|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 17 2015 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:45 JieXian 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. 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.
15 years from now our children will be living in fear of the terrorist that action would create. 200K deaths and their relatives would loath us forever. They would tell stories about the evil West killing 200K people because 100 of their people died. Tales of how we hate them and don't value their lives.
So its more than the moral high ground that is holding us back. It’s because it’s a terrible idea from people who think a high body count is a metric for success.
|
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
Note I am drastically against IS (pretty anti religion in general) but since the 90's the two wars and the embargo imposed on Iraq mainly on US pressure killed 1,5 million Iraqis (Iraq has 30 million inhabitants) wounded the same amount and displaced millions. Even a psyochopathic outfit like the IS can run rampage the next 2 decades and they won't reach that numbers
I don't think the western world understands what it did in Iraq. My father was born in the hunger years in Germany after the war one of his brothers starved as an infant and he basically lived in a crater for some years. He told me a lot of stories of that part of his life and I think I have a bit of a better understanding what this number actually means.
Imagine killing someone every 20th citizen in your country, wounding the same amont, displacing every 10th and destroy the infrastructure on top of that. That is precisely what the US did in Iraq. I can see why the sunnis in Iraq choose the IS over the shia dominated government the US installed. They are an evil outfit but from the iraqi view they are not worse than the alternative delivered by the US.
|
Hollande basically decided to change the political regime. At this point is it a democracy anymore ? We already had what was needed to face the terrorist attack... the constitution was written by people who made the second world war, they knew what was needed. Yet this little midget asked for a change, for more security.
And what the hell he is specifically targetting the bi nationals.
|
On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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.
Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone?
|
United States43617 Posts
On November 17 2015 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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. Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone?
Yes, honestly I think pretty much any motivated group could pull off a comparable attack with next to no infrastructure. Deadly weapons aren't hugely difficult to obtain once we include vehicles, explosives packed with nails and so forth. Hell, you could probably solo sabotage train tracks and derail one. This is asymmetrical warfare, until they strike we can't tell the difference between our target and the people we want to protect. They have no such problem.
|
On November 17 2015 00:58 WhiteDog wrote:
Hollande basically decided to change the political regime. At this point is it a democracy anymore ? We already had what was needed to face the terrorist attack... the constitution was written by people who made the second world war, they knew what was needed. Yet this little midget asked for a change, for more security.
And what the hell he is specifically targetting the bi nationals.
It's democracy as long as the guy making nonsensical decisions was voted in place and can be voted out next term and as long as he gets the required 2/3 majority or referendum vote for his change 
|
On November 17 2015 01:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone? Yes, honestly I think pretty much any motivated group could pull off a comparable attack with next to no infrastructure. Deadly weapons aren't hugely difficult to obtain once we include vehicles, explosives packed with nails and so forth. Hell, you could probably solo sabotage train tracks and derail one. This is asymmetrical warfare, until they strike we can't tell the difference between our target and the people we want to protect. They have no such problem.
I question this, though I am of course not an expert. When this was all taking place, experts all seemed to say that this must be isis because of how much coordination and resources were necessary for an attack like this to happen in France.
|
United States43617 Posts
Also Moohoo, the ISIS plan is to try and have a giant world ending conflict between Muslims and non Muslims. They think that they'll win that fight because Allah is on their side and it'll be totally awesome. Deciding that the fight will be awesome and that we'll win because we have bigger bombs on our side is missing the point and is fairly unfair to the 1,490,000,000 who didn't really sign up for this war.
|
On November 17 2015 00:54 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:45 JieXian 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. If you kill 200k civilians you're not much different from ISIS Note I am drastically against IS (pretty anti religion in general) but since the 90's the two wars and the embargo imposed on Iraq mainly on US pressure killed 1,5 million Iraqis (Iraq has 30 million inhabitants) wounded the same amount and displaced millions. Even a psyochopathic outfit like the IS can run rampage the next 2 decades and they won't reach that numbers I don't think the western world understands what it did in Iraq. My father was born in the hunger years in Germany after the war one of his brothers starved as an infant and he basically lived in a crater for some years. He told me a lot of stories of that part of his life and I think I have a bit of a better understanding what this number actually means. Imagine killing someone every 20th citizen in your country, wounding the same amont, displacing every 10th and destroy the infrastructure on top of that. That is precisely what the US did in Iraq. I can see why the sunnis in Iraq choose the IS over the shia dominated government the US installed. They are an evil outfit but from the iraqi view they are not worse than the alternative delivered by the US.
