Look simply put, I understand the notion that as x I support x against y.

That's just human nature and goes far beyond that of just war.

But in terms of morality, Al-Qaeda may have been looking out for its own (like minded Sunnis), but to put them again on equal playing field with any western nation is absurd.

You think any territory under their control would be able to experience the basic rights many of the nations fighting against them enjoy?

You think the same can be said of those in Raqqa?

Sure the U.S. is not without it's own far share of problems, but for Gods sake we haven't had mass exodus of populations fleeing their homes in utter fear of what we can do to them.

The CIA is getting the shit grilled out of them for at worst subjecting a select few of our enemies to water boarding and a week straight of listening to heavy metal on repeat.

On the other side IS is mounting the heads of their enemies on pikes and displaying them for the world to see, butchering children like you would sway a fly simply because its presence is irritating to you, forcing thousands of women into a backward way of life with many of their rights suppressed at best, and forced into service as a rape slave at worst.

So again, I'd rather my country be invaded by a western power than my town by these demonic nutjobs.

At 12/25/14 10:33 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Look simply put, I understand the notion that as x I support x against y.

That's just human nature and goes far beyond that of just war.

But in terms of morality, Al-Qaeda may have been looking out for its own (like minded Sunnis), but to put them again on equal playing field with any western nation is absurd.

You think any territory under their control would be able to experience the basic rights many of the nations fighting against them enjoy?

You think the same can be said of those in Raqqa?

I didn't mean they were like Al-Qaeda in the sense that they torture people. I meant it more in the sense that they're doing specific targeting of people regardless if civilians die or not.

Sure the U.S. is not without it's own far share of problems, but for Gods sake we haven't had mass exodus of populations fleeing their homes in utter fear of what we can do to them.

The CIA is getting the shit grilled out of them for at worst subjecting a select few of our enemies to water boarding and a week straight of listening to heavy metal on repeat.

No. This is not even a molecule of the surface of the shit they did. The shit they did was stuff like serving a prisoner a nice dish of pasta.... by shoving it up their ass. Or starving prisoners for days in solitary confinement. Many people in these torture cases died. The worst part is that it was later found out that they had nothing to do with terrorism and the CIA had made a mistake.

On the other side IS is mounting the heads of their enemies on pikes and displaying them for the world to see, butchering children like you would sway a fly simply because its presence is irritating to you, forcing thousands of women into a backward way of life with many of their rights suppressed at best, and forced into service as a rape slave at worst.

So again, I'd rather my country be invaded by a western power than my town by these demonic nutjobs.

The problem is the source of information. The way the US government has been moving has been towards easier military action and less transparency. Ever since Iran-Contra there have been many people who were convicted of destroying government documents, there've been developments like drone strikes which are about as transparent as mud especially since in most cases the US has little clue about who they're killing to organizations like JSOC which do the CIA's job for them with the advantage of having no Congressional oversight or record of what they did (members often don't write things down so there's no way to retrieve information about them). Bearing in mind they're fighting most of the "War on Terrorism" now.

At 12/25/14 10:33 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

st human nature and goes far beyond that of just war.

But in terms of morality, Al-Qaeda may have been looking out for its own (like minded Sunnis), but to put them again on equal playing field with any western nation is absurd.

We can argue who's more moral 'til the cows come home. My point is, it doesn't matter who is more moral.

At 12/26/14 01:14 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 12/25/14 10:33 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

st human nature and goes far beyond that of just war.

But in terms of morality, Al-Qaeda may have been looking out for its own (like minded Sunnis), but to put them again on equal playing field with any western nation is absurd.

We can argue who's more moral 'til the cows come home. My point is, it doesn't matter who is more moral.

The reason we always go to war should be based on morality.

I believe what we are doing in the Middle East is just. Did we lose our way during the war, sure Iraq was a mistake, and that's another argument we can get it in, but I'm sure with this thread being 7 pages deep that whole misadventure has already been discussed and bringing it up would be beating a dead horse.

There will be a lot we won't know about, in regards to the actions of JSOC and the CIA/FBI, but in this day and age keeping things under wraps is extremely difficult.

If you're trying to insinuate that there have been multiple My Lais committed by our special operation units or SAD, I'd beg to differ. BlackWater couldn't even get away with what they did as a private institution. What makes you think an entity as large as they wouldn't spill something as grave as that?

You forget human nature doesn't simply stop because you look at an organization as a single entity, instead of the collection of people with multiple loyalties (as if members of DevGru would sooner view themselves as JSOC members over those of the USN).

People talk, that's just how it is. No one can stay silent forever, secrets are hard to keep, even if it's your profession to do so.

He'll we already even know the identity of the man who killed Bin Laden, something we never should have known as declared by these shadowy government figures.

