|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now.
or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more.
even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians).
|
Looks like a lot of states are out right banning refugees in the US.
|
On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:
You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave.
The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now.
Assad and the SAA would need monklike forgiveness and a babylike naivity to trust the nations that helped either directly or indirectly in ISIS creation and rise. Nations that plan to create so called "safe-zones" and partition of their country. Not gonna happen.
|
On November 16 2015 21:58 FreeZEternal wrote:
Looks like a lot of states are out right banning refugees in the US.
We have 50 states and a couple of them will do it, but then others will respond by taking in more refugees. The great cycle of politics.
|
On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians).
There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically.
|
United States43617 Posts
On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically.
Actual military action like we tried in Vietnam? Or was that not actual enough?
|
On November 17 2015 00:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. Actual military action like we tried in Vietnam? Or was that not actual enough?
Vietnam was the exact same thing. We kind of bombed some areas, but at the same time, oh dear, what if we killed an innocent! Compare that to WW2 and it's nothing. We had all sorts of protests and other nonsense preventing us from actually doing what was necessary.
|
On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically.
The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the latest delirium out of europe seems to be that ISIS is a jewish-american creation and the correct solution is to hate jews some more.
|
On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now.
What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting.
|
On November 16 2015 18:31 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 18:19 Rebs wrote:On November 16 2015 18:17 CptMarvel wrote:On November 16 2015 02:39 VelJa wrote:
I just want to say this here
I'm sad, but I'm not dead.
For the second time in 2015, we face terror.
I'm afraid, I'm not weak, I will live more & more my life because my ancester works for this : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Ought to calm down with quoting the french revolution, aka the most wrongly praised and grossly misunderstood of all time. Hey, sacking jails and palaces while slicing of heads, iz all for liberty and democracy bro.. Haha. Hiding behind democracy and liberty indeed, while really serving the everygrowing interests of the freshly born middle-class. A very symptomatic event that was a starting-block for (even darker) times to come. Same as singing La Marseillaise and putting a french flag filter over your facebook photo : not the best of choices in response to such events. However, because everyone's so desperate for a way to cope with grief, I'll let it go.
It's fashionable and everything to be cynical and cleverer than the sheep crowd by not buying the official discourse, but maybe you should realize that for all its failures, the French Revolution planted the seeds of countless emancipatory movements, and indeed, the actual French democracy. Western liberal democracy owes a huge amount to the Revolution.
A flag can symbolize many things. It can symbolize nationalism and biggotry, aggressivity, and mindless patriotism. It can also represent a wounded nation that has a lot to offer to the world: a hedonist lifestyle, a uniquely secular society, a enormous lot of extraordinary artists and thinkers and values of enlightment that have shaped the rest of the world.
It's that France that is represented by our flags, because it's that France that has been targeted. It's not a Front National convention those guys have chosen to attack. It's our terrasses, our concert halls, our stadiums.
My flag is not MLP's flag, and it is not nationalist, aggressive or exclusive. Young, urban, progressive people, enjoying life and what Paris has to offer.
But again, cynicism is fashionable and it's so cool to be critical when for once people are united behind something obvious.
|
On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting.
That we are not monsters and we know that long term that will do more harm than good? That is a city with 200K people in it and a bunch of them don't want to live under ISIS rule. Blowing up a city won't stop ISIS. We have been here before. 9/11 happened and we decided to invade some countries to “stop the terrorist”. The terrorist just moved.
|
On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting.
This is simply not true. WWI was the last war where more soldiers than civilians were killed. Since then the ratio of killed soldiers and killed civilians get worse in every war. The last war where civilian deaths were counted and seriously estimated was the first gulf war and it saw something like 30 000 killed soldiers against 270 000 killed civilians. Civilian casualties don't get counted by the military since then, it is bad marketing.
Smart bombs, clinical strikes and stuff like that is just marketing speech by politicians and military to gain public support for military campaigns. How do you think the US military continuesly bombs up hospitals, funerals, wedding ceremonies, reporters etc.? It happens because fighting the enemy is prioritized highly above protecting civilian life. The military doesn't limt itself
If I get it right the french miltary basically admitted to bombing clinics in Raqqa. Hospitals are explicitly protected by the Geneva convention, a document signed by France. Militaries don't give a fuck
|
On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting.
the law? because levelling a city like that would be a war crime.
It also would breed more problems than it solves.
re: US states banning refugees, they can't. They can pass a law or something, but it's meaningless. Immigration issues are clearly and specifically handled by the federal government.
|
On November 17 2015 00:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting. That we are not monsters and we know that long term that will do more harm than good? That is a city with 200K people in it and a bunch of them don't want to live under ISIS rule. Blowing up a city won't stop ISIS. We have been here before. 9/11 happened and we decided to invade some countries to “stop the terrorist”. The terrorist just moved.