It's unusual to see someone unironically suggesting the US is worse than ISIS, or that it's a form of self-determination to "choose" for a sadistic totalitarian group to fight a war inside your own country, like that's a legitimate attempt at statehood. Citing 1.5 million Iraqi dead at the "fault" of the US (even in the case of Iraqis fighting each other, stopping which is the point of occupation) is way over the high end of estimates. It should have been a red flag when you said just as many were wounded as had died.
The fighting in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced 4 million... so far. How long shall we run the "hands-off" experiment? Until there's no country left?
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?
How about intervention more like Korea or Afghanistan?
On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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.
Your rhetoric sounds much like the perpetrator on Friday who as I saw in this thread said "this is your fault, this is Hollande's fault." And to the extent you would say this is a problem caused by the USA, which I disagree with but just for the sake of argument, why wouldn't it be the USA's responsibility to solve it?
Killing civilians is not good. This is probably the theme of this thread if any. It just inevitably happens in war, as is happening at this moment in and surrounding Syria. Although we should of course mitigate it to the lowest possible degree, I don't see how it's an excuse never to use the military. You can see there's at least a difference between killing civilians by accident in a military action to bring about an end to fighting and killing civilians deliberately as a political weapon.
|
Intervention in Afghanistan lead to a lot of the problems we have today. We trained a lot of people who ended up leading terrorist against the US later in life.
|
United States43617 Posts
On November 17 2015 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 01:27 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2015 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone? Yes, honestly I think pretty much any motivated group could pull off a comparable attack with next to no infrastructure. Deadly weapons aren't hugely difficult to obtain once we include vehicles, explosives packed with nails and so forth. Hell, you could probably solo sabotage train tracks and derail one. This is asymmetrical warfare, until they strike we can't tell the difference between our target and the people we want to protect. They have no such problem. I question this, though I am of course not an expert. When this was all taking place, experts all seemed to say that this must be isis because of how much coordination and resources were necessary for an attack like this to happen in France.
Say we wipe out the kind of complex infrastructure needed for a half dozen guys to meet up at a music hall, what if they retain the infrastructure needed to rent a car and drive it down a busy street? Or the kind of infrastructure needed to get a gun barge onto a school bus, execute 20 kids and then die a martyr? There is nothing we can attack that can stop those kind of attacks.
|
On November 17 2015 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 01:27 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2015 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone? Yes, honestly I think pretty much any motivated group could pull off a comparable attack with next to no infrastructure. Deadly weapons aren't hugely difficult to obtain once we include vehicles, explosives packed with nails and so forth. Hell, you could probably solo sabotage train tracks and derail one. This is asymmetrical warfare, until they strike we can't tell the difference between our target and the people we want to protect. They have no such problem. I question this, though I am of course not an expert. When this was all taking place, experts all seemed to say that this must be isis because of how much coordination and resources were necessary for an attack like this to happen in France. Say we wipe out the kind of complex infrastructure needed for a half dozen guys to meet up at a music hall, what if they retain the infrastructure needed to rent a car and drive it down a busy street? Or the kind of infrastructure needed to get a gun barge onto a school bus, execute 20 kids and then die a martyr? There is nothing we can attack that can stop those kind of attacks.
I am going to have to disagree with that. There are ways to stop these attacks, but bombing the middle east isn’t one of them. The key is that people need to wait until we know exactly who the attackers were, how they planned their attack and then make the public aware of the warning signs. The solution isn’t “More laws” or “more bombs”, but understanding all the steps that lead up to the attack itself.