EDIT: If the powers at be saw it fit to send assassination squads to do their bidding that'd be one thing, like a sniper or using poison. But since you mentioned drones, and seeing as how that's what the govt has started using, I should mention dropping a hellfire missile from out of the sky is about as clandestine as a sending a black operative undercover to Japan.

Again people talk, many of these jihadis roll with their families and friends, you don't think they'd instantly hit up social media if Omar and his boys were turned to Chechen ash if their home was instantly reduced to rubble from above?

At 12/26/14 04:08 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: The reason we always go to war should be based on morality.

Why? What does morality serve? I have yet to see a single war prosecuted with the primary goal being to spread morality. It's important to understand the difference between rhetoric and casus belli. Here's some examples.

Civil War:
Rhetoric: To end slavery and uphold morality
Casus belli: The splintering of the country jeopardized the US government's sovereignty and rendered the continent vulnerable to European colonialism

WWII:
Rhetoric: To defeat Nazism, free Europe and Asia, and stop the Holocaust
Casus belli: Japan, you attacked Pearl Harbor and are stealing the Philippines from us. And if we don't help Britain against Hitler, we're next.

War in Afghanistan & Iraq:
Rhetoric: To spread freedom and democracy
Casus belli: Nobody kills 3000 of our citizens and gets away with it, & Saddam, we fear you plan to use WMDs against us.

My point is, why should we go to war for morality when never has anyone gone to war for morality? War is violence and killing, no matter how you frame it. There is no such thing as a moral war. You go to war for your interests, nothing else.

And I understand that and agree to an extent o the basis of furthering a nations own interests.

But taking away the fact that you and I are Americans, of the two entities here, i hope everyone in this forum can agree the furthering of American interests over that of IS's is clearly preferable, and if you have that much disdain for this country, than at the least we can agree the U.S. and by extension the west is the lesser of two evils.

As simply put as I can make it.

At 12/27/14 03:35 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:
But taking away the fact that you and I are Americans, of the two entities here, i hope everyone in this forum can agree the furthering of American interests over that of IS's is clearly preferable, and if you have that much disdain for this country, than at the least we can agree the U.S. and by extension the west is the lesser of two evils.

America is not the perfect nation, but it is the land of opportunity. The good outweighs the evil.

At 12/27/14 03:35 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: if you have that much disdain for this country, than at the least we can agree the U.S. and by extension the west is the lesser of two evils.

I don't have disdain for the United States. I love my country. But I have a different perception of it than you do. You could say that America is the lesser of two evils, but evil doesn't factor into my thought process. Even if ISIS were tolerant and democratic, I would still oppose it as long as it remains a threat to US security and interests.

At 12/28/14 01:48 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 12/27/14 03:35 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: if you have that much disdain for this country, than at the least we can agree the U.S. and by extension the west is the lesser of two evils.

I don't have disdain for the United States. I love my country. But I have a different perception of it than you do. You could say that America is the lesser of two evils, but evil doesn't factor into my thought process. Even if ISIS were tolerant and democratic, I would still oppose it as long as it remains a threat to US security and interests.

I wasn't calling you out specifically on the disdain portion, just as a sidenote since there are people out there who despise this country, despite being from Western nations and therefore the goals and ideals upheld by ours would be near identical to theirs.

At 12/28/14 09:39 PM, MrPercie wrote:

At 12/22/14 09:54 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: They're terrorists because they chop peoples heads off and put them on sticks. That's terrorism.

So we "save" these people who were going to die by ISIS hands, by killing them ourselves? what does that prove?

there are syrian people there probably disgruntled with Assads rule, one airstrike on one of those urban districts might be enough to turn him into a fighter.

Although, targeting what heavy equipment they have is not a bad idea, but these parades or convoys through towns, might be initially crippling, before they run the ole propaganda machine and start showing the deaths of civilians to the populace for recruitment purposes.

And as unfortunate as that is, from a purely militaristic standpoint trading civilian casualties for armor is a much more preferable choice. Sure for every person killed you're inspiring an orphaned child or mourning relative/S.O. to take up arms and avenge their death, but the most this person could fight with is an automatic weapon at best or suicide vest.

However a t-72 really gives an edge to the Islamic State that most other combatants can't hope to defeat. Their armor is what helped their blitzkrieg across the desert, since the airstrikes have occurred it's neutralized their a lability to use this advantage, and has reverted them back to being on the same level of capabilities as other paramilitaries.

Now at the same time, ethically you might ask this: Is it wrong to kill such bystanders. I mean after all parades are jubilant affairs, people are cheering and celebrating the highlighted entity that is to be displayed.

If that spotlight is on a terrorist group hellbent on imposing Islam on the rest of the world regardless of their say, can you truly call such bystanders innocent? They wouldn't simply attend such an event if they didn't support the cause, afterall that's what these events are for.