That's what I'm saying is wrong. We reach a point where we say "eep! That would be inhumane!", but the option is there. We don't need to fully eliminate terrorism. We never will. There will always be some group somewhere that thinks sharia law is worth dying for. However, we can obliterate their infrastructure. I don't think it would require 200k civilian deaths. It would take a lot, but not all of them. We could bring Islamic terrorism to the point of an annoyance that takes a few lives a year, not hundreds or thousands.
|
On November 17 2015 00:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting. the law? because levelling a city like that would be a war crime. It also would breed more problems than it solves. re: US states banning refugees, they can't. They can pass a law or something, but it's meaningless. Immigration issues are clearly and specifically handled by the federal government.
You are correct, but they will pass laws that make it abundantly clear that any refugee will have a hard time in that state. But the US is huge and the number of refugees we are hosting is so small, it will be a non-issue. So they can throw their xenophobic hissy fit if they want.
|
On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting.
If you kill 200k civilians you're not much different from ISIS
|
On November 17 2015 00:45 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting. If you kill 200k civilians you're not much different from ISIS
This is what I am saying holds us back. We're not just going to win (some time over the next 6000 years), we're going to do it while patting ourselves on the back and celebrating moral relativism.
|
On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:31 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting. That we are not monsters and we know that long term that will do more harm than good? That is a city with 200K people in it and a bunch of them don't want to live under ISIS rule. Blowing up a city won't stop ISIS. We have been here before. 9/11 happened and we decided to invade some countries to “stop the terrorist”. The terrorist just moved. That's what I'm saying is wrong. We reach a point where we say "eep! That would be inhumane!", but the option is there. We don't need to fully eliminate terrorism. We never will. There will always be some group somewhere that thinks sharia law is worth dying for. However, we can obliterate their infrastructure. I don't think it would require 200k civilian deaths. It would take a lot, but not all of them. We could bring Islamic terrorism to the point of an annoyance that takes a few lives a year, not hundreds or thousands.
They will just find more hopeless, jobless youth with no prospects to fight for them. They will go to whatever war torn country is unable to provide upward mobility and convince the poor that the west is responsible for all the problems. And they will use the bombing of Raqqa will be used as B-roll for their arguments, along with all endless copies of anti-Muslim rhetoric from all of our nations. And since the poor in those nations don’t have access to other information, it will be taken as the truth.
So terrorism won’t be a problem for a couple of years and then it will start all over again. A new group, but run and funded by the same people that are funding ISIS now. And the discussion we are having right now just feeds into it.
|
On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:31 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2015 00:16 Mohdoo wrote:On November 16 2015 20:20 xM(Z wrote:On November 16 2015 17:05 PoP wrote:On November 16 2015 08:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:
so the french are making a symbolic bombing against isis ? ..they are more than ready to handle some more bombs, we need a coordinated plan with boots on the ground to end them, but is anybody willing to do so? i mean, the Kurds and their Arab allies are doing a good job so far, but many europeans are hurt and want to get some action as well.
If europe is serious about ending isis they have to be ready to pay the price.. or do you guys really think that this bombing will put a dent into isis capabilities? The guys have been getting bombed for so long they know how to minimize the damages. You're right of course. We need a coordinated action with as many nations as possible, including local ones we didn't necessarily want to ally with (or at least work with) before, including Al Assad's army itself. However evil of a dictator the west openly considers him, he's got the same enemy as us, and most importantly knows the field, ISIS and how their soldiers behave. The bombing itself is at least sending a message in the meantime though. If it gets more frequent, systematic and determined it could end up damaging them way more than they've been up till now. or, you'll bomb them more, they'll bomb you more. even regular/normal syrian refugees will start hating you once you'll start killing civilians in Syria(which will be inevitable since bombs don't give a fuck and ISIS hides among civilians). There is absolutely nothing that Islamic extremism can do against actual military action. If push comes to shove, Western nations can essentially eliminate the middle east. Every difficulty the West has had with the middle east is because we are forced to fight with our hands tied politically. The Middle East is a region, not a country and we can't eliminate it. Its a region filled with people. And "the west" hands not tied, its just a complex issue that can't be solved just by bombing and using tanks. In fact, those things are part of the cause that lead to the middle east to be in the state is in now. What is currently stopping us from leveling all of Raqqa? The need for precision in our attacks is severely limiting. That we are not monsters and we know that long term that will do more harm than good? That is a city with 200K people in it and a bunch of them don't want to live under ISIS rule. Blowing up a city won't stop ISIS. We have been here before. 9/11 happened and we decided to invade some countries to “stop the terrorist”. The terrorist just moved. That's what I'm saying is wrong. We reach a point where we say "eep! That would be inhumane!", but the option is there. We don't need to fully eliminate terrorism. We never will. There will always be some group somewhere that thinks sharia law is worth dying for. However, we can obliterate their infrastructure. I don't think it would require 200k civilian deaths. It would take a lot, but not all of them. We could bring Islamic terrorism to the point of an annoyance that takes a few lives a year, not hundreds or thousands.
I'm baffled by that logic. "Bomb civilians, to stop another group bombing civilians".
Are people actually so fucking dumb to think that somehow the response of the bombed civilians would be a different one to yours? What you will do is breed MORE terrorism, because to them, YOU are the terrorist then. And guess where that leads. Ask yourself where pretty much every middle eastern terror organisation came from.
Small hint: your country has a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
