Islamic State have lost 45% of their territory in Iraq and 10% of their territory in Syria.

In early August 2014, Islamic State attacked Kurdish territory in northern Iraq and captured three towns. Consequently, the US and UK started supplying the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga forces with weapons. There have also been sporadic clashes between ISIL fighters, and US and Canadian troops, several thousand of whom are acting in advisory and combat roles with Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

It is understood that Islamic State had lost 45% of the maximum territory they had gained in Iraq in December 2014, to Iraqi and American-led Coalition forces.

Counter-offensives by Iraqi and Kurdish armed forces, supported by the US-led coalition and by Iran backed Shiite militias have forced IS out of several cities — including Tikrit, north of Baghdad and Ramadi.

In Syria, IS is fighting the army of President Bashar Assad and other rebel groups opposed to his rule.

It is facing air strikes by the US-led coalition and by Russia which has sent aircraft to support its ally, the Syrian government.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi last month said 2016 will be the year of “final victory” on the hard-line group.


  1. Does this web site have to follow most of the rest of the UK media in helping spread Daesh propoganda? Sorry to word it so strongly but there are subliminal messages conveyed when you call them “Islamic State” when they are neither a true reflection of Islamic values nor an officially recognised state.

    In fairness you have plenty of company since the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and many of the national newspapers do the same. Maybe all the broadcasters and newspapers think the British public are far too stupid to be able to adapt if they start calling these scumbags by another name which happens to be one that they dislike (Daesh) rather than one that they are actively trying to promote (Islamic State) but really we’re not that stupid. A few people might be confused briefly but honestly, we would probably be able to understand after a very short period of adjustment.

  2. Isil: are as Islamic an expression as any other. They draw on historical precedent and have strong Koranic backing. In fact they are in many ways a more pure expression of early Islam than many modern versions.
    Theologically the Koran is very pliable, far more so than other holy books, particularly the Torah, Tanakh or New Testament. Liberals in West choose to believe ISIL are an aberration and that Islam is fundamentally the same as Christianity or Judaism, the truth is quite different. Firstly, what right does anyone have to say one thing is or isn’t Islamic? Is this not just another form of liberal cultural imperialism? If one may identify as black, female or a small girl in contradiction to their genetic heritage one can certainly be Islamic by choice even if others disagree. Secondly ISIL have a long theological pedigree, if not typically mainline, that goes right back to the beginning of the religion. Today the whabbi, salafist school is the intellectual driver behind this movement and has a lot of money from Saudi backers.
    In truth, ISIL are Islamic. They don’t cohere to mainstream Sunni or Shiite systems but are growing rapidly, are well funded and in the absence of an islamic magisterium have every right to call themselves both Islamic and it’s purest expression. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest or an act of ideologically driven PR….sorry.

    UKDJ, keep on reporting the news without bias or ideological agenda. The truth liberates people whilst obfuscation entraps them. Thanks.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here