And in all the images I've seen the reception of these fighters, isn't one similar to the crowds in Paris circa 1940, most of those people are celebrating them. If anything dropping such weapons on them is simply killing potential combatants before they've had te chance to pick up a rifle and fight.

Now that being said, I'm sure there are a good bit of innocent people there simply by gunpoint. They are there not because they support IS, but by attending, they ensure the extension of their own life, since not doing so raises suspicion and has them killed. These are the deaths truly lamentable, but the real question is what the percentages are of which type of bystander.

My guess is that the first is more common, Afterall millions of people have been discard from this war. Anyone not aligned with IS's beliefs would have tried to flee well before their town/city fell.

Now I the reason I add try, is to make the distinction that not everyone who opposed them may have been able to flee. Regardless, my point being is that the amount of people effectively trapped in these cities living out an Islamic version of 1984, are few and far between.

PS: I'm away from my computer right now, and had to type it on my iPhone, please excuse any grammaritcal issues or typos this may contain. As soon as I get to it, I'll respond to any replies in a much more precise post

At 1/5/15 02:51 AM, MrPercie wrote: Well then the question is, is anyone innocent in this war? should we just start killing every civilian under the rule of such groups because they could be potential fighters, sure many people have fled, but now were expected to wipe off half or a quarter of the cities population because they might fight us.

The fact there are people, not fighting, merely attending a parade, shouldn't mean anything to us, if they're not fighting, theres no point in killing.

But the way you portray it, it sounds like we invaded iraq for the wrong reasons, we should have been killing these populations in the north and in syria because they have this mentality to support such an awful state as ISIS, they're the real enemy.

I'm not necessarily justifying all out Dresden style assaults on civilian populations here, I guess more so easing the feeling of civilian casualties, if we ever were to conduct such strikes on armored vehicles.

The point is rather moot though, as in the end the best time to hit these vehicles is when they'd be enroute to an a battle, and out in the open.

There is a real degree of radicalism in the Islamic World that needs to be curbed though, and it's not just the fighters and jihadists I'm worried about, but the larger number of supporters who don't necessarily take to the fight, but support it wholeheartedly.

There's no amount of bullets or bombs that can change that, and really only the only way for that mentality to change is through a growth in democracy, which leads to a secularization that the ME is in dire need of.

At 2/2/15 11:03 AM, Korriken wrote: Jordan to execute all ISIS prisoners if fighter pilot is killed.

I must admit, I like Jordan's way of thinking, "You kill our prisoner and we'll kill yours." It might be barbaric, but hopefully effective. When dealing with barbarians, sometimes you have to think like a barbarian.

Who knows? ISIS's way of thinking is not much different from the Jordanians, or our own. In a society that places heavy emphasis on martyrdom, this may not work.

At 2/2/15 11:03 AM, Korriken wrote: Jordan to execute all ISIS prisoners if fighter pilot is killed.

I must admit, I like Jordan's way of thinking, "You kill our prisoner and we'll kill yours." It might be barbaric, but hopefully effective. When dealing with barbarians, sometimes you have to think like a barbarian.

Seriously? To begin with the word "Barbarian" doesn't have much meaning when it comes to warfare because everyone is as cruel as each other and the people who throw that word around tend to be the worst (like the Romans! or the Greeks!). The US would do the same thing, except it wouldn't capture them the US would simply kill them through drone strikes. Or send them off to prisons which "don't exist" to torture them. I mean c'mon the US killed someone for simply voicing their support for Terrorism and being influential. So yah if that's the case everyone's been thinking like Barbarians for a long time now.

At 2/2/15 09:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Seriously? To begin with the word "Barbarian" doesn't have much meaning when it comes to warfare...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Warforger's point is not to say "ISIS is different, who are we to judge?" He's saying that war is war, and killing by beheading is no less civilized than killing by drone.

What I don't like is the implication that the fight against ISIS is a fight for humanism. Yes, ISIS are barbarians, but it's stupid to hold humanity up to some unreasonable high standard. Humanity does not mean peaceful. Humans are warmongers. We kill for our interests. I oppose ISIS because they threaten my interests. ISIS threaten my country and my people so of course I want them dead. But I'm not going to claim that I oppose them for altruistic reasons, or because of "humanity." Humanity is what's causing the carnage in the first place.

At 2/3/15 01:07 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/2/15 09:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Seriously? To begin with the word "Barbarian" doesn't have much meaning when it comes to warfare...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Warforger's point is not to say "ISIS is different, who are we to judge?" He's saying that war is war, and killing by beheading is no less civilized than killing by drone.

