AlmightyWalrus wrote: That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
They seem to love posting on social media. Videos of executions, admission of forcing women into slavery, etc...
If signing some requisition paperwork for supplies, that happen to be for a concentration camp, is enough to get someone executed for genocide then surely being an admitted participating member of a group that executes people left and right while forcing others into slavery would also count for something. And yes, many Nazis who were really nothing more than secretaries got hanged because they worked at a camp, even though the only thing they did was work on logistics and never did anything directly involved.
Clearly Crimes against Humanity doesn't need you to actually be the one who swung the executioners sword, or actually committed the rape. You just had to be present and go along with it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
They seem to love posting on social media. Videos of executions, admission of forcing women into slavery, etc...
If signing some requisition paperwork for supplies, that happen to be for a concentration camp, is enough to get someone executed for genocide then surely being an admitted participating member of a group that executes people left and right while forcing others into slavery would also count for something.
Even if not direct. You provided material, logistical or operational support to enable the crime to be committed.
We Chan charge you with enabling a war crime.
And wr can still jail you if not hangs you.
If we want you dead, exraditr you.
Syria and Iraq are not soft and cuddly on terror charges.
Indeed. If you were at all affiliated with ISIS as a participating member, you are just as guilty of their crimes as any other member. Otherwise, everybody in Europe and America would have to admit that many Nazis at Nuremburg were wrongfully convicted and executed. Same standards people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
They seem to love posting on social media. Videos of executions, admission of forcing women into slavery, etc...
If signing some requisition paperwork for supplies, that happen to be for a concentration camp, is enough to get someone executed for genocide then surely being an admitted participating member of a group that executes people left and right while forcing others into slavery would also count for something. And yes, many Nazis who were really nothing more than secretaries got hanged because they worked at a camp, even though the only thing they did was work on logistics and never did anything directly involved.
Clearly Crimes against Humanity doesn't need you to actually be the one who swung the executioners sword, or actually committed the rape. You just had to be present and go along with it.
So now all you need to do is prove these people were present at the executions. Please dazzle us with your evidence that was apparently overlooked by the Swedish security forces.
Sure, they could be rounded up and sent back to face the Kurds, Yazidis or any number of groups. But we have laws that state we can't extradite people that might face the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they'd get no matter if they actually did anything or not.
And taking away someone's citizenship is damn hard. Joining the Caliphate and serving with ISIS could apply (taking another nationality and joining a foreign military) but exactly zero nations have acknowledge ISIS as a state so there's no military to join either.
I'm wondering if they even know they're back? And let's hope they don't do anything whilst 'under surveillance', like too many have done before.
Considering a swedish newspaper was able to get in contact with them and they were being denied jobs because their employers knew who they were as their pictures were released, I think that it is a certainty that the Swedish police and counter-terrorism forces know these people are in Sweden.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
They seem to love posting on social media. Videos of executions, admission of forcing women into slavery, etc...
If signing some requisition paperwork for supplies, that happen to be for a concentration camp, is enough to get someone executed for genocide then surely being an admitted participating member of a group that executes people left and right while forcing others into slavery would also count for something. And yes, many Nazis who were really nothing more than secretaries got hanged because they worked at a camp, even though the only thing they did was work on logistics and never did anything directly involved.
Clearly Crimes against Humanity doesn't need you to actually be the one who swung the executioners sword, or actually committed the rape. You just had to be present and go along with it.
So now all you need to do is prove these people were present at the executions. Please dazzle us with your evidence that was apparently overlooked by the Swedish security forces.
Their presence at the Executions isn't necessary. Not if we're using the same standards as the Nuremburg trials, the Nazi clerks were convicted simply because they worked at the camp and were aware of what happened there. They simply need to have approved of them by being an active member of the organization somewhere. Which they have already admitted to. There is pretty much a direct equivalency here.
Maybe they don't get executed, but they at the very least should spend the rest of their miserable life behind bars.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That runs into the issue of proving that they've actually done something that falls under crimes against humanity. The Nazis documented everything meticulously, ISIS probably doesn't.
They seem to love posting on social media. Videos of executions, admission of forcing women into slavery, etc...
If signing some requisition paperwork for supplies, that happen to be for a concentration camp, is enough to get someone executed for genocide then surely being an admitted participating member of a group that executes people left and right while forcing others into slavery would also count for something. And yes, many Nazis who were really nothing more than secretaries got hanged because they worked at a camp, even though the only thing they did was work on logistics and never did anything directly involved.
Clearly Crimes against Humanity doesn't need you to actually be the one who swung the executioners sword, or actually committed the rape. You just had to be present and go along with it.
So now all you need to do is prove these people were present at the executions. Please dazzle us with your evidence that was apparently overlooked by the Swedish security forces.
Their presence at the Executions isn't necessary. Not if we're using the same standards as the Nuremburg trials, the Nazi clerks were convicted simply because they worked at the camp and were aware of what happened there. They simply need to have approved of them by being an active member of the organization somewhere. Which they have already admitted to. There is pretty much a direct equivalency here.
Maybe they don't get executed, but they at the very least should spend the rest of their miserable life behind bars.
Except those secretaries were actively working at the camps or within their supply lines. We didn't hold SS troops who only took part in training accountable for the war crimes of the Nazis.
The security services knew others who went on to kill on the streets. No way in hell should they be allowed anywhere. If just one of them kills just one innocent person then...was it worth it?
I've no sympathy for any of them. When you joined ISIS you left humanity as far as I'm concerned. And let's face it. They're only back because they were beaten. If things had gone differently they'd still be over there carrying out their depravity.
Future War Cultist wrote: The security services knew others who went on to kill on the streets. No way in hell should they be allowed anywhere. If just one of them kills just one innocent person then...was it worth it?
I've no sympathy for any of them. When you joined ISIS you left humanity as far as I'm concerned. And let's face it. They're only back because they were beaten. If things had gone differently they'd still be over there carrying out their depravity.
Except we in this thread do not have any information that many of these people were ever part of ISIS or when they left if they were.
It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
Yes there were people known to security forces who did carry out attacks. And there were also countless people who did not travel to join ISIS who carried out terror attacks. If anything ISIS is less likely to use someone who travelled to Syria to join them to carry out an attack as doing so immediately flags that person up for all the counter-terrorism agencies in Europe.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
I'm not inclined to forgive anyone who left Europe with the intention of joining ISIS, even if they did fail to get there. They're already radicalised, they already made their bed. So let them fething lie in it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
Intent is ernough to distrust at the very least.
They believed this hate enough to join up and enlist.
To travel to the country.
They where not just posting abit of stiff on facebook.
They had will to follow through.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
I'm saying that thinking about and even taking some actions intending to do something is very different to actually succeeding in doing it and should be treated as such.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
I'm saying that thinking about and even taking some actions intending to do something is very different to actually succeeding in doing it and should be treated as such.
So if someone shoots at somebody with the intent to kill, but fails to hit them, they shouldn't be charged with a crime?
Good to know you can only be held responsible for crimes if you succeed.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
I'm saying that thinking about and even taking some actions intending to do something is very different to actually succeeding in doing it and should be treated as such.
So if someone shoots at somebody with the intent to kill, but fails to hit them, they shouldn't be charged with a crime?
Good to know you can only be held responsible for crimes if you succeed.
If there is no evidence they have committed crimes, let them in and keep them under strict surveillance. If there is evidence of them committing crimes then seek to incarcerate through what means we have. Sending them to Assad's government in Syria is not an option as to do so is to send them to sure torture and death, both of which are against the principles we as a country are meant to strive to uphold, no matter the crimes carried out.
I don't know enough about the Iraqi government to comment on sending people back to there.
Future War Cultist wrote: Aw I'm sick to my stomach of this. How the hell did they get back in, and having got back in, why are they now being allowed to wonder around at their own free will?
I have a job for them, explosive testing specialist or alternatively porcine food product delivery vehicle.
Apparently actively being a participant of an organization that committee crimes against humanity doesn't count as doing anything.
Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much. What I actually said was that merely being a part of an organisation (or merely intending to join an organisation but never actually succeeding) does not make you culpable for every crime committed by that organisation.
Otherwise everyone who ever worked for any drug dealing operation could be charged for the murders committed by every member of said organisation, whether it happened whilst they were a part of it or were involved in said murders in any way.
If there is no evidence they have committed crimes, let them in and keep them under strict surveillance. If there is evidence of them committing crimes then seek to incarcerate through what means we have. Sending them to Assad's government in Syria is not an option as to do so is to send them to sure torture and death, both of which are against the principles we as a country are meant to strive to uphold, no matter the crimes carried out.
I don't know enough about the Iraqi government to comment on sending people back to there.
But they HAVE committed crimes. Leaving Europe to join ISIS is a crime in itself.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's very scary hearing "People who left to join ISIS are back in the country". But leaving to join and actually joining are not the same thing. It is possible (and I would even say likely in many cases) that people leave to go join their jihad full of fire and passion, get stuck at the border of Turkey for weeks or wander aimlessly trying to find someone to take them to ISIS and then give up.
And...what, that's supposed to make it alright is it? A combination of incompetence and/or bad luck makes it OK then?
Their intention was to join ISIS and engage in all of their depravity. That's enough for me.
I'm saying that thinking about and even taking some actions intending to do something is very different to actually succeeding in doing it and should be treated as such.
So if someone shoots at somebody with the intent to kill, but fails to hit them, they shouldn't be charged with a crime?
Good to know you can only be held responsible for crimes if you succeed.
Apparently actively being a participant of an organization that committee crimes against humanity doesn't count as doing anything.
Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much. What I actually said was that merely being a part of an organisation (or merely intending to join an organisation but never actually succeeding) does not make you culpable for every crime committed by that organisation.
No, but being a member of such an organisation is a crime in itself.
Apparently actively being a participant of an organization that committee crimes against humanity doesn't count as doing anything.
Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much. What I actually said was that merely being a part of an organisation (or merely intending to join an organisation but never actually succeeding) does not make you culpable for every crime committed by that organisation.
As already mentioned, joining or attempting to join ISIS is a crime itself. These weren't dudes who just attempted either. These were guys who actually did succeed. They have Facebook photos of them among other ISIS members. This means they were in proximity to all the awful things ISIS was doing.
If there is no evidence they have committed crimes, let them in and keep them under strict surveillance
Absolutely not. No way would I give any of them the opportunity to just pretend nothing happened and then let them out free on the streets to carry out a car and knife attack if and whenever they feel like it. I wouldn't risk sacrificing one drop of innocent blood just to appease the bleeding hearts.
Sending them to Assad's government in Syria is not an option as to do so is to send them to sure torture and death, both of which are against the principles we as a country are meant to strive to uphold, no matter the crimes carried out.
It should be an option. Even if we don't send them back there, we should have the right to throw them out. They made the choice, so they can deal with it.
But they HAVE committed crimes. Leaving Europe to join ISIS is a crime in itself.
And if they have broken UK law then they can be incarcerated here.
Aye, and they should also be tried for crimes against humanity, not just breaking a specific country's laws, because of what ISIS did.
If we could hang secretaries for filling out paper work while working at a concentration camp, we can put people on trial for crimes we know they were in proximity to while they were willing supporters of ISIS.
If there is no evidence they have committed crimes, let them in and keep them under strict surveillance
Absolutely not. No way would I give any of them the opportunity to just pretend nothing happened and then let them out free on the streets to carry out a car and knife attack If and whenever they feel like it. I wouldn't risk sacrificing one drop of innocent blood just to appease the bleeding hearts.
Sending them to Assad's government in Syria is not an option as to do so is to send them to sure torture and death, both of which are against the principles we as a country are meant to strive to uphold, no matter the crimes carried out.
It should be an option. Even if we don't send them back there, we should have the right to throw them out. They made the choice, so they can deal with it.
These people are UK/Swedish/etc. citizens by law. That gives them the right to return to the UK/Sweden/etc. If they choose to do so then we have the right to hold them accountable to UK/Swedish/etc. law. Those laws prohibit handing them over to other countries if there is the possibility of torture.
But they HAVE committed crimes. Leaving Europe to join ISIS is a crime in itself.
And if they have broken UK law then they can be incarcerated here.
Aye, and they should also be tried for crimes against humanity, not just breaking a specific country's laws, because of what ISIS did.