|
On November 17 2015 01:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:54 AngryMag wrote:On November 17 2015 00:45 JieXian 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. If you kill 200k civilians you're not much different from ISIS Note I am drastically against IS (pretty anti religion in general) but since the 90's the two wars and the embargo imposed on Iraq mainly on US pressure killed 1,5 million Iraqis (Iraq has 30 million inhabitants) wounded the same amount and displaced millions. Even a psyochopathic outfit like the IS can run rampage the next 2 decades and they won't reach that numbers I don't think the western world understands what it did in Iraq. My father was born in the hunger years in Germany after the war one of his brothers starved as an infant and he basically lived in a crater for some years. He told me a lot of stories of that part of his life and I think I have a bit of a better understanding what this number actually means. Imagine killing someone every 20th citizen in your country, wounding the same amont, displacing every 10th and destroy the infrastructure on top of that. That is precisely what the US did in Iraq. I can see why the sunnis in Iraq choose the IS over the shia dominated government the US installed. They are an evil outfit but from the iraqi view they are not worse than the alternative delivered by the US. It's unusual to see someone unironically suggesting the US is worse than ISIS, or that it's a form of self-determination to "choose" for a sadistic totalitarian group to fight a war inside your own country, like that's a legitimate attempt at statehood. Citing 1.5 million Iraqi dead at the "fault" of the US (even in the case of Iraqis fighting each other, stopping which is the point of occupation) is way over the high end of estimates. It should have been a red flag when you said just as many were wounded as had died. The fighting in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced 4 million... so far. How long shall we run the "hands-off" experiment? Until there's no country left? Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:19 KwarK 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. Actual military action like we tried in Vietnam? Or was that not actual enough? How about intervention more like Korea or Afghanistan? Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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. Your rhetoric sounds much like the perpetrator on Friday who as I saw in this thread said "this is your fault, this is Hollande's fault." And to the extent you would say this is a problem caused by the USA, which I disagree with but just for the sake of argument, why wouldn't it be the USA's responsibility to solve it? Killing civilians is not good. This is probably the theme of this thread if any. It just inevitably happens in war, as is happening at this moment in and surrounding Syria. Although we should of course mitigate it to the lowest possible degree, I don't see how it's an excuse never to use the military. You can see there's at least a difference between killing civilians by accident in a military action to bring about an end to fighting and killing civilians deliberately as a political weapon.
No it is no high end estimate
it is 300 000 for the first gulf war
255 000 the second one
around a million via sanctions
I remember Albright telling the public that the sanctions were well worth the death of 500 000 iraqi children to punish Saddam. The conflict will be solved militarily but not by the US. They will just make it worse like _Every_single_time in the past.
The solution must come through the countries nearby the conflict zone. We could contribute to achieving that by stopping the blind support of the saudi middle ages regime but this won't happen.
|
On November 17 2015 01:39 oBlade wrote:
You can see there's at least a difference between killing civilians by accident in a military action to bring about an end to fighting and killing civilians deliberately as a political weapon.
I find it disingenuous to say people we bomb die by accident, just because we happen to not target them specifically. When we drop bombs on people, it is a logical consequence that they will die, it's not an accident. The best analogy I can come up with is to drive your car on a sidewalk, put on a blindfold, and go full speed. I guess it's an accident if you kill people, obviously you didn't see what you were doing so you didn't mean to kill them... Meh.
|
On November 17 2015 01:50 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 01:39 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2015 00:54 AngryMag wrote:On November 17 2015 00:45 JieXian 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. If you kill 200k civilians you're not much different from ISIS Note I am drastically against IS (pretty anti religion in general) but since the 90's the two wars and the embargo imposed on Iraq mainly on US pressure killed 1,5 million Iraqis (Iraq has 30 million inhabitants) wounded the same amount and displaced millions. Even a psyochopathic outfit like the IS can run rampage the next 2 decades and they won't reach that numbers I don't think the western world understands what it did in Iraq. My father was born in the hunger years in Germany after the war one of his brothers starved as an infant and he basically lived in a crater for some years. He told me a lot of stories of that part of his life and I think I have a bit of a better understanding what this number actually means. Imagine killing someone every 20th citizen in your country, wounding the same amont, displacing every 10th and destroy the infrastructure on top of that. That is precisely what the US did in Iraq. I can see why the sunnis in Iraq choose the IS over the shia dominated government the US installed. They are an evil outfit but from the iraqi view they are not worse than the alternative delivered by the US. It's unusual to see someone unironically suggesting the US is worse than ISIS, or that it's a form of self-determination to "choose" for a sadistic totalitarian group to fight a war inside your own country, like that's a legitimate attempt at statehood. Citing 1.5 million Iraqi dead at the "fault" of the US (even in the case of Iraqis fighting each other, stopping which is the point of occupation) is way over the high end of estimates. It should have been a red flag when you said just as many were wounded as had died. The fighting in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced 4 million... so far. How long shall we run the "hands-off" experiment? Until there's no country left? On November 17 2015 00:19 KwarK 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. Actual military action like we tried in Vietnam? Or was that not actual enough? How about intervention more like Korea or Afghanistan? On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Your rhetoric sounds much like the perpetrator on Friday who as I saw in this thread said "this is your fault, this is Hollande's fault." And to the extent you would say this is a problem caused by the USA, which I disagree with but just for the sake of argument, why wouldn't it be the USA's responsibility to solve it? Killing civilians is not good. This is probably the theme of this thread if any. It just inevitably happens in war, as is happening at this moment in and surrounding Syria. Although we should of course mitigate it to the lowest possible degree, I don't see how it's an excuse never to use the military. You can see there's at least a difference between killing civilians by accident in a military action to bring about an end to fighting and killing civilians deliberately as a political weapon. No it is no high end estimate it is 300 000 for the first gulf war 255 000 the second one around a million via sanctions I remember Albright telling the public that the sanctions were well worth the death of 500 000 iraqi children to punish Saddam. The conflict will be solved militarily but not by the US. They will just make it worse like _Every_single_time in the past. The solution must come through the countries nearby the conflict zone. We could contribute to achieving that by stopping the blind support of the saudi middle ages regime but this won't happen.