What I don't like is the implication that the fight against ISIS is a fight for humanism. Yes, ISIS are barbarians, but it's stupid to hold humanity up to some unreasonable high standard. Humanity does not mean peaceful. Humans are warmongers. We kill for our interests. I oppose ISIS because they threaten my interests. ISIS threaten my country and my people so of course I want them dead. But I'm not going to claim that I oppose them for altruistic reasons, or because of "humanity." Humanity is what's causing the carnage in the first place.

My stand would usually be torn between giving them what they deserve and giving more than what they deserve. Many lives has been wasted because of the idealogy and until now, I am uncertain what they are really up to. Now, Jordan took their part and honestly, I do not want to be in such painful situation as well. I would like to think the what Jordan did was really called for and long over due.

At 2/2/15 05:48 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Who knows? ISIS's way of thinking is not much different from the Jordanians, or our own. In a society that places heavy emphasis on martyrdom, this may not work.

The way Jordan thinks is inherently different from the way ISIS thinks because they are on different sides of the conflict. ISIS obviously wanted to rile up the Jordanians and hopefully get them to fight a war they can never win but that's not what happened -- the prisoners were executed without any spectacle or bravado and that's exactly what should have happened in exactly the manner it happened in. I wouldn't call it "classy" but it certainly wasn't what ISIS was hoping for, which was irrationality and more regional instability. Abdullah II is more than aware of this and I suspect the average Jordanian is smart enough to figure that out as well.

Mission Creep, everyone. Within a year I see U.S. boots on the ground fighting alongside Iraqi forces to take out ISIS. What our plans for ISIS in Syria will be, I don't know.

Although the AUMF against ISIS in Iraq has yet to be passed, I think it will. Scarier still, the fact that the US is using our own pilots to transport Iraqi troops is exactly what JFK did in South Vietnam. Vietnam started with US helicopters transporting ARVN troops against the NLF, and like it or not it can only escalate from there. Iraq's fight against ISIS has become the United States' fight, and I see no way to withdraw US forces in a way that would not be a total victory for ISIS.

Will NATO countries support the effort? While the fight against ISIS is far more compelling than the fight to oust Saddam Hussein, it's unclear how many of our European allies will support it. You could point to the recent al-Qaeda inspired attacks in France and Denmark, but also the fact that nobody wants a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how to succeed? We need to clearly define whether we will fight in Iraq, Syria, or both. Since Syria is still conceivably not our fight, I think it'd be best to focus on driving ISIS out of Iraq and into Syria. But of course, how will you deal with the plenty of Iraqi Sunnis who support ISIS?

Perhaps the best thing to do is to back ISIS into a corner. Just as Saddam Hussein was backed into a corner after 1991, if we can gain some ground against ISIS, secure the Shiite and Kurdish areas, and weaken ISIS militarily, then I think that could be grounds for mission accomplished. Because let's face it, we have nothing to replace ISIS with. The Sunnis may not love ISIS but they sure hate the Baghdad government.

Could bolstering tribes work? Perhaps, but again they are small, weak, and not unified. It may be a hassle to arm them, and they wouldn't be loyal to any federal Iraqi government either.

I'm bringing in a lot of questions, but overall, looks like we're going back to war.

At 2/15/15 06:58 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Mission Creep, everyone. Within a year I see U.S. boots on the ground fighting alongside Iraqi forces to take out ISIS. What our plans for ISIS in Syria will be, I don't know.

I don't think so. I mean, yes, there's now a new level of involvement, but the degree to which we are now more involved isn't all that significant. I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes right after the AUMF proposal -- the administration is probing to see how far they can comfortably go, but I think that was always the idea. Putting boots on the ground was always emphasized as a non starter, and considering how far Obama has gone to make sure that never happened, I'm convinced that he's actually committed to that promise.

The Iraq War Resolution already lets the administration bomb whoever the fuck it wants where ever they want -- the AUMF proposed by Obama is pure politics, nothing more nothing less. The gist of the AUMF is to put Republicans between a rock and a hard place -- either support the president or vote against bombing ISIS. In essence, the GOP is gonna have to walk Obama's line despite them whining about him not doing enough (that's not to say that's not the case, however).

Also keep in mind the AUMF extends to 2018. Considering how hawkish Hillary is, I'd say this is a good thing.

At 12/23/14 04:22 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/23/14 03:36 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: On ancient Canaan, I don't want to talk about it because you are ignoring historical evidence. The Israelites were a sect of Canaanite. Even if they conquered the region by force, there's no recorded non-biblical history telling us so, and it would have been a Civil War. Completely different than the Ottomans conquering Jerusalem in the 8th century, which is a historical fact.

The Ottomans weren't even around in the 8th Century but I'm not going to pursue this any further
.