If we could hang secretaries for filling out paper work while working at a concentration camp, we can put people on trial for crimes we know they were in proximity to while they were willing supporters of ISIS.
*Sigh* Can I have a source for these secretaries hanged after the Nuremburg trials, what crimes they were accused of and what evidence was provided?
A Town Called Malus wrote: These people are UK/Swedish/etc. citizens by law. That gives them the right to return to the UK/Sweden/etc. If they choose to do so then we have the right to hold them accountable to UK/Swedish/etc. law. Those laws prohibit handing them over to other countries if there is the possibility of torture.
A Town Called Malus wrote: These people are UK/Swedish/etc. citizens by law. That gives them the right to return to the UK/Sweden/etc. If they choose to do so then we have the right to hold them accountable to UK/Swedish/etc. law. Those laws prohibit handing them over to other countries if there is the possibility of torture.
Blair didn't let that stop his government.
Just because Blair is a moron does not mean we should revert back to it now.
Grey Templar wrote: Arrest them and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. There were Nazis who got the noose because they filed paperwork involved with the Holocaust. These guys surely did even worse things.
If the US wants to start prosecuting war criminals, I suggest that they start by handing over their own. Ernest Medina and William Calley in particular are long overdue for their encounter with a rope instead of doing profitable speaking tours about how they committed war crimes and got away with it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: These people are UK/Swedish/etc. citizens by law. That gives them the right to return to the UK/Sweden/etc. If they choose to do so then we have the right to hold them accountable to UK/Swedish/etc. law. Those laws prohibit handing them over to other countries if there is the possibility of torture.
Blair didn't let that stop his government.
Just because Blair is a moron does not mean we should revert back to it now.
Stateless..
Clues is in name..
Islamic.... state.
Its unofficial but a state.
They enliested as part of a "country" , swore loyalty to it and served fighting for it.
However not on UN they still for intents did join a enemy state, whom declared war upon us.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.
Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.
Joining a psychopathic death cult has its downsides does it not.
But you can't have the cookie and eat it too. Everyone, literally everyone, says ISIS is not a state and has no right to wage war. They're criminals and terrorists, not soldiers of any recognized country. No one (fighting them) is offering them the courtesy of the conventions that a member of a real army serving a real country would have. If you want to call them real soldiers of a real country you would also have to shout for everyone who summarily kills captured ISIS fighters to be tried and executed for war crimes.
You can't just make being a national of a country or member of an army illegal! That's a pretty big part of international politics and not blowing the whole damn earth up!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.
Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.
Joining a psychopathic death cult has its downsides does it not.
Who do you turn them over to? Syria and Iraq are fighting civil wars and the Kurds don't have a nation of their own. This is even assuming that these countries want something to do with the people in question. What if they don't?
Now I am sure the people of those nations would like to see these people answer to the crimes they committed against there familes, tribes. Country and many others.
Oh, dear God, where to start....
Ok, the result of that as a policy is the current North and South Korea.
Do you need further explanation as to why it's a really bad idea?
To be blunt, we've had a lot of Pot on Kettle action here where it boils out that 'If my country does it it's fine, but God help any heathen barbarians in any other country doing the same thing!' After all, England,the US and France kickstarted most of this mess, creating the situations that allowed ISIS to be a thing in the first place, and also directly or indirectly causing most of the middle eastern violence of the 20th and 21st century.
Ultimately it was your foreign policies that have killed hundreds of thousands, because a strong central power in the middle east was not in your collective national interests.
But they HAVE committed crimes. Leaving Europe to join ISIS is a crime in itself.
And if they have broken UK law then they can be incarcerated here.
Aye, and they should also be tried for crimes against humanity, not just breaking a specific country's laws, because of what ISIS did.
If we could hang secretaries for filling out paper work while working at a concentration camp, we can put people on trial for crimes we know they were in proximity to while they were willing supporters of ISIS.
*Sigh* Can I have a source for these secretaries hanged after the Nuremburg trials, what crimes they were accused of and what evidence was provided?
He was, essentially, the head of maintenance and requisitions. He never was accused of actually directly taking part in any of the atrocities. All he did was handle paperwork and sort confiscated valuables, and manage building maintenance(including the gas chambers). He did not confiscate property from prisoners, nor did he actually perform any executions or abuse. He literally just did paperwork.
Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.
Also, Mockel was not tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg but in the Polish war crime tribunal.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.
Also, Mockel was not tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg but in the Polish war crime tribunal.
In case you missed it, the Nuremburg trials can be used to refer to ALL of the war crime trials associated with the end of WW2. Not just the specific Nuremburg trial.
Either way, it does prove that you did not have to actually directly participate in any of the horrific crimes. You only needed to be associated with them in some capacity.
A dude who went and joined ISIS and was a member while they were doing these crimes is guilty to some extent. What extent would be determined at a trial. But it's not really a question of if they should be tried or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Pretty sure we've mentioned this already, but we didn't exactly shoot everyone who was in the SS. The people you're referring to were part of the leadership (Möckel was head of the administration of Auschwitz (!) and Streicher was one of the most important propagandists of the Nazi party) of the Third Reich. The people in the article aren't equivalent; that'd be something like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or like bin Laden was for Al Quaeda. We didn't shoot every Baathist in Iraq either, for that matter.
Being the Head of Administration didn't mean he was incharge of the whole camp. If you read up, the duties of the Head of Administration was purely maintenance, supplying food and sundries, and cataloguing the prisoners valuables. It had no direct involvement with the use of the gas chambers OR with any direct abuse of the prisoners.
It's possible he participated in direct abuse, but that was never proven. All that was proven was he was a pen pusher, but that was enough.
And yes, Streicher was an important propagandist. He still never directly did anything. He had no title or authority. He was, in essence, just a celebrity writer.
Either way, it does prove that you did not have to actually directly participate in any of the horrific crimes. You only needed to be associated with them in some capacity.
To say that this is wrong... would be an understatement.
Julius Streicher incited others to commit war crimes on such a scale that he himself was found guilty as an accessory to it.
Karl Ernst Möckel withheld food and clothing from prisoners at Auschwitz. He also oversaw the confiscation of valuables from prisoners. Both of these are war crimes. In fact, the first is on the docket for the very first US war crimes trial, that of Henry Wirz, in 1865 for his treatment of the POWs at Andersonville.
A dude who went and joined ISIS and was a member while they were doing these crimes is guilty to some extent. What extent would be determined at a trial. But it's not really a question of if they should be tried or not.
By that argument, every single soldier in every single army must be tried for for the actions of those who committed war crimes. To say that would be impossible would be an understatement. It should go without saying that it would be unjust.
Grey Templar wrote: Being the Head of Administration didn't mean he was incharge of the whole camp. If you read up, the duties of the Head of Administration was purely maintenance, supplying food and sundries, and cataloguing the prisoners valuables. It had no direct involvement with the use of the gas chambers OR with any direct abuse of the prisoners.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.
I don't care. They committed war crimes in Iraq, they should stand trial in Iraq.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where are you deporting someone if you're deporting him to the Islamic state? Raqqa? Oops, that's in Syria. Mosul? Darn, that's Iraq.
I don't care. They committed war crimes in Iraq, they should stand trial in Iraq.
I don't care seem to be a common theme. Maybe you should a bit, and then you'd understand why it's a bit more complicated than "Grr, send 'em back"
Also do you have the proof of individual war-crimes that they have committed or helped commit? Because that's what you need.
ISIS has been bleeding people since long before their actual fortunes turned. Something about people hearing how great it was and then seeing the reality. And getting out once you're in isn't so easy. They're hardcore believers in the old policy of executing deserters. That and some of ISIS rivals are pretty 'No Surrender' themselves.
So, are you saying that joining isn't isn't a war crime?
No, it is not. It is a Federal Crime in the US, and several other countries have comparable laws, but not an international War Crime. Harry Sarfo, for example, returned to the EU and confessed to being a member of ISIS, and got 3 years under German law, but is being looked at for war crimes prosecution due to involvement in the Palmyra massacre. They're two separate things.
Funny thing is, that's not your decision to make, and good reason too. That way madness lies.
So, are you saying that joining isn't isn't a war crime?
Why yes I am, because "Being part of a militant group" is not a war-crime. There can be laws against being in a militant group (the US for example as laws against joining groups labeled as terrorist orginizationss), but the act of simply join one isn't a warcrime. If you think it is, feel free to cite what you are using to determine this.
Grey Templar wrote: Arrest them and put them on trial for crimes against humanity. There were Nazis who got the noose because they filed paperwork involved with the Holocaust. These guys surely did even worse things.
If the US wants to start prosecuting war criminals, I suggest that they start by handing over their own. Ernest Medina and William Calley in particular are long overdue for their encounter with a rope instead of doing profitable speaking tours about how they committed war crimes and got away with it.
Pretty bizarre example - you're essentially saying the US has no moral authority to try people for war crimes, and back that up with an example of 2 people who the US prosecuted for war crimes.
Future War Cultist wrote: I knew it wasn't a crime in of itself to join Isis. Even though it really should be. There was no ambiguity about them.
There listed as a terror group though.
So to fight for, to provide material, logistical or financial support is illegal.
Maybe being a member is not, should be. And will get you very closely watched. They gonna know how you take your tea and how you place your toilet paper practically.
Pretty bizarre example - you're essentially saying the US has no moral authority to try people for war crimes, and back that up with an example of 2 people who the US prosecuted for war crimes.
No, bizarre is finding them guilty, and sentencing them to hard time, then having them serve one day of it before commuting their sentence to house arrest, followed by time served.
Compare that 1 day of hard labor and three and a half years of house arrest to the Death that the US demands of other countries for the exact same crime. After all, Malmedy was only about 200 people more, if you assume maximum body-count for both incidents. Calley might have hit that if not for the intervention of US air support threatening to fire on Calley's troops.
Medina and Calley show the inherent problems of having the perpetrating nation try their own war criminals. Political pressure will always be to reduce the sentence or pardon them entirely.
I don't disagree that they should have gotten a lot more. Them getting off was wrong. But that failure doesn't mean we shouldn't go after other war criminals.
And just for some context.
She is not some just Jihadi wife
A former Kent punk-turned jihadist has reportedly been placed high on a US kill list for exhorting women to carry out terrorist attacks, but is believed to be hiding behind her young son as a human shield to avoid a drone strike.
Sally Jones has been declared a “high priority” target after she and her late husband, Junaid Hussain, were implicated in an unprecedented level of recruiting and attack planning for the Islamic State group.
The 48-year-old mother-of-two was put in charge of training all European female recruits and leading the female wing of the Anwar al-Awlaki battalion, a unit of foreign fighters founded by Hussain with the purpose of attacking the West.
So is there much question in wanting her back? she a Jihadi recruiter, trainer, aimed in attacking the west and killing civilians and bad enough to be on US Kill lists. so, anyone want this woman back on our streets pltting how to kill us in our own homeland with all those lovely skills she learned, .
I thought not.
She is a massive danger to the UK, only alive as her son is with her so no Drone delivered presents.
And just for some context.
She is not some just Jihadi wife
A former Kent punk-turned jihadist has reportedly been placed high on a US kill list for exhorting women to carry out terrorist attacks, but is believed to be hiding behind her young son as a human shield to avoid a drone strike.
Sally Jones has been declared a “high priority” target after she and her late husband, Junaid Hussain, were implicated in an unprecedented level of recruiting and attack planning for the Islamic State group.
The 48-year-old mother-of-two was put in charge of training all European female recruits and leading the female wing of the Anwar al-Awlaki battalion, a unit of foreign fighters founded by Hussain with the purpose of attacking the West.
So is there much question in wanting her back? she a Jihadi recruiter, trainer, aimed in attacking the west and killing civilians and bad enough to be on US Kill lists. so, anyone want this woman back on our streets pltting how to kill us in our own homeland with all those lovely skills she learned, .
I thought not.
She is a massive danger to the UK, only alive as her son is with her so no Drone delivered presents.
And just for some context.
She is not some just Jihadi wife
A former Kent punk-turned jihadist has reportedly been placed high on a US kill list for exhorting women to carry out terrorist attacks, but is believed to be hiding behind her young son as a human shield to avoid a drone strike.
Sally Jones has been declared a “high priority” target after she and her late husband, Junaid Hussain, were implicated in an unprecedented level of recruiting and attack planning for the Islamic State group.