The conclusion I'm drawing from you is just that it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power originally.
You have a sort of defeatist argument, I feel? Like you're saying the west shouldn't intervene because it's a regional problem, and that the region should intervene (which I would like and agree with), but they won't because of Wahhabism, therefore we can't do anything? The question is really western intervention, right? Because won't inevitably Russia or Iran go there anyway?
On November 17 2015 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 01:39 oBlade wrote:
You can see there's at least a difference between killing civilians by accident in a military action to bring about an end to fighting and killing civilians deliberately as a political weapon. I find it disingenuous to say people we bomb die by accident, just because we happen to not target them specifically. When we drop bombs on people, it is a logical consequence that they will die, it's not an accident. The best analogy I can come up with is to drive your car on a sidewalk, put on a blindfold, and go full speed. I guess it's an accident if you kill people, obviously you didn't see what you were doing so you didn't mean to kill them... Meh.
Yes, the apt term is collateral. It would be more like you're driving a train, Jihadi John is tied up on the tracks, you're blindfolded, you accelerate, and you don't know whether someone's car broke down in the crossing. It's not just for sport or a policy (unlike our - indeed, civilization's - enemies), and to the extent people ever do that, a professional military should charge them with murder.
|
On November 17 2015 01:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2015 00:52 m4ini wrote:On November 17 2015 00:41 Mohdoo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you think isis would have been able to pull off the Paris attack without its far reaching infrastructure? Let's say the western world decides to leave the middle east alone starting tomorrow. What do you expect will come of isis? Will they leave us alone? Yes, honestly I think pretty much any motivated group could pull off a comparable attack with next to no infrastructure. Deadly weapons aren't hugely difficult to obtain once we include vehicles, explosives packed with nails and so forth. Hell, you could probably solo sabotage train tracks and derail one. This is asymmetrical warfare, until they strike we can't tell the difference between our target and the people we want to protect. They have no such problem.
Indeed, a guy with an acetylene torch could kill thousands and cripple entire metropolitan areas just by cutting train tracks strategically. Which is why the emphasis needs to be on preventing entrance of known extremists and good police work identifying collaborators on the back end.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started.
|
On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement. the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started.
On the back of this, I would also like to point out that the Western view of politics in Middle East focuses to much on "nations". The concept of nationalism does not exist at the same level in the Middle East as it does in the EU or US. It varies from country to country, with some people identifying more with their tribe or ethnic background than their nation state. Some of these groups have a culture of simply existing under whatever warlord or power controls their region and waiting until that changes. They have zero culture in democracy or with strong lead figures transferring power peacefully. It was a huge problem when we went into Iraq and the total misconception of the politics in the region and it continues to be an issue when it comes to ISIS.
|
On November 17 2015 01:27 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 00:58 WhiteDog wrote:
Hollande basically decided to change the political regime. At this point is it a democracy anymore ? We already had what was needed to face the terrorist attack... the constitution was written by people who made the second world war, they knew what was needed. Yet this little midget asked for a change, for more security.
And what the hell he is specifically targetting the bi nationals. It's democracy as long as the guy making nonsensical decisions was voted in place and can be voted out next term and as long as he gets the required 2/3 majority or referendum vote for his change
You have a very weak definition of a democracy. Learning a little about the constitution, the division of power and the history of our democracy could do you some good : a political system is not really a democracy with the vote only. Quite the opposite in fact the first democracy were very suspicious with the vote.
Not to mention Hollande has less than 20 % of positive opinion, not really the kind of guy that should be able to change our constitution on a whim.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think your legal restrictions are what's keeping your democracy together. all legal structures can be subverted when the political mechanism lacks force to check it. changing some codes about when the police are allowed to take action and level of scrutiny etc are well justified given the situation.
it's important to still value liberty etc but there's quite a bit of space to fit a functional intelligence and security system inside. what's keeping you safe is not the difference of your laws with say, russia, but the difference of you.
more important is the political and cultural situation. the cost of appearing as unreasonable and not tough enough is pretty high for a few codes that can always be pulled back after the craze subsides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
