Why are we just now targeting ISIS oil production?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Nov 21, 2015.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Feb 2, 2009
    Toronto, Ontario
    We've been in a war with this group for quite a while and somehow they are able to produce 100,000 barrels of oil a day? Oil wells aren't really hard to spot as they require quite a bit of infrastructure to be built, so why haven't these been blown up from day 1? I would think that this would be the first priority in a war with an enemy to cut off their resources and means of gaining more influence via cash flows.

    Anyone know the rationale or why ISIS is still able to produce oil today?
  2. aaronvan Suspended


    Dec 21, 2011
    República Cascadia
    We should target the countries facilitating the transport of Da'esh oil and target the countries who are buying Da'esh oil.

    Although that would mean bombing our so-called "allies."
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a


    Jun 10, 2013
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    Bcause it was important to Obama that Isis had the money to keep fighting
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6


    Aug 17, 2007
    Targeting ISIS controlled oil production would have been admitting that ISIS wasn't contained or the JV team. Therefore it was politically unpalatable to Obama.
  5. lowendlinux Contributor


    Sep 24, 2014
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    If we bomb the wells do they turn into geysers is smoke screens? I 1990 they seemed to do both and that may be the reason, I'd just shoot the people and the trucks with those useless A10's the chair force wants to get rid of
  6. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    I do know the Kurds would love that.:cool:
  7. whodatrr, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015

    whodatrr macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2004
    Other thing I don't get is why these losers are still online, within ISIS controlled territory. These idiots are obsessed with Social media, constantly checking to see how many likes their latest beheading video got. They use these jahadi sites and accounts for tactical communications and command & control. Don't know what we're thinking, because I was always taught to target the vehicle with the most antennas? Eliminate their means of communicating.

    So, ISIS comes in, internet and cell common go out. This, in and of itself, would erode local support. Strong-arm the carriers to cute cord. Kill the cell towers. Make the ISPs go dark. Leave them blind, and talking only to themselves. Put them in a cloud of uncertainty. Give them the gift of life in the 7th century that they apparently desire.

    Cut the cord - Transition them from being the catalysts of global discourse, to a few losers in a circle-jerk.

    This would put kind of a damper on their party. Beheading infidels probably wouldn't be as much fun for them, without all the views and likes.

    Really, this wouldn't be that hard to do.
  8. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
    I have been informed that it's a two way street, yes they get their hideous videos out, but western intelligence can also track these evil people.
  9. whodatrr macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2004
    Well, you may be right, but from the encryption techniques they're using, that might be challenging. Also, it doesn't appear to be doing much good. eliminating the soap box they're standing on would probably do more good than any potentially actionable intel we're getting, from within the occupied areas. Eliminating their communications would be very bad for their morale, and make it much more difficult for them to operate militarily. Cell phones are the life-blood of ISIS from Jihad videos, IED triggers, troop movements, intel sharing, recruitment, logistics, payroll, etc. Cut all that out and leave the befuddled.

    And this does prohibit us from monitoring these dingbats elsewhere in the world.

  10. Meister Suspended


    Oct 10, 2013
    I was about to give the same answer.
  11. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    According to this article when ISIS comes in the internet goes out for most people anyway.
    I can think of four reasons why it wouldn't help and possibly would be counterproductive to cut off their internet.
    1. There is some intelligence value in monitoring what they are doing online, and if we were to cut that off they would have to resort to written messages that we would have a very hard time intercepting. I suppose it is possible that somewhere among the flow of westerners going to fight with ISIS there have been one or two CIA or other intelligence agents who have posed as radicals to infiltrate ISIS, however even if we have people inside they won't be able to do as good of a job intercepting messages as we do now even with them using inscription.
    2. There are enough ISIS supporters outside of Syria that their propaganda would get out to the internet anyway.
    3. If we want people to rise up against ISIS then their best bet at doing that is coordinating through social media like the initial uprisings in Syria, cutting off the internet would stop that from happening. Of course this one may not be a big deal as most people there won't have access to the internet anyway.
    4. It would be very difficult for us to cut off internet just to ISIS controlled areas (we could probably shut off Syria, but shutting off only part would be difficult from the outside) and we want the rebels on our side to have access to the outside world.
  12. pdqgp macrumors 68020


    Mar 23, 2010
    ^^ Totally agree but the US and the allies are likely tapping into their communications and garnering good intel. The trade off of some things like this are worth it in the long run.
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502a


    Jun 10, 2013
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    We don't have a good track record f acting on Intel.
    Russia warned us about the Boston bombers and we knew about the forth hood shooter.
  14. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Jan 1, 2010
    A former military a few days on TV said, that the US isn't bombing the oil production of ISIS, because ISIS sells the oil to the rebel groups in Syria and the US didn't want to keep their "allies" from having oil. It might sound crazy that Syrian rebels would take oil from ISIS and ISIS would sell it to them, but on this point they are said to be very rational (both sides). Then after Paris and Putins propaganda coup of showing up on TV how he ordered russian air and naval forces to welcome a french aircraft carrier that is under way and see it as ally, Russia started bombing oil production in controlled by ISIS (which was against their interests before, because it seems they wanted to concentrate their capabilities on the kurds and the rebel groups. Now that they have dealt out that Assad is to be dealt with later, and so to say have an ok, that the west won't concentrate on Assad, they seemed to turn their attention there).

    RE those people maiking fun of Obama and his words "contained": I heard several experts that said, that ISIS is really somewhat "contained" and that the terror attacks don't mean they gain ground, but they don't gain ground and in fact are even loosing some. They are trying to escalate it and also putting the next stage of their plans into reality, because they need success and the fourth step is not progressing (which prior to the tactics change had been planned to focus on later). It was to much to say that this is an act of despair/stress on the side of ISIL, but they most likely felt they had to do something, when there was no way of making further success in Syria and Iraq.

    On the intelligence: I heard an official say that they actually don't like Anonymous to delete twitter, facebook-accounts and websites of terrorists, because the western intelligence needs these. (I would assume, though, that if I were a western intelligence, I would make sure to make backups of those profles and websites with all the meta data and then let Anonymous do what they want, but maybe I am thinking to simple re internet/server technology.)

Share This Page