The atomic bombings saved lives. Millions of US and Japanese would have died if we invaded Japan by land (like the war on the Eastern Front), the bombs allowed us to "only" kill a few hundred thousand or so (no more than the conventional firebombing raid in Tokyo). It's the fault of the Japanese empire for not surrendering after we explicitly warned them. They started the war against us—we weren't at war with them until Pearl Harbor.

This is actually not true. The Japanese were ready to surrender conditionally, the only condition being that they keep their Emperor. The Allies sought unconditional surrender and on top of that to limit the advance of the Soviets in Asia as the Soviets were gaining alot of territory in China and Korea and may have been able to hit Japan itself so they used the Atomic bombings to do so. And they ended up letting the Japanese keep their Emperor anyway.

Now you're going into dangerous ethics. The atomic bombings were on purely civilian targets. Their whole purpose was to terrify the Japanese into surrender i.e. terrorism. This was in line with military thought at the time where civilians made better bombing raid targets than military industries. In fact that had been in military thought for quite a while by then. You can go look at similar actions like the bombing of Dresden, where instead of the military industry of Dresden being destroyed it was just the civilian centers and monuments which were. My issue is that the whole concept of terrorism is stupid, it's just a synonym for war. Drone strikes aren't less terrifying that suicide bombings and the Atomic bombings weren't any different in motivation to 9/11. This makes the term "War on Terror" translate to "War on War" which goes onto show how useless that term is.

WMDs and war in general are horrific, but it pisses me off how people act like there were alternatives. They neglect to mention the crimes against humanity the Japanese Empire committed. They killed 300,000 Chinese during the Rape of Nanking alone, and killed tens of thousands more in horrific ways with their chemical/biological weapons program.

Because they're irrelevant. What crimes the Japanese government did does not justify crimes against their citizens. This is the same kind of logic i.e. an eye for an eye which led to 9/11. Muslims in the Middle East grew vengeful for the wars that the United States was a part of killing innocent civilians in fact Osama Bin Laden states that he grew inspired to destroy the WTC after he watched a video of the Israeli invasion of Beirut which was supported by US combat forces. In it a sky scraper in Beirut was destroyed. Bearing in mind that during this invasion they were destroying whole neighborhoods on the suspicion that Yasar Arafat was there. What was justified and what wasn't in these cases becomes a matter of perspective because the American public doesn't seem to care if foreigners die even at their hands.

War sucks. Ideally, there would be no wars. But it's not idealistic to maintain a moral equivalence when there is none. It's obfuscation and it's wrong. There are some things worth defending.

That's one thing, but my issue has been the definition of terrorism, which is synonymous with warfare it seems.

Even then people use the "War sucks" excuse whenever they're caught slaughtering civilians needlessly, like with drone strikes.

Going back on the broader issue, the US has been all over the world in countries which they did not even approve an invasion of. The military has expanded its operations into places like Yemen and Somalia and is actually encouraged to. One of the big names is JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command, which goes wherever it sees fit and kills targets. While they were behind the famed death of Osama Bin Laden (although no body was ever found) they were also behind many raids where they ended up killing civilians. The issue with them is that they've become an intelligence gathering search and destroy team i.e. like the CIA but they have no oversight. The Senate knows little about them and doesn't even ask, they don't have to report to the rest of the military and are only accountable to the President. Is that ok? Because that's just like Al-Qaeda.

That is completely and utterly different from al qaeda, your taking alot of assumption and putting that into fact, "assuming no body was ever found", there was a reason for that, nobody knew how he looked like in the modern day, plastic surgery is key, and his face could have been copied, better safe than sorry, the US didnt need to do this with saddam since saddam wasnt an insurgent, he was a general, what sets them apart is that their aim is not to kill civilians and spread the constitution of the united states, alqaeda's pure aim is to kill civilians TO spread the islamic faith, their not different from any deep undercover unit, without these guys bin laden would be alive, so would be saddam and hopefully in the future baghdadi wont be, your criticize drone strikes yet fail to realize the fact that the alternative "sending in troops" often results in more civilian deaths, drone strikes are also largely aimed at militants, who purposefully hide themselves in civilians, if due to this fact the US never fired on these guys, then pakistan would be facing a major terrorism issue, far worse than what it is handling now, far, far worse believe me, their has not been a single war in the middle east orchestrated by the united states thats aim was to kill civilians and establish their religious system, not one, i live in pakistan, i see everyday the hidden islamist tendency that most of my muslim friends show, and its largely because the terrorists arent actually exploiting the religion either, alot of what they do IS influenced by the Quran and hadees, this gets alot of young nationalist muslims, alot possessing the same view point as you to join them, feelings like "america's the REAL terrorist are what cause this feeling to grow, the difference between war and terrorism is that terrorism is done to terrorize the public, and the innocent and that terrorism stems a war started on terrorist basis, i would not call the japanese bombing of pearl harbour a terrorist attack same way i would not call the american nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki a terrorist attack as both, were started by an ulterior cause, the war in europe, which germany started, this is a key difference in terrorism and war.

