians? Why is it only them that are apparently doing these things on purpose?

Apparently Canada is getting in on the kid-killing frenzy:

https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/status/700793196113035264

If you bomb people, this kind of thing can't be avoided; that's why you don't bomb unless absolutely necessary, because it will always become an easy means to spread propaganda for your enemies, who will find no shortage of dead innocents to blame on your actions. The pretence that you can bomb and have few civilian casualties is one of the main reasons why politicians find it so easy to convince the citizenry that they ought to bomb people, and it's a lie.