The 48-year-old mother-of-two was put in charge of training all European female recruits and leading the female wing of the Anwar al-Awlaki battalion, a unit of foreign fighters founded by Hussain with the purpose of attacking the West.
So is there much question in wanting her back? she a Jihadi recruiter, trainer, aimed in attacking the west and killing civilians and bad enough to be on US Kill lists. so, anyone want this woman back on our streets pltting how to kill us in our own homeland with all those lovely skills she learned, .
I thought not.
She is a massive danger to the UK, only alive as her son is with her so no Drone delivered presents.
And what of her son?
She took a kid into the heart of that monsterous cult..
Her kid.
She rots in Iraq, the son can return home taken into care most likely, given the probably psychological trauma suffered out there.
The Mother, if she wants to spend the next x years in jail, she can return. Probbly see her son free when he about 30.
b) that is going to be under British jurisdiction?
Also, if she's in jail she isn't out on the streets anyway, no?
Under British law I think she could be charged with terrorism offences, especially if she has actually participated in the training of women to carry out attacks. However that requires her being in the UK and in custody. In the interests of protecting the child and getting it out of there, I think offering a plea bargain of some sort could be helpful. She will still face imprisonment, possibly less than she might otherwise have got but it encourages her to return which takes the child out of danger and also saves us some money on the trial.
If that child does not get out of there, I think it is highly likely it will be killed.
b) that is going to be under British jurisdiction?
Also, if she's in jail she isn't out on the streets anyway, no?
Under British law I think she could be charged with terrorism offences, especially if she has actually participated in the training of women to carry out attacks. However that requires her being in the UK and in custody. In the interests of protecting the child and getting it out of there, I think offering a plea bargain of some sort could be helpful. She will still face imprisonment, possibly less than she might otherwise have got but it encourages her to return which takes the child out of danger and also saves us some money on the trial.
If that child does not get out of there, I think it is highly likely it will be killed.
Actively aiding terrorism is a crime. And you can be held to account even if done abroad.
Under one UK law its illegal not to report a terror threat if you believe it could prevent one, or bring a attacker in.. Yet alone a active member of a threat.
Offer her a deal, but she id arrested the momment she enters the UK. And if she ever wants her kid back...well that's if and only if we don,t think your gonna spread your vile ideology you joined and actively helped. No leniant deal. If not for the kid , they ne no deal.
Protect the kid from that Poison, and help them deal with the issues they ended up with in Syria from that messed up place.
Protect the kid from that Poison, and help them deal with the issues they ended up with in Syria from that messed up place.
Why bother with all that? Go with US policy and drone strike their children too. (No, seriously, this has been done already) I mean, seriously, if you're not wanting to make honest legal offers (and what you're describing by offering a plea bargain and then ignoring it when accepted is also a crime). You could go the MOSSAD route and illegally seize them from another country, but be prepared to get caught.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't disagree that they should have gotten a lot more. Them getting off was wrong. But that failure doesn't mean we shouldn't go after other war criminals.
My point is that US will never allow that issue to be rectified. Policy was (IDK if it still is) that NO US citizen will ever be allowed to stand trial for war crimes outside an American court (this was partially due to the William Joyce trial in which an American citizen was tried for treason against England on a technicality. He hanged.)
Protect the kid from that Poison, and help them deal with the issues they ended up with in Syria from that messed up place.
Why bother with all that? Go with US policy and drone strike their children too. (No, seriously, this has been done already)
Grey Templar wrote: I don't disagree that they should have gotten a lot more. Them getting off was wrong. But that failure doesn't mean we shouldn't go after other war criminals.
My point is that US will never allow that issue to be rectified. Policy was (IDK if it still is) that NO US citizen will ever be allowed to stand trial for war crimes outside an American court (this was partially due to the William Joyce trial in which an American citizen was tried for treason against England on a technicality. He hanged.)
There's maybe hope for the kid.
Maybe the kid can change, put that and live a normal life.
The Mother... In too deep, willing convert, loyal erbough to promote, planning attacks...
Not many ways back from that.
Lets face it, it's not like she saw the light or anything. She's just panicking because it's all gone belly up for them and now she's trying to save her own skin. If ISIS was doing any better she's still be there working for them.
The radical Islam. Np change. I doubt they ever will for least decades min.
I might make a suggestion that would help cut it off at the knees sooner, but would require the US to suddenly develop a MASSIVE pair of balls.
Oppose Israel over Gaza. It's a crime against humanity in motion, but no one wants to say as much, or, in the case of the UN, has had any condemnation of Israel blocked by the US, and it carries a fairly low risk for US servicemen to intervene on this one. If you actually want to win hearts and minds, this is a good place to start.
The radical Islam. Np change. I doubt they ever will for least decades min.
I might make a suggestion that would help cut it off at the knees sooner, but would require the US to suddenly develop a MASSIVE pair of balls.
Oppose Israel over Gaza. It's a crime against humanity in motion, but no one wants to say as much, or, in the case of the UN, has had any condemnation of Israel blocked by the US, and it carries a fairly low risk for US servicemen to intervene on this one. If you actually want to win hearts and minds, this is a good place to start.
No. Don't get me wrong, the situation sucks balls as both sides maintains intractable demands. Frankly, my sympathy meter is almost nil when the palestinian government refuses to recognize Israel.
The rest of the Arab world don't really care about Gaza or Palestine in general, as it's a convenient cover to oppose Israel.
The Isreali and Arab relationship has been growing for quite sometime now. Israel has become a MAJOR arms exporter to the rest of the Arab world and has quietly cultivated amicable diplomacy with powerhouses like SA and Egypt. There's a ton going on here at the back-channel that indicates a shift between Israel and the rest of the Arab nations.
'Tis why you're seeing the GCC playing hardball with Iran and engaging in a proxy war with Qatar being the prize.
No. Don't get me wrong, the situation sucks balls as both sides maintains intractable demands. Frankly, my sympathy meter is almost nil when the palestinian government refuses to recognize Israel.
Hold on a second, you actually think that thousands dying is acceptable due to what is essentially a diplomatic technicality? Wow. Just, wow.
Now, admittedly, my point of view is skewed, being from a people that the US long had a policy of placing in camps and starving us to death, and if we resisted this in the least, slaughtering everyone. That might lean me a bit toward the people being placed in camps, starved, etc. The people not in camp being burned alive in the cars and no one doing anything about it. It more than meets the qualifications for acts of Genocide.
I mean, seriously, there has to be some point where people say "WTF?'
No. Don't get me wrong, the situation sucks balls as both sides maintains intractable demands. Frankly, my sympathy meter is almost nil when the palestinian government refuses to recognize Israel.
Hold on a second, you actually think that thousands dying is acceptable due to what is essentially a diplomatic technicality? Wow. Just, wow.
Now, admittedly, my point of view is skewed, being from a people that the US long had a policy of placing in camps and starving us to death, and if we resisted this in the least, slaughtering everyone. That might lean me a bit toward the people being placed in camps, starved, etc. The people not in camp being burned alive in the cars and no one doing anything about it. It more than meets the qualifications for acts of Genocide.
I mean, seriously, there has to be some point where people say "WTF?'
Thousands dying? wut?
Maybe if you were more specific on this Israeli genocide accusations we'd have a conversation....
At some point perhaps we can discuss ISIL, which I believe is the actual topic, instead of seizing every opportunity to find some historic misdeed of the US to deflect upon?
I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics.
You seem to be confusing 'defeated' with 'annihilated'. ISIS has been steadily withdrawing from Mosul since March. It's been a protracted fighting withdrawal and only now have Iraqi forces seized most of the city. This has been part of an overall consolidation of ISIL forces deeper in their territory.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics.
You seem to be confusing 'defeated' with 'annihilated'. ISIS has been steadily withdrawing from Mosul since March. It's been a protracted fighting withdrawal and only now have Iraqi forces seized most of the city. This has been part of an overall consolidation of ISIL forces deeper in their territory.
Yeah one article claimed they where pulling back to a rural area near Raqqa.
Moving valuble people to a less bombed area.
A news group was documenting the military taking the city back and accidentally caught this woman on film. Luckily the bomb didn't go off when she wanted but after she tried to walk away so only she and her kid were killed instead of the two of them as well as a bunch of soldiers and civilians.
A news group was filming the military taking the city back and accidentally caught this woman on film. Luckily the bomb didn't go off when she wanted but after she tried to walk away so only she and her kid were killed instead of them and a bunch of soldiers and civilians.
That's sick... The kids innocent of her vile ideology.
Some parent who use own baby as a cover for a bomb...
Evil donkey caves need wiping off the face of the planet.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
That's because "terror" is an idea, not a state. The War on Terror can never be won, because we cannot kill an idea. Some might say that the military industrial complex has designed this on purpose.
In the wake of Friday's sermon incident, ISIS issued a brief statement across Tal Afar in which the terrorist group has specified a penalty of 50 lashes for anyone who talks about the death of Baghdadi, a source said on Sunday.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
That's because "terror" is an idea, not a state. The War on Terror can never be won, because we cannot kill an idea. Some might say that the military industrial complex has designed this on purpose.
Yeah, no gak. I agree.
MinscS2 wrote: Apparently Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
That's because "terror" is an idea, not a state. The War on Terror can never be won, because we cannot kill an idea. Some might say that the military industrial complex has designed this on purpose.
Yeah, no gak. I agree.
MinscS2 wrote: Apparently Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
That's because "terror" is an idea, not a state. The War on Terror can never be won, because we cannot kill an idea. Some might say that the military industrial complex has designed this on purpose.
Yeah, no gak. I agree.
MinscS2 wrote: Apparently Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that ISIS is defeated. As a cohesive fighting force, sure. But there will be plenty of survivors who will have gone to ground and hidden themselves amongst the civilian population and they'll now switch back to guerilla and terrorist tactics. The War against ISIS may be over, but the Insurgency is about to begin. We're going to get an Iraq Occupation and Insurgency redux, and I expect violence will continue for some time to come.
That's because "terror" is an idea, not a state. The War on Terror can never be won, because we cannot kill an idea. Some might say that the military industrial complex has designed this on purpose.
Yeah, no gak. I agree.
MinscS2 wrote: Apparently Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed.
Don't get excited, he still has 6 Lives remaining.
We not unlocked final boss fight?
That'll be in Paris probably. We're gonna be fighting ISIS for years to come. They're like Hydra.
True but there previously slick, video and magazine propoganda units are long gone.
There change in fortunes has at least removes that one way of reaching people.
Government criticised over 'suppressed' extremist report
A government refusal to publish a report into the funding of UK Islamist extremist groups has been criticised.
The home secretary has issued a two-page summary which concluded most organisations were funded via small, anonymous British-based donations.
Amber Rudd said she had decided to do so for national security reasons.
Opposition parties claimed the internal review was being "suppressed" to protect Saudi Arabia which has been accused of being a source of funding.
The Home Office has been under pressure for months to publish its investigation into the "nature, scale and origin of the funding".
Ms Rudd said another reason for not making the report public was because of the personal information it contained.
Some MPs will be allowed to view the report in private but without revealing its contents.
Charity declaration
The summary of the report concluded that most extremist organisations got their money, often hundreds of thousands of pounds, from individual donors in the UK.
But it also confirmed that a small minority did get significant funds from overseas. These, it said, taught "deeply conservative forms of Islam" to individuals who became "of extremist concern".
From now on, charities will have to declare any overseas funding to the Charity Commission.
The summary said: "The most common source of support for Islamist extremist organisations in the UK is from small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals.
"In some cases these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year."
It added: "For a small number of organisations with which there are extremism concerns, overseas funding is a significant source of income.
"However, for the vast majority of extremist groups in the UK, overseas funding is not a significant source. Overseas support has allowed individuals to study at institutions that teach deeply conservative forms of Islam and provide highly socially conservative literature and preachers to the UK's Islamic institutions.
"Some of these individuals have since become of extremist concern."
'No clue'
The government's refusal to publish the full report angered opposition parties which accused ministers of trying to protect allies such as Saudi Arabia which has long been accused of being a source of extremist funding, something it has long denied.
The Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas said there was a deep complicity between Whitehall and Riyadh.
She said: "The statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for extremism originates from - leaving the government open to further allegations of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK."