At 4/3/15 07:39 AM, malfunction19 wrote: That is completely and utterly different from al qaeda, your taking alot of assumption and putting that into fact, "assuming no body was ever found", there was a reason for that, nobody knew how he looked like in the modern day, plastic surgery is key, and his face could have been copied, better safe than sorry,

The issue is more that they're covering their tracks and not having evidence of what happened. I wasn't saying he didn't die, but it's the secrecy that's the issue.

the US didnt need to do this with saddam since saddam wasnt an insurgent, he was a general, what sets them apart is that their aim is not to kill civilians and spread the constitution of the united states, alqaeda's pure aim is to kill civilians TO spread the islamic faith, their not different from any deep undercover unit, without these guys bin laden would be alive, so would be saddam and hopefully in the future baghdadi wont be,

Al-Qaeda's aim isn't to spread the Islamic faith, it's to revitalize the Islamic world to re-establish a united Islamic Caliphate and expel foreign influence. They view the West as responsible for many of the problems of the Middle East so focus on them as they support the many nationalist dictatorships across the Middle East.

your criticize drone strikes yet fail to realize the fact that the alternative "sending in troops" often results in more civilian deaths, drone strikes are also largely aimed at militants, who purposefully hide themselves in civilians,

Actually it's not certain that sending in troops results in more civilian deaths. The US Department of State has said that killing 30 civilians to kill 1 terrorist is the payoff they think is acceptable in a drone strike. Furthermore the US doesn't know who they're targeting much of the time. Looking at a blurry video isn't enough to discern what someone looks like or what they're doing. Back in the wikileaks scandal there was a video of a US gunner destroying a group of journalists because from the info-red camera's they looked like they were carrying weapons when they were in fact just camera's. On top of that the actual kill score is a range, not a specific number. Reports say for example that 5-10 people were killed in the drone strike. The lack of information casts doubt as to whether or not the people being targeted are those the US is going after or if they were actual insurgents or civilians. I've heard some estimates as high as 90% of the casualties being civilians.

And that's the issue with drone strikes. Again I'm not against drone strikes, it's just how they've been approached that irks me. They're being sent into countries like Pakistan or Yemen where the US has not declared war or the totally-a-war-but-not-really that they did in Afghanistan and Iraq and often times they've attacked purely civilian targets due to bad intel.

Oh and really? They to have to put on uniforms to let everyone know that they're insurgents or they're assholes?

if due to this fact the US never fired on these guys, then pakistan would be facing a major terrorism issue, far worse than what it is handling now, far, far worse believe me, their has not been a single war in the middle east orchestrated by the united states thats aim was to kill civilians and establish their religious system, not one,

Uhhh depends on who you ask. There are Americans out there who wanted to conquer Iraq and convert it to Christianity, but you are right in that sense. But that doesn't change my point about the lack of difference between war and terrorism.

i live in pakistan, i see everyday the hidden islamist tendency that most of my muslim friends show, and its largely because the terrorists arent actually exploiting the religion either, alot of what they do IS influenced by the Quran and hadees, this gets alot of young nationalist muslims, alot possessing the same view point as you to join them, feelings like "america's the REAL terrorist are what cause this feeling to grow, the difference between war and terrorism is that terrorism is done to terrorize the public, and the innocent and that terrorism stems a war started on terrorist basis,

The thing is that the main objective in war is to terrorize the enemy into submission. When WWII was fought and both sides adopted Blitzkrieg tactics they attacked exclusively civilian area's with no military value other than the fact that it would wear down their support for the war. The Germans did this when they waged war and it was extremely successful and the Allies did this when they were defeating the Germans. This was the same thing with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The intention was break the countries will to fight, to let them know that just because they were civilians that it wouldn't keep them from being targeted.

i would not call the japanese bombing of pearl harbour a terrorist attack same way i would not call the american nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki a terrorist attack as both, were started by an ulterior cause, the war in europe, which germany started, this is a key difference in terrorism and war.

The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor can be argued more as not terrorism because it was targeting purely military targets, the issue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they were purely civilian targets. They were not military bases, they didn't have a large garrison they were just cities with large civilian populations. That was why they were targeted.

War is basically politics with terrorism. One side is pushing the other into its political agenda by intimidation and force, and that's the way terrorism has been defined.

At 4/3/15 01:12 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 4/3/15 07:39 AM, malfunction19 wrote:

The issue is more that they're covering their tracks and not having evidence of what happened. I wasn't saying he didn't die, but it's the secrecy that's the issue.

