ISIS has lost 98 percent of its territory -- mostly since Trump took office, officials say

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/26/isis-has-lost-98-percent-its-territory-mostly-since-trump-took-office-officials-say.html

[eieio 1,594]

Quote

he latest American intelligence assessment says fewer than 1,000 ISIS fighters now remain in Iraq and Syria, down from a peak of nearly 45,000 just two years ago. U.S. officials credit nearly 30,000 U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and regional partners on the ground for killing more than 70,000 jihadists. Meanwhile, only a few thousand have returned home.

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by eieio

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Keep after them until there is nothing left.

[bcking 3,157]

Good news. One question about the math though -

 

If the peak was 45,000 2 years ago, how did we kill more than 70,000? They weren't really very clear on their time frames. Is that 70,000 in the last 2 years? Or overall? In the last year?

Edited December 27, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Good news. One question about the math though -

 

If the peak was 45,000 2 years ago, how did we kill more than 70,000? They weren't really very clear on their time frames. Is that 70,000 in the last 2 years? Or overall? In the last year?

Because fanatical idiots are a sustainable resource. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Because fanatical idiots are a sustainable resource. 

I think we would all hope that they are not an unlimited sustainable resource...

 

Still would have preferred better writing. The numbers need units of time in order to compare them. If the "peak" was 45,000 2 years ago that means the numbers have been less since. In order to make it 70,000 they would have needed 35,000 per year being "replaced". With a peak total force of 45,000, that number just seems high. As I said perhaps 70,000 is over a different time period though.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Oh heck to the yes

[jayjayj 571]

This could have happened years ago, if not for Obama era policies that prevented the military from doing their jobs effectively.  This will certainly be one of the most shameful aspects of the Obama legacy.      

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:00 PM, bcking said:

I think we would all hope that they are not an unlimited sustainable resource...

 

Still would have preferred better writing. The numbers need units of time in order to compare them. If the "peak" was 45,000 2 years ago that means the numbers have been less since. In order to make it 70,000 they would have needed 35,000 per year being "replaced". With a peak total force of 45,000, that number just seems high. As I said perhaps 70,000 is over a different time period though.

It seems clear to me. 

 

They estimated that ISIS reached a peak of 45,000 fighters two years ago.  I have seen other estimates that put that number around 200,000, so keep that in mind when considering the total number of casualties.  That is the only line of the paragraph that references a specific time frame.  The paragraph then goes on to mention the total number of airstrikes (30,000) and ISIS casualties (70,000) without mentioning a specific time frame.  The use of a specific time frame in one sentence and the lack of one in the other sentence would lead most people to understand that the second sentence is referring to a broader time period, especially considering the number of airstrikes mentioned and that logically that number of airstrikes would be fairly impossible given a 2 year time frame.  

 

Additionally, considering that airstrikes mostly involve dropping multiple large bombs, which are capable of killing many people at one time, it seems plausible that each airstrike would kill at least 2 or more people.  This doesn't seem like an absurd claim, not that you said it was, but lefist news articles certainly have said it.   

[jg121783 3,915]

It's amazing what happens when you don't announce your battle plans months ahead of time to the world.

[bcking 3,157]

9 hours ago, jayjayj said:

It seems clear to me. 

 

They estimated that ISIS reached a peak of 45,000 fighters two years ago.  I have seen other estimates that put that number around 200,000, so keep that in mind when considering the total number of casualties.  That is the only line of the paragraph that references a specific time frame.  The paragraph then goes on to mention the total number of airstrikes (30,000) and ISIS casualties (70,000) without mentioning a specific time frame.  The use of a specific time frame in one sentence and the lack of one in the other sentence would lead most people to understand that the second sentence is referring to a broader time period, especially considering the number of airstrikes mentioned and that logically that number of airstrikes would be fairly impossible given a 2 year time frame.  