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said the government was putting its friendship with Saudi Arabia ahead of its values.
He said: "What we want to know is who are the violent extremists and who are their funders.
"This report clearly has found some of that out and we're bound to start suspecting all the more now that the sources of funding must be from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, otherwise the government wouldn't be so embarrassed that they won't tell us the truth."
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, said: "There is a strong suspicion this report is being suppressed to protect this government's trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia. The only way to allay those suspicions is to publish the report in full."
Cutting off the funding
The Home Office insisted diplomatic relations played no part in the decision not to make the full report public.
In a blog published on its website, the Home Office said: "The former prime minister [David Cameron] was clear when committing to the review in the House that it would report to the home Secretary and prime minister.
No commitment was made to publish the review... Contrary to suggestions by some media outlets, diplomatic relations played absolutely no part in the decision not to publish the full report."
The Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas said there was a deep complicity between Whitehall and Riyadh.
She said: "The statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for extremism originates from - leaving the government open to further allegations of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK."
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said the government was putting its friendship with Saudi Arabia ahead of its values.
He said: "What we want to know is who are the violent extremists and who are their funders.
"This report clearly has found some of that out and we're bound to start suspecting all the more now that the sources of funding must be from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, otherwise the government wouldn't be so embarrassed that they won't tell us the truth."
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, said: "There is a strong suspicion this report is being suppressed to protect this government's trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia. The only way to allay those suspicions is to publish the report in full."
Cutting off the funding
The Home Office insisted diplomatic relations played no part in the decision not to make the full report public.
In a blog published on its website, the Home Office said: "The former prime minister [David Cameron] was clear when committing to the review in the House that it would report to the home Secretary and prime minister.
No commitment was made to publish the review... Contrary to suggestions by some media outlets, diplomatic relations played absolutely no part in the decision not to publish the full report."
Interesting. The funding is internal... There's a few traitors tp root out I see.
And also one of there best snipers got killed recently.
Long wat from there slick videos, 2 years ago. From Raqqa, to mosul, wondering Bagdad or Jordan next.
you know that moment you reap what you sow and comes back with a Assault rifle and rather large axe to grind and every idea what to expect if captured.
Seems Russia is still bombing forces fighting ISIS.
If they got that close to ISIS, then I don't know what they were doing but they certainly were not fighting them. The area in which Russia is currently bombing terrorists was made known to them. They had no business being there. Unless they wanted to get hit of course.
Seems Russia is still bombing forces fighting ISIS.
If they got that close to ISIS, then I don't know what they were doing but they certainly were not fighting them.
Yes, because house to house, room to room fighting in towns and cities near the enemy capital is certainly not a thing. And certainly not something Russians have bombed, shelled, and strafed in the past, with no regard to their own men, let alone anyone else.
SDF, Nusra, Ahrar-al-Sham, Salafi, Daesh - what's the difference for the bombing?
upd: I googled and SDF means Kurds (I thought it's the FSA at first). Not good in all those group names. But the Assad and Kurds don't fighting each other are they?
Seems Russia is still bombing forces fighting ISIS.
If they got that close to ISIS, then I don't know what they were doing but they certainly were not fighting them.
Yes, because house to house, room to room fighting in towns and cities near the enemy capital is certainly not a thing. And certainly not something Russians have bombed, shelled, and strafed in the past, with no regard to their own men, let alone anyone else.
I don't think I get you. These guys were observed at a known ISIS position near a major gas field, without ISIS forces giving them any resistance whatsoever and without them making any attempts to attack ISIS positions. Also, they were not in a house, room, town, city or near the enemy capital. The US and SDF knew of the strike in advance. If these guys were actual SDF fighters rather than ISIS that would mean two things: 1. the US and SDF do not care for the safety of their personnel, 2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.
And yes, Russia is in Syria not just to fight ISIS. It is in Syria at the request of the legitimate and internationally recognised Syrian government to aid in its fight against terrorist groups including but not limited to ISIS. The fight against ISIS is the main priority now, but eventually, to restore peace and stability to Syria, all terrorist groups, militias and illegal foreign military presences will need to be removed from the country, either through negotiation or through armed struggle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: SDF, Nusra, Ahrar-al-Sham, Salafi, Daesh - what's the difference for the bombing?
upd: I googled and SDF means Kurds (I thought it's the FSA at first). Not good in all those group names. But the Assad and Kurds don't fighting each other are they?
No. But in future, they might. SDF controls large part of Syria.
2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.
Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.
Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.
2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.
Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.
Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.
When Iraqi army ran they gained substantial access to western arms, machines and kit.
They likely lost most of machines and heavy weapons. There tank forces long gone and heavy arty much reduced.
But they by no means short of weaponry.
2. The SDF (and maybe US too) are colluding to some degree with ISIS (not that that would surprise anyone, given the history of both and the fact that US equipment has been spotted at ISIS positions). Either they are ISIS or they are traitors. In both cases valid targets.
Well, one, the US equipment is most likely from the massive stockpile of said that ISIS grabbed from Iraq. Some of the US stuff that I've seen touted in pro-Russian sites (of the BOW DOWN TO VLADAMIR PUTIN, YOUR NEW GOD!' variety) has been over 80 years old. Same with the British stuff. I mean, seriously, the 25 pounder hasn't been a big product of England for quite some time now. Most of the new ones are made by Pakistan.
Second, I've long since grown tired of the Propaganda bit that (side) is helping ISIS fight against (side). I have no problem believing that Russia hit an allied position, since they're such bad shots they managed to bomb one all the way over in Jordan, just as I have no problem believing that US air controllers on the deconfliction line are unaware of the difference between Deir al-Zour airport and the actual city when calling to inform Russia about US airstrikes.
Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.
Also, the US equipment at ISIS positions isn't just a rumour from wacky nationalist sites. The ministry of defense has shared lots of aerial photographs that prove it. Of course that doesn't prove that the US is giving equipment to ISIS, as you say it could have been captured from Iraqi forces.
djones520 wrote: Seriously guys, there is no point in engaging him on this stuff. He's drank so much of Putin's Kool-Aid his skin as turned red.
That response is equivalent to a child putting his fingers in his ears and going na na na na I dont wanna hear you! Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.
Iron_Captain wrote: Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.
I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'
Iron_Captain wrote: Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.
I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'
Or maybe you both get some Jack Daniel's, some vodka and make a soviet American pact.
This topic has been rekitively interlectual and polite. Please Dont get a intresting topic closed
Iron_Captain wrote: Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.
I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'
Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...
Iron_Captain wrote: Try putting off those "Murica feth yeah" glasses for once. You'll see clearer.
I might comment on your GLORY OF STALIN! tinted specs you're sporting there yourself. You'd have made a lovely propaganda officer back in Stalingrad. 'Stalin made it impossible for our own bullets to hit our own men, so any further reports of Friendly Fire will be considered acts of Treason!'
What? I don't like Stalin at all... Sure the guy did a lot of good for the USSR, but he was also a terrible tyrant whose despotic regime murdered millions and ruined any chance the USSR might have had at fulfilling its dream of socialism.
Just the fact that I disagree with you on some things and that I support the actions of Vladimir Putin and his government (like the majority of the Russian people do, mind you) doesn't make me a stalinist anymore than disagreeing with me makes you a fascist. This kind of namecalling is ridiculous. And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.
Now, as the wise jhe90 suggests, let's end this immature mudslinging and get back to polite argument-based discussion of the topic.
Iron_Captain wrote: .And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.
Cap, to put it mildly, when we discuss Russia you do come across as a 'Putinist Fanboy' on occasion, to the degree that we had a VERY long discussion about the Ukraine where we both wrote walls of text at each other. Not nearly as bad as Yaraton, but still, you do defend it in the face of reason and fact on occasion.
In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.
Iron_Captain wrote: .And the fact that some people here on Dakka, from the supposedly free West, can't handle different opinions without resorting to it is really sad. If your contribution amounts to nothing more than "Iron Captain is a putinist fanboy so don't take him seriously", then you are not contributing anything useful to this thread.
Cap, to put it mildly, when we discuss Russia you do come across as a 'Putinist Fanboy' on occasion, to the degree that we had a VERY long discussion about the Ukraine where we both wrote walls of text at each other. Not nearly as bad as Yaraton, but still, you do defend it in the face of reason and fact on occasion.
In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.
Yes, I do support the Russian government in many things, because I believe that the decisions they make are the best for Russia. If that makes me a putinist fanboy, so be it. Disagreeing with someone's political views should never preclude arguments-based discussion.
And yes. Russia cares for human rights and peace even less than the US does. You are right in that. In fact, I know the Russian government thinks 'universal human rights' is nothing but neo-colonial Western bullgak. Still, a tool that serves a purpose will be used.
But if you believe Russia is in Syria for conquest, that is wrong. The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.
BaronIveagh wrote: In Syria, let;'s not split hairs, Russia's only reason for being there is Tartus, that part of Syria they have seized and claimed to now be part of Russia. No, seriously. I believe in Putin's urge to uphold human rights and bring peace to the region as much as I believe in Santa. But his urge to conquer if he can? That's as real as it gets.
Iron_Captain wrote:The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.
And I remember the Ukraine thread... With glee
Conquering all of Syria would indeed be madness. Forcing the Syrian government to cede sovereignty of the port at Tartus, however, was a masterful act of Blackmail. It secured a port on the Med for the Russian Navy, particularly after loss of access to quite a few other ports.
Freakazoitt wrote:[
I don't get it. Conquer what? Tartus?
In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.
Iron_Captain wrote:The only areas Russia wants to conquer are the areas it lost in 1991. Trying to conquer Syria would be utter madness. The campaign in Syria is only to preserve and increase its influence in the region, which is the same reason the US is there as well.
And I remember the Ukraine thread... With glee
Conquering all of Syria would indeed be madness. Forcing the Syrian government to cede sovereignty of the port at Tartus, however, was a masterful act of Blackmail. It secured a port on the Med for the Russian Navy, particularly after loss of access to quite a few other ports.
Freakazoitt wrote:[
I don't get it. Conquer what? Tartus?
In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port (where big warships can't even dock) with some old equipment and neglected office buildings, and most of it is covered in rusty, half-sunk Syrian ships. There are rarely more than 50 Russians there. It isn't a naval base at all, just a simple point to resupply food and water during exercises in the Mediterranean. Handy, but absolutely not something vital. Like with the base in Vietnam, Russia has held on to it more out of Soviet nostalgia than out of actual need (so we can say we still have foreign naval bases and feel all big and mighty like in the good old days). And as to Vietnam, the Russian fleet doesn't really have the capacity anymore to project power so far from home. The Russian fleet is there for defending its coastline. It doesn't need ports all over the world, just in the seas close to Russia. The whole of Syria is actually of little strategic interest to Russia. We are there because we can, not because it is actually strategically important.
Maybe once we are done turning Tartus in an actual port it will be of some strategic interest. But even then, what would we want with it beyond saying "Hey look guys, we got a naval base in the Mediterranean! Please be afraid of us!"?
In this case I probably should have used 'Expand Russian Territory' rather than Conquer, though he's done that more specifically elsewhere. Under the latest treaty (early this year) Syria basically gives Russia the port at Tartus. This is a good move, if you're trying to expand your potential naval operations, or want a super power propping up your dictatorship in order to keep their only remaining foreign naval base, since even Vietnam has shown the Russian fleet the door, particularly following Crimea.
There is a naval base since 1970s. Just not used properly. No need to "conquer" it. But in a hypotetical situation, where some democratic throatcutters wins, they will remove that base. So, it can be one of the reasons, but not a major one.
There are rarely more than 50 Russians there.
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port
Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....
OK, Russia there to save Assad (which is equal to saving Syria), hold the base and eliminate terrorism. And USA is there to eliminate Assad, seize the only Russian base left and support rebels (who is in most cases similar to the terrorists). And also to support Kurds whos fighting against Turkey (NATO member, lol).
Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port
Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....
I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.
Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port
Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....
I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.
It is, however, on the other side of the Bosporus. A permanent detachment of Russian naval vessels at Tarsus would let Russia react to events in and around the Mediterranean with naval units without having to ask the Turks for permission.
Seems Russia is now blaming the US for bombing ISIS Capitol into rubble, and have forgotten that they were bombing the gak out of it before the US ever got there.
I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.
Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.