I dont see how secrecy at this level is a bad thing, he was HVT, dealth with accordingly, insurgencies like these cannot be won against like that, if the US wanted to it could end the insurgency in a month, but what it would have to do to crush the insurgency would probably make obama the next stalin. The point is that insurgent HVT are extraordinarily hard to find, as in really, really hard, prices of upwards to a hundred billion in total costs to find this guy including the military aid given to pak to find him, which utterly failed, the secrecy was also due to the nature of the operation, the US entered pakistani territory without permission, as pakistan conveniently always lost bin laden even when the CIA told them where he was (he was found several times before, this is not a conspiracy)

the US didnt need to do this with saddam since saddam wasnt an insurgent, he was a general, what sets them apart is that their aim is not to kill civilians and spread the constitution of the united states, alqaeda's pure aim is to kill civilians TO spread the islamic faith, their not different from any deep undercover unit, without these guys bin laden would be alive, so would be saddam and hopefully in the future baghdadi wont be,

Al-Qaeda's aim isn't to spread the Islamic faith, it's to revitalize the Islamic world to re-establish a united Islamic Caliphate and expel foreign influence. They view the West as responsible for many of the problems of the Middle East so focus on them as they support the many nationalist dictatorships across the Middle East.

That is blatantly false, you are grossly misinterpreting alqaeda, their aim is to expel all unislamic elements from society, their origins date bake to 1783 with the barelvi movement against the sikh of punjab, it was ironically similar to ISIS, along with the faraizi movement in colonial india, where haji shariat ullah put certain parts of bengals under his self appointed "caliphs" to regulate islamic society and expel non islamic elements, they also declared bengal and india as "dar ul harb" as in land under enemy territory, sound similar? Because it should.

Actually it's not certain that sending in troops results in more civilian deaths. The US Department of State has said that killing 30 civilians to kill 1 terrorist is the payoff they think is acceptable in a drone strike. Furthermore the US doesn't know who they're targeting much of the time. Looking at a blurry video isn't enough to discern what someone looks like or what they're doing. Back in the wikileaks scandal there was a video of a US gunner destroying a group of journalists because from the info-red camera's they looked like they were carrying weapons when they were in fact just camera's. On top of that the actual kill score is a range, not a specific number. Reports say for example that 5-10 people were killed in the drone strike. The lack of information casts doubt as to whether or not the people being targeted are those the US is going after or if they were actual insurgents or civilians. I've heard some estimates as high as 90% of the casualties being civilians.

Those estimates are blatantly false, the highest figures ive seem is 73%, and even that is wildly exaggerated, and the thing with drone strikes is that they get better with time, notice how in pakistan drone strikes used to have high civilian casualties as you state but no in 2015 the amount of civilians killed is non existent now that pakistan is running its own anti terrorist campaign in north waziristan, here is the official pakistani governments statement regarding drone strikes, http://www.dawn.com/news/1052933

And that's the issue with drone strikes. Again I'm not against drone strikes, it's just how they've been approached that irks me. They're being sent into countries like Pakistan or Yemen where the US has not declared war or the totally-a-war-but-not-really that they did in Afghanistan and Iraq and often times they've attacked purely civilian targets due to bad intel.

Oh and really? They to have to put on uniforms to let everyone know that they're insurgents or they're assholes?

if due to this fact the US never fired on these guys, then pakistan would be facing a major terrorism issue, far worse than what it is handling now, far, far worse believe me, their has not been a single war in the middle east orchestrated by the united states thats aim was to kill civilians and establish their religious system, not one,

Uhhh depends on who you ask. There are Americans out there who wanted to conquer Iraq and convert it to Christianity, but you are right in that sense. But that doesn't change my point about the lack of difference between war and terrorism.

Thats irrelevant aswell, its not what a certain part of the public want them to do, its what the government officially states as its objective, which was abundantly clear.

i live in pakistan, i see everyday the hidden islamist tendency that most of my muslim friends show, and its largely because the terrorists arent actually exploiting the religion either, alot of what they do IS influenced by the Quran and hadees, this gets alot of young nationalist muslims, alot possessing the same view point as you to join them, feelings like "america's the REAL terrorist are what cause this feeling to grow, the difference between war and terrorism is that terrorism is done to terrorize the public, and the innocent and that terrorism stems a war started on terrorist basis,

The thing is that the main objective in war is to terrorize the enemy into submission. When WWII was fought and both sides adopted Blitzkrieg tactics they attacked exclusively civilian area's with no military value other than the fact that it would wear down their support for the war. The Germans did this when they waged war and it was extremely successful and the Allies did this when they were defeating the Germans. This was the same thing with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The intention was break the countries will to fight, to let them know that just because they were civilians that it wouldn't keep them from being targeted.