 

Additionally, considering that airstrikes mostly involve dropping multiple large bombs, which are capable of killing many people at one time, it seems plausible that each airstrike would kill at least 2 or more people.  This doesn't seem like an absurd claim, not that you said it was, but lefist news articles certainly have said it.   

I don't know about you but when I learned to write I learned that a paragraph sticks to a core subject. If you are changing topics, time for a new paragraph. Your first sentence establishes what you are talking about. So if in the first sentence you start talking about the status of ISIS from 2 years ago, you need to be clear you have moved onto different stats in following sentences. Otherwise the assumption is you are still talking about the topic of the paragraph, which in this case was comparing now to 2 years ago (as mentioned in their first sentence). It works the same way as the subject of a sentence, with a follow-up sentence. If you have a subject from your first sentence, and then in your second you use the pronoun "He", it is implied that "He" is the last subject referenced in the prior sentence. The assumption wouldnt' be that suddenly they are talking about a new person. A simple "Since the start of the conflict" for the second sentence would have sufficed. It's poor writing. I would actually like to know how many airstrikes we've had since two years ago, and how many casualties. That seems appropriate to the discussion at hand. 

 

I never had an issue with the number of airstrikes vs. casualties. Those seem just fine. I'd imagine it is more a situation where a bomb may kill several, and maybe a few miss...but overall 2 to 1 to me sounds reasonable on average. What seems more important is how much of that was really in the last 2 years? I'm sure we've escalated it. I'm just surprised they didn't provide that data because that is more in keeping with the topic.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

I don't know about you but when I learned to write I learned that a paragraph sticks to a core subject. If you are changing topics, time for a new paragraph. Your first sentence establishes what you are talking about.

fortunately, on vj there is not a pass/fail grade for one's writing....

[eieio 1,594]

21 hours ago, jayjayj said:

This could have happened years ago, if not for Obama era policies that prevented the military from doing their jobs effectively.  This will certainly be one of the most shameful aspects of the Obama legacy.      

Yea..its weird how he seemed to side with our enemies. Maybe he had some grand scheme of appeasement that failed? Who knows?

 

I am amazed that ISIS has been beaten back so rapidly under Trump. I even have a hard time believing it. Probably because of all the gloom and doomers saying it was  to complicated or not easy or whatever defeatist/appeasers like to say. My brother flies an F-22 and he has been delivering the bombs.  He doesn't like to go into detail…but I know he has killed many many terrorists. 

[jayjayj 571]

10 hours ago, bcking said:

I don't know about you but when I learned to write I learned that a paragraph sticks to a core subject. If you are changing topics, time for a new paragraph. Your first sentence establishes what you are talking about. So if in the first sentence you start talking about the status of ISIS from 2 years ago, you need to be clear you have moved onto different stats in following sentences. Otherwise the assumption is you are still talking about the topic of the paragraph, which in this case was comparing now to 2 years ago (as mentioned in their first sentence). It works the same way as the subject of a sentence, with a follow-up sentence. If you have a subject from your first sentence, and then in your second you use the pronoun "He", it is implied that "He" is the last subject referenced in the prior sentence. The assumption wouldnt' be that suddenly they are talking about a new person. A simple "Since the start of the conflict" for the second sentence would have sufficed. It's poor writing. I would actually like to know how many airstrikes we've had since two years ago, and how many casualties. That seems appropriate to the discussion at hand. 

 

I never had an issue with the number of airstrikes vs. casualties. Those seem just fine. I'd imagine it is more a situation where a bomb may kill several, and maybe a few miss...but overall 2 to 1 to me sounds reasonable on average. What seems more important is how much of that was really in the last 2 years? I'm sure we've escalated it. I'm just surprised they didn't provide that data because that is more in keeping with the topic.

 

Referencing two separate time frames is not necessarily considered a topic change.  In this case, the follow-up sentence clearly relates to the paragraph's topic sentence.  It is accepted academic practice that loosely related sentences can be combined to form a paragraph, otherwise you could end up with an article full of one line paragraphs.