So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...
I just recently had a 'debate' with Iron Captain, where he started by claiming Crimea was one of the richest areas in the Ukraine, and by the end was trying to argue that if you exclude the actual rich areas of the Ukraine, then Crimea almost reaches the average among the rest, and that also if you only look at the rich bits of Crimea and ignore the poor bits then Crimea is rich. He did that without ever admitting his original claim was completely wrong.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.
Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.
So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.
It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying. So it just comes down to who you trust more.
Of course, what you've just written is the exact, stated purpose of disinformation campaigns. Disinformation campaigns don't aim to trick people with their claims, their aim is to confuse and disrupt the public debate so that accurate, real claims are buried amidst a sea of bs. They do this spamming enormous numbers of rumours coming from all directions, and attacking any reputable media sources as partisan and under suspicion. They hope that people will be confused about what to believe and give up and retreat from the discussion, or just go with their pre-conceived notions. This is a very handy strategy to use when you have no facts on your side, and any kind of decent, worthwhile debate will expose you quite quickly.
So of course it's what Putin is doing, and of course it's what Iron Captain is repeating.
I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.
Wyrmalla wrote: Remember the Ukraine threads? Good reading if you want some perspective on user's posts here...
I just recently had a 'debate' with Iron Captain, where he started by claiming Crimea was one of the richest areas in the Ukraine, and by the end was trying to argue that if you exclude the actual rich areas of the Ukraine, then Crimea almost reaches the average among the rest, and that also if you only look at the rich bits of Crimea and ignore the poor bits then Crimea is rich. He did that without ever admitting his original claim was completely wrong.
You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense. Without getting bogged down in all the details again, let me shut this down right here:
Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country.
The original claim you made is simply not true. When you look at the average GDP of Ukrainian regions, then Crimea is a decidedly average region and not an economic backwater. When you also take into account differences within the region itself, like the fact (which you, mr. pot, conveniently keep ignoring by excluding Sevastopol and then accusing me, the kettle, of cherrypicking) that it has a rich coastal area with an important tourism industry and important navy and commercial port facilities and all the related industries. Economic backwaters do not have important national industries like that. Economic backwaters do not have an average GDP. Economic backwaters do not have a GDP far in excess of the poorest regions of the country. Regions like Kherson, Chernovtsy, Ternopol. Those were and are the economic backwaters of Ukraine. If you claim that Crimea was an economic backwater, then that shows you do not know anything about Ukraine, so just stop lying. I could make a comment about how this behaviour is linked to your national identity and the government of your country, such as you are so fond of doing with me, but I will refrain from such infantile nonsense.
LordofHats wrote: I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...
The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.
The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.
Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!
LordofHats wrote: I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...
The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.
The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.
Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!
ulgurstasta wrote: It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs
There's certainly an issue with selective sourcing of information, and it is always easier to see it in others than in ourselves. But that's a general issue, while this is a very specific form of information warfare - spamming constant stories that are partly or mostly lies, and using multiple platforms to spread them so that any kind of truthful reporting gets lost amidst not just among false stories, but amidst endless debunking of the false stories.
Iron_Captain wrote: I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.
You've missed the point completely, again. For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Defeating disinformation campaigns isn’t about putting faith in one ideological camp or another. That’s the aim of the disinformation campaign, to get people to give up on believing they can have any idea of what the truth is, so they might as well just accept their own government’s position, or at worst give up on having any view on the issue at all.
Actually defeating these campaigns requires people to take note of which sources routinely make gak up and just stop listening to those sources. What that will leave is a collection of sources that won't be perfect, that might get some facts wrong and might have a slanted POV, but that can be used in aggregate to form some kind of overall picture of what is really happening.
For some reason you are pretending that isn’t possible. It’s fairly obvious why.
You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense.
I'm not starting it up again, because there’s no debate to had. It never should have gone on for as long as it did the first time around. You made a silly claim about Crimea because you had no idea the region was more than just the sea port region, and then you refused to admit you screwed up for pages after that. If anyone is interested they can go and read the thread themselves in that thread.
I mentioned it so that anyone who isn't you that might be reading this could note that what you're doing here in this thread isn't a once off, it is how you operate. They can use that information do decide how they want to engage with you from here on.
ulgurstasta wrote: It's funny how people are able to be critical and reasonable about their opponents sources, but for some mysterious reason dont use that standard on their own sources/beliefs
There's certainly an issue with selective sourcing of information, and it is always easier to see it in others than in ourselves. But that's a general issue, while this is a very specific form of information warfare - spamming constant stories that are partly or mostly lies, and using multiple platforms to spread them so that any kind of truthful reporting gets lost amidst not just among false stories, but amidst endless debunking of the false stories.
Iron_Captain wrote: I find your belief in "accurate, real claims" adorable. Do you really think that one of both sides has an interest in the truth? They only like truth when it suits them. Russia, the US, any big power, they are all the same. The US engages in disinformation campaigns as much as Russia does, and it mastered the use of them long before Russia ever got the hang of it.
You've missed the point completely, again. For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past. Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
sebster wrote: Defeating disinformation campaigns isn’t about putting faith in one ideological camp or another. That’s the aim of the disinformation campaign, to get people to give up on believing they can have any idea of what the truth is, so they might as well just accept their own government’s position, or at worst give up on having any view on the issue at all.
Actually defeating these campaigns requires people to take note of which sources routinely make gak up and just stop listening to those sources. What that will leave is a collection of sources that won't be perfect, that might get some facts wrong and might have a slanted POV, but that can be used in aggregate to form some kind of overall picture of what is really happening.
The funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions (since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself). Every media in existence has a bias, and some media are more active and obvious in pushing their bias, that is true. While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
sebster wrote: For some reason you are pretending that isn’t possible. It’s fairly obvious why.
Obvious? Not at all I am afraid. At least not to me myself. Please enlighten me.
You starting this up again? In yet another completely unrelated thread? Seriously? And you completely ignore the fact that your initial claim was total nonsense.
I'm not starting it up again,
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
No, now you are doing it again. You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea. That is why this whole thing got started in the first place.
sebster wrote: because you had no idea the region was more than just the sea port region, and then you refused to admit you screwed up for pages after that. If anyone is interested they can go and read the thread themselves in that thread.
I was born on Crimea... Do you really think I did not know that Crimea is more than a sea port? Maybe people should indeed go read that thread (if they really want to waste their time). They would see that in my third post or such of that argument I am already explaining that Crimea has different regions, and so they would see that you are once again posting a blatant lie here. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are the one who refuses to admit you screwed up. Again, you said that Crimea is an economic backwater. I present several arguments that show the contrary. You bring up some counter-arguments to refute them. I point out that your arguments are incorrect because they rely on data pulled out of context. You ignore that and fall back on ad hominem and straw man attacks, even going so far as to continuing about it in an entirely unrelated thread.
sebster wrote: I mentioned it so that anyone who isn't you that might be reading this could note that what you're doing here in this thread isn't a once off, it is how you operate. They can use that information do decide how they want to engage with you from here on.
It is good that you did it, because by doing so you also showed the way in which you operate. This discussion is not on topic and I think we are done talking to each other now, but let me give a good tip for your next discussion: Stick to arguments and don't start with ad hominem or other fallacious arguments. That is not nice, and is highly likely to result in animosity, which in turn could devolve into mudslinging and locked threads. Nobody wants that.
LordofHats wrote: I don't really know if that works in a "in ______ Russia" joke cause "the pot calling the kettle black" is completely a functional idiom when reversed XD
Actually, it kinda does reverse the meaning...
The vast majority of people who use this idiom use it to refer to two sides that are as bad as each other; this is not the idiom's intended meaning.
The kettle is spotless and gleaming, and on its surface the cooking pot sees its own grimy reflection. The kettle's the good guy, the pot is merely projecting.
Ergo, the "in Soviet Russia" gag was unintentionally a meaningful reversal!
Awwww damn XD
Well Churchill did say. Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Thr country always been a place of both intrest and confusion both benign and plain dangerously wrong.
Iron_Captain wrote: [
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are the one who refuses to admit you screwed up. Again, you said that Crimea is an economic backwater. I present several arguments that show the contrary. You bring up some counter-arguments to refute them. I point out that your arguments are incorrect because they rely on data pulled out of context. You ignore that and fall back on ad hominem and straw man attacks, even going so far as to continuing about it in an entirely unrelated thread.
Welcome to Dakka.
And IIRC our discussion of the history of the region was pretty much the only positive thing to come out of that discussion, which I thought about yesterday while tooling around in the Krasnyi Krym in World of Warships.
Iron_Captain wrote: Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past.
Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
You still don't get it. Trying to get information from both sides is a horrible way of approaching this, because that makes the awful assumption that all media sources are equal, and that they all have some element of truth in them. That plainly isn't true. Many sources blatantly lie, many others twist tiny facts in order to serve their agenda or ideology.
By pretending that isn't true, but refusing to shut off dishonest and unreliable sources, you open yourself up to manipulation by disinformation campaigns. Which is excatly why you found yourself aping the message those disinformation campaigns hope to place in the audience.
[quoteThe funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions
No, it depends on fething facts. Sometimes those facts are hard to come by, and some times we might get some facts wrong, but it remains the only way to reach actual truth.
(since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself)
bs. For starters eye witness accounts are not completely reliable. Then there are many other methods of discerning the facts of an event, to verify, expand upon or possibly reject the accounts of eye witness reports. This is why history isn't just a long list of first hand accounts.
While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
Gathering information from a wide variety of sources is only valuable if you apply critical reasoning to each source, and that process of critical reasoning includes discarding sources that are unreliable or dubious in their claims.
Obvious? Not at all I am afraid. At least not to me myself. Please enlighten me.
You have a political slant, and you aren't inclined to accept its limitations.
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
You took it as an invite to start it up again, but it wasn't intended as such. I didn't even consider the possibility that you would want to drag yourself through that humiliation again. I got that wrong.
You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea.
Here's your original claim;
Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine
And here's what you walked that back to after four pages of me explaining to you that you were wrong;
The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole...
It went from being one of the most powerful economic regions to being average, if we exclude the actually rich parts. And when I pointed out how you'd changed your argument, you ended up saying;
When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
So in other words, when I wrote Crimea was an economic backwater, you replied by countering that the bits of Crimea that you choose to think of aren't by themselves, therefore that can't be said about the whole region.
So yeah. Look, I didn't want to start this up again, and still don't. I've taken part in enough puppy kicking exercises in my time on the internet, and don't see any value in doing it to you as well. So just stop. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistakes about Crimea, and stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistatements on media and what sources should be trusted. Maybe instead just take a step back, stop trying to give opinions and just read what others have to say. You will learn things.
Iron_Captain wrote: Stop doing this. You are putting words in my mouth again. I never said anything like this and have not decided that. In fact, if you were to look at my post history you would find that my actual opinion on this is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it is. You should never just get information from one side only. If there are multiple sides to a story you should try to understand all of them. I have said this many times in the past.
Why do you keep putting up these straw men?
You still don't get it. Trying to get information from both sides is a horrible way of approaching this, because that makes the awful assumption that all media sources are equal, and that they all have some element of truth in them. That plainly isn't true. Many sources blatantly lie, many others twist tiny facts in order to serve their agenda or ideology.
sebster wrote:For some reason you’ve decided that its all about just picking one side or another and believing whatever they say. I don’t know why you’ve done that.
Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
sebster wrote: By pretending that isn't true, but refusing to shut off dishonest and unreliable sources, you open yourself up to manipulation by disinformation campaigns. Which is excatly why you found yourself aping the message those disinformation campaigns hope to place in the audience.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three. I am not saying you should value sources that are blatantly lying as much as those that are attempting to give an honest (if inevitably biased one way or the other) report. Far from it. The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not. This is why you should take in account all sources, even if you do not assign the same values to all of them, because it is only in very rare cases that you can actually distinguish lies from facts. Especially if you shut of all sources that express the viewpoints of one side in an issue because that makes you extremely vulnerable to being manipulated by the other side. I guess there is no real problem with excluding some sources you really distrust. But do make sure your sources remain balanced and do not skew to one 'side' or one particular political or ideological point of view.
sebster wrote: [quoteThe funny thing is that the border between information and disinformation is extremely vague and subjective. Often, what is considered information and what is disinformation depends entirely on one's own opinions
No, it depends on fething facts. Sometimes those facts are hard to come by, and some times we might get some facts wrong, but it remains the only way to reach actual truth.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
(since actually discovering the facts is impossible for events that you did not witness yourself)
bs. For starters eye witness accounts are not completely reliable. Then there are many other methods of discerning the facts of an event, to verify, expand upon or possibly reject the accounts of eye witness reports. This is why history isn't just a long list of first hand accounts.