Terrorizing the enemy into submission is different from terrorism itself, and in that case terrorism isnt inherently bad either, the definition of terrorism is the us of violence to forward a political or religious ideology (KKK, boko haram, ISIS), and id say even violent tea partiers can be classified as terrorists, and since when has attacking the enemies civilian population lowered support for the war, contrary it makes the enemy even more outraged and puts oil to the fires of war, i wouldnt call hiroshima and nagasaki terrorism, same way i wouldnt call japanese fire bombing of china that killing millions largely only civilians terror attacks either. The difference between terrorism and war is very simple, in terrorism civilians are targetted for the sake of a certain ideology, the US clearly stated that it didnt bomb hiroshima and nagasaki just due to civilian casualties, the japanese did not surrender after the first bomb fell, if the US simply aimed to demolish the japanese it could have kept bombing, the reason why the western allies didnt agree to the soviet surrender to the japanese is because the soviet didnt help at all with the japanese theatre.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, one of Saddam Hussein's top deputies, was killed by Iraqi Army officials near Tikrit. Many news agencies describe the killing as an important victory in the war against ISIS.

I'm not as sure. It's difficult to tell how powerful al-Douri was in the Iraqi insurgency. He had opposed the coalition from day one, first in Saddam's Iraqi Army, then as a Baathist insurgent, to the leader of the Iraqi-based Baath party and of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order (JRTN).

JTRN at its core is a Baathist terrorist group that wants to restore Saddam Hussein's version of Iraq. Although primarily Sufi, it has recruited Sunnis who wax nostalgic for Saddam. While not Islamist per se, it is not friendly toward Shia Iraqis. It's remained a prominent group since 2006 but primarily in Sunni areas.

JRTN has had a mixed relationship with al-Qaeda and ISIS. JTRN has helped both capture land in Sunni-controlled areas and has consistently opposed coalition forces and the new Iraqi government. But at the same time, ISIS has vandalized Sufi areas, and JRTN does not necessarily support a pan-Islamic state. Like Saddam, they are primarily socialist and secular, though certainly not atheist.

So what does this mean? al-Douri's death is not a major turning point in the war. It just means the further elimination of any non-radical insurgents. If anything, his death may be good for ISIS because it can gain some former JRTN recruits. But the strength of the ISIS and the front lines will likely stay the same.

At 4/17/15 07:08 PM, MrPercie wrote: Would Russia take part in aerial bombardments of ISIS territory?

I know they support Assad, They Blame USA for supporting the rebels and inadvertently perhaps aided or ignored ISIS, but I can't remember they haven't offered any direct military support other than supplies to Syrian government. Would they get involved if there was a Chechen terrorist attack in their country that was ISIS sponsored?

ISIS is not going to attack Russia anytime soon. They know Russia would be willing to go further than the US is in wiping out any possible opposition because they don't particularly care or even pretend to about "liberating" the people. It's interesting though, because you can trace al-Qaeda and the Taliban back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Russia invaded, but the US was the one to be attacked.

At 4/18/15 04:21 PM, Ranger2 wrote: you can trace al-Qaeda and the Taliban back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Russia invaded, but the US was the one to be attacked.

I will say that the "Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan"annoys the shit out of me. The Soviets did not invade Afghanistan anymore than the Americans invaded Vietnam. The Afghans had set up their own Communist government without invasions by the USSR, the USSR just came in because the Afghan Communist government asked them to because they were unable to maintain power. Same exact case in Vietnam.

At 4/19/15 01:55 AM, Warforger wrote: I will say that the "Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan"annoys the shit out of me. The Soviets did not invade Afghanistan anymore than the Americans invaded Vietnam. The Afghans had set up their own Communist government without invasions by the USSR, the USSR just came in because the Afghan Communist government asked them to because they were unable to maintain power. Same exact case in Vietnam.

The Soviets backed the Saur revolution. They did not invade and set up a government but their hands were in the pot.

At 4/20/15 01:16 AM, dem0lecule wrote: Russia is in difficult position right now. The reason is the Chechen leader helps Russia fight the proxy war in Ukraine. On the other hand, Ramzan Kadyrov and his goons are actively funding ISIS with weapons and troops.

We also know Putin is backing Assad, which put Putin in a very difficult dilemma. Putin cannot lose Assad, because they will have to deal with geo politic and military strategy in Middle East. At the same time, he has to control Ramzan Kadyrov, or Russia would be in chaos again.

I wonder if this ties into the fact that al-Assad had directed most of his firepower at the Syrian rebels and not ISIS. I don't know if this is a firm suggestion from Putin or al-Assad's own directive.

If Ramzan Kadyrov is backing ISIS, what's to stop him from trying to establish Chechnya as part of a caliphate? Kadyrov has defended the Charlie Hebdo shootings, so why is he so friendly toward Putin?