Aye, good point. Not even first-hand accounts or seeing things for yourself is completely reliable in discovering the truth of things (which is probably why so many philosopers think there actually isn't such a thing as 'truth' in the first place). History and current events are pretty similar actually, in both we have to rely on combining the stories of others to create a story of what might have happened.
While I disagree with you in that I think that no opinion should ever be completely discarded or not listened to (even if it is obviously false, it does form part of the larger story.), I actually do agree with you that the best way to gather information is through a variety of diverse sources. That is the most reliable way possible for us ordinary people that can not see everything in person or have access to the information networks of the intelligence agencies.
Gathering information from a wide variety of sources is only valuable if you apply critical reasoning to each source, and that process of critical reasoning includes discarding sources that are unreliable or dubious in their claims.
Please...You just did start it up again. Stop it with the lies already.
You took it as an invite to start it up again, but it wasn't intended as such. I didn't even consider the possibility that you would want to drag yourself through that humiliation again. I got that wrong.
Regardless of intentions, you did start it up again.
You are the one who made a silly claim about Crimea.
Here's your original claim;
Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine
And here's what you walked that back to after four pages of me explaining to you that you were wrong;
The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole...
It went from being one of the most powerful economic regions to being average, if we exclude the actually rich parts. And when I pointed out how you'd changed your argument, you ended up saying;
When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
So in other words, when I wrote Crimea was an economic backwater, you replied by countering that the bits of Crimea that you choose to think of aren't by themselves, therefore that can't be said about the whole region.
So yeah. Look, I didn't want to start this up again, and still don't. I've taken part in enough puppy kicking exercises in my time on the internet, and don't see any value in doing it to you as well. So just stop. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistakes about Crimea, and stop trying to dig yourself out of your mistatements on media and what sources should be trusted. Maybe instead just take a step back, stop trying to give opinions and just read what others have to say. You will learn things.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement). You then tried to back up your claim by providing numbers that were not only taken wildly out of context, but also actually excluded Sevastopol. Your statement was an incorrect generalisation. You stated that Crimea was an economic backwater. However, Crimea consists of many different areas. While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not. Most of the rest of the discussion was just me trying to explain this to you, not me walking back on any claims as you seem to have interpreted it. Anyways, your claim that 'Crimea' is an economic backwater is wrong. The Crimea as a whole was above average - average in its economic performance relative to the other areas of Ukraine. The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine. You could have argued that that means that it still is a total economic backwater compared to the rest of Europe, and you'd be totally right. But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
Some people recognise it when a cause is lost and give up. Some people just keep defending a lost cause anyway until the last. You evidently fall into that last category. I respect that, but I would like to urge you to see reason now and admit that your original statement was wrong, and that the rest of this whole discussion between us is built on nothing but misunderstanding.
Iron_Captain wrote:
But Russia already had access to Tartus... Which isn't all that big of a deal anyways. I don't know if you have ever seen it, but the "naval base" at Tartus is nothing but a small port
Freakazoitt wrote:
I heard about Tartus before war started. It was pretty small (just some house and rusty things) and there were only 2 Russians (civilian base workers), about 20 Syrians and base wasn't used for naval for many years. It was there "just because". It's, probably more political-diplomatical interest, than actually using it as a base for ships.
You might want to look into the plans Russia has announced for the port. They're going to expand the port to accept up to 11 nuclear ships simultaneously. If they're talking subs, that's merely large. If they're talking carriers....
I know. But it is a lot of talk. Let's see how much of that actually becomes reality. And even if it does, we will be able to park our only rusty aircraft carrier in the Middle East. And there will even be space for its tug boats. Yay. Russia isn't going to get anything really strategically important out of that. It is not like it is that far away from existing naval bases.
It's on the other side of the Bosporus, which is pretty important. Russia-Turkish relations have very often not been positive, so having a naval base IN the Mediterranean is a huge thing, as that strait can be closed to Russian military (or sea trade) traffic at any time.
Yeah, in a straight line, it isn't that far. In terms of strategic importance, it's huge.
He joined them, got a kid out there, somewhere.
OK, he enlisted with IS, he made the decision, and not a small or insignificant one to go to Syria,a foreign nation in civil war.
Obviously was a radical before hand or sympathetic to go put there. Far ernough to actively travel there.
So why should UK or Canada take him back. Sounds a danger to me.
Theres the German 16 year old but the Iraq courts are refusing to extradite her as yet and want to try her for being a member and terrorist.
Let Iraq try her. It should serve as a strong deterrent to other European citizens against travelling abroad to join terrorist organisations. If you commit war crimes and acts of terror in a foreign country, there should be no going back back to your home country. You will be tried, convicted and imprisoned in the country you helped terrorise.
We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.
I'm sure Iraq isn't going to be keeping radicals in a jail to be freed the next time they get pushed back.
Long as you got a fair trial, I am OK with that. You join ISIS willingly and perpetrate their atrocities, suffer the consequences.
They joined a terror state. Don t be too Suprised when they treat you as a terrorist. As Iraq said themselves, a teanager is old enough to be responsible for actions.
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
A terror state conformed In status by the UN. US, in law in dozens of nations and declared enemy of many allied nations.
They comoted slavery. Genocide. Rape, looting and oppression on a daily basis and was a considered a enemy of all western and free people's.
There fighters would of shot you in head without a thought. If you where lucky. They where Barbarians who deserved there fate, to be pounder, broken and driven from there cities.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'.
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'.
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
Not sure how to write what UK did to Canada applies to those who join declared enemies of freedom, West and general terrorists.
ISIS are one of the most barbaric and brutal terror groups to rise in a very long time.
So did the Jews, Irish, and Americans. Will 'Great Britain' be rounding them up and executing them after show trials? You used to do all of them, as they were declared 'terrorists' by the crown.
I seem to recall the absolute kangaroo court you browbeat Canada into after WW2 as they were 'not executing enough Nazis'. Things like 'evidence' and 'testimony' went right out the window.
Why stop there? I'm still pissed off with the Normans for invading and replacing our English aristocracy.
And don't even get me started on the fething Romans.
Not sure how to write what UK did to Canada applies to those who join declared enemies of freedom, West and general terrorists.
Well, Nazis most definitely qualify as those things, and the UK was hot to have the Canadians hang more of them, regardless of actual guilt. You can imagine how well it went.
Not actually a legal term, and not actually confirmed by anyone. ISIS was a state sponsor of terrorism, a category that also includes France and the United States. 'Terrorism' itself is very loosely defined legally in most nations and internationally. The US basically has a system where anyone is a terrorist if they say so.
There fighters would of shot you in head without a thought. If you where lucky. They where Barbarians who deserved there fate, to be pounder, broken and driven from there cities.
But the guys who used poison gas on innocent civilians were A-OK! Fighting them would be horrible!
We understand you get a hard on from your UK (and specifically England) hatred, but you can hardly blame current Dakka users for events that were 70 years ago.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of certain posters positions is not 'blaming them'. In fact, that many of you decided to go with personal attacks like this one rather proves my point, being that the very idea of any of these people getting a fair trial is ludicrous.
Iron_Captain wrote: Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
You keep pretending it is some impossible thing to view and read media reports and apply judgement to their reliability. It isn't. It is what people do constantly. They don't always do it perfectly, but pretending that it can't be done at all is utter nonsense.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three.
The problem with your worldview is that your claim above is absolute and total trash. No report is perfect, many contain errors, but that doesn't make them propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign. To be propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign requires intent on the part of the creator to deceive/confuse the reader. They are distinct things and it is generally very easy to tell from actual reporting.
The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not.
Everyone will get it wrong from time to time, accepting something that's at least partially false, or rejecting something that is accurate. But we don't need to reach perfection here. If people on the whole just cut out the blatant junk the debate would vastly improve from where it is today.
It's like you're pointing out that really healthy eating is complex and difficult to perfect, so we shouldn't say anything about people eating McDonalds twice a day and brushing their teeth with coca cola.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
This is really just repeating the same argument. You keep repeating that it's hard to determine all the facts of an issue. That's true, but achieving a level where people are actually debating the difficult to achieve facts would be such a massive improvement that we should be ecstatic if we moved half way to reaching that point.
There was a cricket match concluded yesterday, at the end Western Australia set Tasmania a challenged 360 run target, and Tassie collapsed, being dismissed for their lowest score in their history in the competition and losing by 300 runs. There is a discussion going on as to whether the pitch became more difficult for batsmen, or whether WA's class bowling line up finally clicked in to gear, or whether Tassie panicked and then folded. The truth is debatable and no-one will ever know for sure. But we do know it wasn't because Hillary Clinton bribed Putin to pressure George Bailey to throw the match in order to cover up that the conflict in Syria is actually a globalist plot to take guns away from god fearing Americans.
On a world stage, many people believe things in that last category. They believe them because no matter how ridiculous these ideas are, they are comforting to the reader, and therefore preferable to the challenge and complexity of reality. That's crap is polluting the debate, and attitudes like yours, that we just can't tell what is at least trying to be genuine reporting, is a huge part of the problem.
Nb: The rest of our discussion is pretty much off topic, so I put it in spoiler tags to avoid inconveniencing other people on this thread.
I'd hide stuff behind spoilers if I was in your position as well. I mean, I'd hate it if it was continually pointed out that I claimed that Crimea was one of the strongest economies in Ukraine, and then spent pages trying to back off from that. The difference between me and you is that I would have admitted my mistake.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Your phrasing is sometimes a little off, but overall your English is excellent and I say as some that has failed woefully in my efforts to learn a second language, I am quite impressed at how you consistently make your points perfectly clearly on dakka. The problem is not your English, the problem was your argument was bad.
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement).
No, you said 'especially Sevastapol'. But that's a non-argument. You can't pick out one part and say it's the only bit that should be considered. That part should be considered as part of the whole. And when you include the rest of Crimea, the whole lot drags back to being a backwater.
While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not.
Yes, but a statement that a place is an economic backwater doesn't mean no part of it is quite rich. "We are a poor family" doesn't become false if a cousin becomes a lawyer. Because you still look at the family as a whole and note that when most members are unemployed or working minimum wage, the family as a whole is poor.
The Crimea as a whole was above average
And here is again. You've retreated to the much lesser claim that the region is average, without ever admitting your early claim that the region was one of the strongest economic regions in Ukraine.
The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine.
You didn't 'specify' that region. You said 'especially'. If you specified you would have been referring just to that part only and excluding the rest of the region. But the word you used, 'especially', doesn't do that. 'Especially' means it is true of the whole region, and very true of this one bit in particular. "Western Europe is very rich, especially Germany" doesn't mean the statement is only true for Germany, it means it is true for the whole region, and particularly for Germany.
But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
No, I still stand by what I said, because it's simply fething true. I guess if you wanted to stretch things you could possibly say that my first post was generalist as it didn't note the coastal region being wealthier, but that generalisation was needed because adding it would have ruined the pacing of my joke that was all my first comment was actually meant to be. And considering when you decided to challenge that comment, and I quickly noted you were right that the coastal region was actually fairly well off (but not large enough or rich enough to offset the poverty in the rest of the region), it'd be a real stretch to call that a mistake.
Whereas you did in fact claim that the region was one of the richest in Ukraine, and it was a teethpulling exercise to get you to accept that claim was quite mistaken.
We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.
While I would agree Iraq might not be the best place to get a fair trial, in this case its highly unlikely that anybody will be fabricating evidence or getting false witnesses. If you're caught while fighting under ISIS colors thats pretty much all the evidence you need.
They'll hang quite deservedly, and not really anybody can dispute it.
As long as no evidence is fabricated and the judgement is made based upon the evidence, thats a fair trial.
Iron_Captain wrote: Ah, but now this is exactly what you are doing. Without knowing the facts in the first place you can not determine very well which media is lying, which media is twisting facts, which media is omitting facts and to what degree they are doing this.
You keep pretending it is some impossible thing to view and read media reports and apply judgement to their reliability. It isn't. It is what people do constantly. They don't always do it perfectly, but pretending that it can't be done at all is utter nonsense.
And here you are putting words in my mouth again. I thought I had told you to stop doing that?
I never said it can't be done at all, I am only saying that it is difficult, as should be evident from all the people believing sensationalist nonsense and crappy stories from crappy media.
Again, the difference between information, disinformation and propaganda is in practice virtually non-existent. All news you get about contentious issues contains elements of all three.
The problem with your worldview is that your claim above is absolute and total trash. No report is perfect, many contain errors, but that doesn't make them propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign. To be propaganda or part of a disinformation campaign requires intent on the part of the creator to deceive/confuse the reader. They are distinct things and it is generally very easy to tell from actual reporting.
If it is easy to tell, then it is great, but oftentimes it is not easy to tell. You usually can't know the intent of a creator after all (unless you can read minds. If so, please tell me how ). Also, the intent of propaganda is not necessarily to deceive. Propaganda is often written by those who absolutely believe in what they are writing, for the purpose of making other people see things their way. And disinformation also doesn't have to be deceitful. It can come around simply as a result of sloppiness, blindly copying sources or other instances of bad reporting.
The difficulty however is in establishing whether a source is lying or not.
Everyone will get it wrong from time to time, accepting something that's at least partially false, or rejecting something that is accurate. But we don't need to reach perfection here. If people on the whole just cut out the blatant junk the debate would vastly improve from where it is today.
Aye, reaching perfection is unfortunately impossible. And sometimes people in a position of authority get it wrong and take major decisions based on that wrong information, which can have disastrous consequences.
It sure does. But again, when not present yourself, the actual facts aren't just hard, but impossible to come by, which is why we have to rely on second-hand sources. And those sources are always unreliable to some degree or another, which prevents us from ever fully learning the actual truth of things. It will never be more than a story about what we think is the truth, because others told us it is the truth.
This is really just repeating the same argument. You keep repeating that it's hard to determine all the facts of an issue. That's true, but achieving a level where people are actually debating the difficult to achieve facts would be such a massive improvement that we should be ecstatic if we moved half way to reaching that point.
There was a cricket match concluded yesterday, at the end Western Australia set Tasmania a challenged 360 run target, and Tassie collapsed, being dismissed for their lowest score in their history in the competition and losing by 300 runs. There is a discussion going on as to whether the pitch became more difficult for batsmen, or whether WA's class bowling line up finally clicked in to gear, or whether Tassie panicked and then folded. The truth is debatable and no-one will ever know for sure. But we do know it wasn't because Hillary Clinton bribed Putin to pressure George Bailey to throw the match in order to cover up that the conflict in Syria is actually a globalist plot to take guns away from god fearing Americans.
On a world stage, many people believe things in that last category. They believe them because no matter how ridiculous these ideas are, they are comforting to the reader, and therefore preferable to the challenge and complexity of reality. That's crap is polluting the debate, and attitudes like yours, that we just can't tell what is at least trying to be genuine reporting, is a huge part of the problem.
Nb: The rest of our discussion is pretty much off topic, so I put it in spoiler tags to avoid inconveniencing other people on this thread.
I'd hide stuff behind spoilers if I was in your position as well. I mean, I'd hate it if it was continually pointed out that I claimed that Crimea was one of the strongest economies in Ukraine, and then spent pages trying to back off from that. The difference between me and you is that I would have admitted my mistake.
Uh, you know that spoilers don't actually hide things, right? You can just click on it and it shows. You are once more assuming too much. I put it in spoilers because it is off topic, and according to the rules of Dakka, posts should be on topic. So I put it in spoilers so that the people who come here to actually discuss ISIS and the situation in Syria/Iraq don't have to scroll through our long off topic nonsense posts first. Which is why I am once again putting spoiler tags around it.
Though I must say that it doesn't surprise me to see you attacking this. Everything to distract from the fact that you lost the argument right?
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never walked back on any claim. (I like to think that I speak English well, and I probably do compared to most non-native speakers, but English is still not my native language, and I can't always make my arguments as eloquent as I'd like to. Might be that my incorrect use of English created or increased this misunderstanding, and if so I apologise.)
Your phrasing is sometimes a little off, but overall your English is excellent and I say as some that has failed woefully in my efforts to learn a second language, I am quite impressed at how you consistently make your points perfectly clearly on dakka. The problem is not your English, the problem was your argument was bad.
Thank you very much for the compliment . I lived in the UK for a short while, so I guess that explains some of it. Although I do have to admit that I often still find myself using a dictionary when writing here on Dakka. Lots of difficult words here
Note that in my initial response to your incorrect claim, I specified Sevastopol (precisely because it is one of the richer parts of Crimea and relatively wealthy compared to the rest of Ukraine, therefore disproving your statement).
No, you said 'especially Sevastapol'. But that's a non-argument. You can't pick out one part and say it's the only bit that should be considered.
Well, that was what I did. I brought up Sevastopol, which being a relatively rich part of Ukraine and located on Crimea, precludes the Crimea from being an economic backwater. Again, economic backwaters do not tend to have major ports and industry.
sebster wrote: That part should be considered as part of the whole. And when you include the rest of Crimea, the whole lot drags back to being a backwater.
While certainly, there are parts of Crimea that could be considered economic backwaters, there are many parts that absolutely are not.
Yes, but a statement that a place is an economic backwater doesn't mean no part of it is quite rich. "We are a poor family" doesn't become false if a cousin becomes a lawyer. Because you still look at the family as a whole and note that when most members are unemployed or working minimum wage, the family as a whole is poor.
No. The family isn't poor if it has a rich lawyer. The rest of the family is poor. The family as a whole isn't poor. If the family as a whole were poor that would mean that all of its members (all parts of the whole) are poor. Here, that is evidently not the case, so the family isn't poor and Crimea as a whole isn't an economic backwater.
And here is again. You've retreated to the much lesser claim that the region is average, without ever admitting your early claim that the region was one of the strongest economic regions in Ukraine.
Retreating would mean that I have ever held another position. I have not. As I now have said many times, but which you keep ignoring, my claims regarding one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine (stronger, not strongest) were regarding Sevastopol. Which is true. And which disproves your claim that Crimea is an economic backwater. Again, if the Crimea as a whole was an economic backwater, then all of it would have to be. But since significant parts of the Crimea are evidently not economic backwaters, you can't say that the Crimea as a whole is an economic backwater.
Which brings me once again to the central part of my argument that you so deftly keep avoiding. To put it very simply: You are wrong. Your initial claim was wrong and you have been trying to distract from that and wriggle your way out since the beginning.
The part of Crimea that I specified in my initial statement (Sevastopol) was one of the stronger economic regions in Ukraine.
You didn't 'specify' that region. You said 'especially'. If you specified you would have been referring just to that part only and excluding the rest of the region. But the word you used, 'especially', doesn't do that. 'Especially' means it is true of the whole region, and very true of this one bit in particular. "Western Europe is very rich, especially Germany" doesn't mean the statement is only true for Germany, it means it is true for the whole region, and particularly for Germany.
Oh. It does? But I thought it meant that you specify that thing out of a greater whole? My dictionary lists for the Russian term imenno in the meaning I wanted to use it the translation namely, especially. Of those I chose especially over namely because even though namely seems a direct translation, I don't recall seeing it before. Especially seemed more familiar. Is that an error in the dictionary or did I something wrong?
Well, regardless of the word used, I think you should by now very well know what I meant by it.
But you tried to argue that it is an economic backwater compared to the rest of Ukraine, and that is just wrong. Get it now?
No, I still stand by what I said, because it's simply fething true. I guess if you wanted to stretch things you could possibly say that my first post was generalist as it didn't note the coastal region being wealthier, but that generalisation was needed because adding it would have ruined the pacing of my joke that was all my first comment was actually meant to be. And considering when you decided to challenge that comment, and I quickly noted you were right that the coastal region was actually fairly well off (but not large enough or rich enough to offset the poverty in the rest of the region), it'd be a real stretch to call that a mistake.
So you do admit your statement was an unjust generalisation and not true? Because as I noted before, the region as a whole generally performed somewhat above average for a Ukrainian region. That means that the relative prosperity of the urban areas is in fact enough to offset the relative poverty of the rural areas. Compare this with Kherson, which has the same situation and landscape as rural Crimea, but without Sevastopol and the coast to offset that. Do you note the difference in economy between the two regions? Which of the two is the economic backwater?
sebster wrote: Whereas you did in fact claim that the region was one of the richest in Ukraine, and it was a teethpulling exercise to get you to accept that claim was quite mistaken.
I never claimed that it was one of the richest. Although that claim funnily enough might have been true, thanks to all the millionaires having second homes on the coast.
I only claimed that it wasn't an economic backwater because significant areas of it belonged to the stronger economic parts of Ukraine. You can keep trying to wriggle around, hiding behind straw men to avoid admitting this truth, but why you would do that? Are you afraid for your ego? Don't worry. This is just a silly internet discussion. Nobody will care. And besides, we all make mistakes from time to time. Admitting that only makes us stronger.
Iron_Captain wrote: And here you are putting words in my mouth again. I thought I had told you to stop doing that?
I never said it can't be done at all, I am only saying that it is difficult
Your actual literal words;
"Well, the problem here is we simply can not know what actually happens or happened. One side says this, other side says that and there is no way for us to check what they are saying."
You say we can't know and there is no way we can check, but then you say it can be done but is difficult. Obviously you're all over the shop on this, but wait there's more!
I never claimed that it was one of the richest.
Your actual literal words;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
Your actual literal words;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
You said it. And then you just post over and over again that you didn't say it. That is not a healthy thing to do.
Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.
Iron_Captain wrote: Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.
So you're really going to try and make the argument that Crimea is economically powerful, but not rich. This is getting more and more absurd.
I also look forward to you trying to explain how you never said "we simply can not know what happens or happened... there is no way for us to check what they are saying" and "I never said it can't be done at all".
Iron_Captain wrote: Thanks for showing it so clearly. "one of the more powerful economic regions" is not the same as "one of the richest regions", now is it?
So please, stop attacking this straw man. He has done nothing to you. Engage with my actual arguments instead.
So you're really going to try and make the argument that Crimea is economically powerful, but not rich. This is getting more and more absurd.
Yeah. I said "one of the more powerful". So if you divide Ukrainian regions into more and less powerful economic regions, Crimea falls into the more powerful half. Rich would mean that a significant majority of its citizens would be relatively rich. That is something totally else.
sebster wrote: I also look forward to you trying to explain how you never said "we simply can not know what happens or happened... there is no way for us to check what they are saying" and "I never said it can't be done at all".
Sorry to disappoint you Seb, but as far as I recall I did say those things. And though I fail to see the point in pulling these statements out of context here, I do not fail to see you once again avoiding the central point of our discussion.
While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
While he made many mistakes this a very very good choice.
Letting the men and women with the best knowledge of the situation and the objectives make the key choices is very wise. they know the practicalities on the ground, best assets and best methods to employ to achieve those objectives.
This makes good sense, and is a wise move.
They are professionals and giving them the trust to do there jobs.
We both know THAT will never happen. If nothing else, their home countries will go out of their way to ensure they hang, and if they somehow escape the noose, mysteriously they will get murdered. Regardless of anything they might actually have done.
While I would agree Iraq might not be the best place to get a fair trial, in this case its highly unlikely that anybody will be fabricating evidence or getting false witnesses. If you're caught while fighting under ISIS colors thats pretty much all the evidence you need.
The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.
And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.
What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.
And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.
Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.
Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.
And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.
Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.
Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.
The western volunteers have no defense.
True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.
So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.
And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.
Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.
Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.
The western volunteers have no defense.
True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.
So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.
True. They are stupid and some are not thr ones who killed people. They are victims to some degree but they also where radicalised and they are going to have to answer very very difficult questions however.
Theres gonna be questioning, and they may not get away free of charge.
The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq.
Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.
Theres a big difference between being a beaten wife and a active and comitted enemy solider.
Well, there are these things called the Geneva Conventions. As Great Britain's actions in Syria make them neither neutral nor co-belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (at least not officially) then these guys count as POWs. Now if Great Britain had declared war on Isis (as in an actual declaration of war) then the case could be made. However, due to the somewhat murky involvement, but 'not war', they fall into a bit of a grey area.
The real crux of the matter is 'was ISIS a Country or not' as they clearly had reached the point they were no longer a non-state actor (including things like making laws, holding territory, issuing currency, operating police and fire departments, collecting taxes, etc) they were recognized by other nations, even if some western powers did not.
However, even in the absence of a recognized state, under international law, you cannot be tried for participation in hostilities. Now, if you committed a war crime, that's something different.
jhe90 wrote: The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq. Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.
Yes, if they committed crimes they should face judgement.
But just being there, even if they foolishly volunteered, shouldn't be an automatic death sentence. If we leave them an out where they don't get summarily executed on surrendering some will take it, sparing a lot of lives in the area. Letting them live and tell the story of how they were idiots to think the Caliphate was worth anything will also hopefully show others the error of their ways, stopping new idiots from going off to join.
Well, there are these things called the Geneva Conventions. As Great Britain's actions in Syria make them neither neutral nor co-belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (at least not officially) then these guys count as POWs. Now if Great Britain had declared war on Isis (as in an actual declaration of war) then the case could be made. However, due to the somewhat murky involvement, but 'not war', they fall into a bit of a grey area.
We defend our country. We defend our citizens. Their life is forfit if it means saving innocent lives. It takes what it takes to defend the UK and its people.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.
Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).
Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.
The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that lots of people hauled in as "IS fighters"...aren't. In lots of instances basically any male Sunni over middle school age found is being detained as a potential IS fighter.
Many might also have been forced to join. It's a thing thugs like these often do for various reasons. Gather some local kids, threaten to kill their families or them if they don't join, then use them as soldiers. It's easy for keyboard generals to say "joining instead of dying immediately means they wanted to join, hang them" but how many would actually pick instant execution instead of continued life? Anyone who says they'd accept death for themself and their family rather than join, well, I hope you never have to face that decision.
And ofc, if there's no option to surrender and keep your life - why would anyone? Better go down fighting then, take as many with you as you can.
Local fighters yre but western fighters who traveled thousands of miles to join them and where true volunteers.
Screw those lot. They deliberately enlisted with the enemy, made deliberate efforts to join them deliberately joined a enemy force who actively waged war against the West.
The western volunteers have no defense.
True volunteers is a bit of a misleading term. Yes, joining IS is immensely stupid in the first place. But how many joined just to murder others? There are hosts of reasons why, in many cases kids, joined IS. Just plain stupidity, no real future socio-economically, peer/community pressure, racism/lack of connection to their own country possibly tied in to the racism. Not all who go are hardened jihadists hell bend on the destruction of the Western world. Most are just disillusioned, adventurous or misled kids. Just think of the teenage girls who left Europe to join IS just to end up wanting to go home and ending up as locked up housewives. Joining IS really sucked (most people would say well duh) in the experience of many who ended up there, because it wasn't at all what they expected. But at the end of the day, if they haven't killed anyone do they really deserve to die? They are still Western nationals, we need to know why they radicalized/felt the need to join IS. Just letting them get executed won't get us anywhere except provide a false sense of security. More violent extremists will always surface in society, regardless of any connection to Syria.
So yes, you might say stupidity is no defense. But I have encountered enough Western kids in their late teens and early 20's (granted, not technically kids but I call them that because of the following) that for example believe North Korea is the victim in this world. That the US is evil and forces North Korea to do the 'sometimes bad' things they do. One tried to argue how the US prevented the legitimate North Korean state with the elected Il-sung from unifying the country in the 50's, no joke So yes, kids can be really stupid or just plain ignorant, but if those kids travel to North Korea do they deserve the death penalty just for going? Some kids are just really delusional, who knows how many of those ended up with IS because of their delusions.
True. They are stupid and some are not thr ones who killed people. They are victims to some degree but they also where radicalised and they are going to have to answer very very difficult questions however.
Theres gonna be questioning, and they may not get away free of charge.
The foreign fighters are very very different story. If they where in active combat oporations, actively comitted crimes against Syria or Iraq.
Then they can have em. They have to face whatever they did out there. They have to face the crimes they are accused.
Theres a big difference between being a beaten wife and a active and comitted enemy solider.
The problem of difficult questions is who is asking them, if they will at all. To add to the good points of Baronlveagh and Spetulhu. The US and other Western countries have shown themselves not to be all that bothered with following either international or national law when it comes to terrorists. Frequently with lack of proof or difficulty getting a proper conviction making less than legal options such as Guantanamo or killing preferable. Now that is if they even make it to our reasonably 'benevolent' Western countries. But either they get captured by Assad or an Iraqi government that is totally fine with using Shia paramilitary militias that frequently commit war crimes on Sunnis at the end of a decade long sectarian conflict. If fallen into those hands there will be few questions, perhaps if the captured people are lucky they get to survive in a cell somewhere. The Iraqi state itself will be eager for death sentences to make examples and there have been cases of their military comitting war crimes too. So proving who is guilty or even facts might not be bothered with depending on where they end up. Many innocents will die, even Western volunteers who might not be guilty of more than just joining a terror group will end up on the chopping block. If the West cares at all about its own laws and those of the international community they will do what is needed to prevent this. Just because they went over to IS doesn't mean they stop being Western nationals and our responsibilities. Innocent untill proven guilty of the crime that fits the punishment should be applicable, even to terrorists.
We defend our country. We defend our citizens. Their life is forfit if it means saving innocent lives. It takes what it takes to defend the UK and its people.
Thank you for validating my opinions of England. We'll condemn ISIS for it, and then do it ourselves!
Rule of Law? What's that? Send in our death squads to make sure there's no one left alive to make the public question our actions.
To be honest, I might expect that sort of thing from Brazil or Columbia.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.
Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).
Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.
The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.
I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.
Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).
Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.
The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.
I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?
Nothing I've said contradicts your points... so, I'm not sure why you're so defensive.
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.
What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.
I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
Yep, that's fair enough. I'll stop.
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
Not really. ISIS was already pretty much spent. They tried to take and hold territory and antagonise the West. You don't get to do both of those things, it gets your men blow up in airstrikes.
ISIS took that much territory because the Iraqi army disintegrated for reasons of its own failigs. Once that disintegration was reversed ISIS made no substantial gains. Much of the delay in retaking Iraqi territory was actually about getting political agreement between the various factions before major operations began.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/us-syria-iraq-isis-islamic-state-strikes-death-toll I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.
Neither Obama nor his administration were directly interfering in planning, though. They weren't telling generals what height to fly drones, or where to patrol or anything like that. The interference was reviewing each strike and expected civilian casualties, and denying strikes if it was deemed the casualties and political fallout would be too great.
So its why we've seen more strikes and more casualties. Whether that is a good thing or not I guess everyone can decide for themselves. But it hasn't impacted the direction or the speed of the war against ISIS. Mosul, Raqqa and so on have steadily fallen over time.
NinthMusketeer wrote: While I do enjoy reading Seb overturn delusional arguments, this discussion is supposed to be about ISIS...
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
You are accurate in that regards... and it's not without it's own controversy.
Trump's admin changed the previous administration's ROE, which was deemed at the time as too onerous to get approval (micro-managed).
Whereas the new ROE some has argued may have swung the pendulum too far the other way.
The outcomes recently seem to reflect that... but, we're probably years away from truly knowing if that's true.
I don't understand where this comes from. Obama already started beating IS back before Trump. All Trump did was speed up the process Obama started, which was accompanied with a significant increase in violence. For example, the Mosul counteroffensive already started in 2016. IS had already begun losing, how would you 'turn around' a war which your enemy is losing?
Nothing I've said contradicts your points... so, I'm not sure why you're so defensive.
Sorry, didn't mean to come across as defensive, apologies. The part where I don't understand where it comes from is in reference to accuracy relating to it supposedly being a positive turn.
On that front, as far as I am aware Trump delegated more descision making power to generals who are actually in the Middle East, and the fight against ISIS took a positive turn around the same time. Am I at all accurate in this? I haven't been paying particular attention to this issue as compared to others so I'm not well informed.
Its not very accurate for a few reasons. The IS offensive was already blunted and a counter offensive to retake areas such as Mosul were already started under the Obama administration. Perhaps you could say it went slightly slower, but the positive results were already showing or ripe for the taking by the next admin, either Clinton or Trump.
What happened when the Trump admin took over was a heavier emphasis on getting results soon, partly tied to certain decisions at the end of the Obama presidency. This also led to an increase in civilian casualties by US airstrikes. Of course this is tied to offensives into urban areas, but the increase was so significant organisations like Airwars started to only have time for US casualties as they were too busy with those to handle other cases iirc. So the critique has been that the effort took on a negative turn under the Trump admin because the need for results led to more (unnessecary) deaths.
I didn't know if there was correlation or causation (or both) but if I am understanding you correctly actions by Obama and later Trump have accelerated the pushback of ISIS at the cost of increased civilian casualties even compared to what they would have been without operational changes. At any rate I support Trump in delegating more decisions to lower-level generals actually in the area, I feel it's a good move to improve ] results both from the basic logistical level and because Trump himself has no experience in managing warfare.
Its really a bit of both. Civilian casualties surely go up when fighting reaches an urban area like Mosul, but at the same time there is causation as well, because a decision was taken to make it easier to conduct airstrikes which also apply to urban areas. Yes Obama already made it easier to launch airstrikes, but the key part in his decision was that he took it weeks before the end of his presidency. The Trump admin really reaped the effect of easier airstrikes, but with the admin rhetoric a similar decision to make airstrikes easier to conduct would likely have been taken.
Here I hook onto the political fallout part Sebster notes. The war against IS isn't purely military, while handing it over to the military means it becomes very focused on that part. Lower level generals already had control over airstrikes under Obama iirc, just not the ranks below general until the change in the last weeks. The Trump administration should have intervened in the airstrike policy because of the high amount of civilian casualties that resulted from it. Airstrikes in urban areas against a enemy that uses human shields is never going to end well politically. Yes, being freed from IS is great I imagine, but not if your whole family got killed by a US airstrike (the coalition as a whole didn't ease the use of airstrikes). In the end even if Trump has no experience in the military realm, he still holds final responsibility over the military. Once it starts to become excessive, as many organisations feel like it had at the height of operations, maybe it is time for some political introspection as the military outcome was already a foregone conclusions regardless of how many airstrikes were used.
Of course we could go into the relative inexperience of Syria rebel and Iraqi forces in urban combat, which leads to increased pressure on the US for airstrikes to be able to advance. Yet that is how we end up with airstrikes against snipers ending up in excessive civilian casualties. There is the tradeoff between Iraqi military lives and Iraqi civilian lives when considering airstrikes, with the Iraqi government likely to care less about Sunni civilians (going back to letting Shia militias help).
While divesting more responsibility to the military might not necessarily be a bad thing, excessive force should not be used in a conflict you're already winning for obvious political reasons.
I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.
It didn't always had to, as per the article I linked the Obama administration left the decision in the hands of one star generals. Key is that these requirements were pushed down a number of ranks. While that eases the process of approving airstrikes it also means that there might be less discussion time or that not all factors are know to the person at that level (of course there is never 100% certainty).
The rise in casualties was so significant and on a continuous line for a period that the question was raised of why it was happening. Of course Trump took a hands off approach and handed it to the military, while the military was the one conducting these strikes in the first place. At that point nobody will really step in, as the military leadership seemingly saw it as the price to pay while the political leadership didn't seem to care.
I agree that its an incredibly complicated job and an unenviable one to do as a soldier. But its still a case of using too much force in an urban area that the Iraqi army should have realistically been able to conquer alone without calling in aid to 'level' the entire area. Its a tragic combination of US tools available to assist its allies and the (low) level of professionality of its allies on the ground.
Of course this is not just the Trump admin, although they had a very excessive example recently. The Obama admin had the same issue of tools available (drones) in countries such as Yemen. When all you have is a hammer as they say.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.
Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.
There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.
Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.
Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.
There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.
Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.
Yes, because that's always turned out so well for.. .well, pick your western military. Generally speaking, oversight exists for a reason, there have been MANY incident that have been documented over the years as to WHY, and dakka mods have expressly forbid me from posting pictures like THAT anymore, even with spoiler blocks ON.
Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.
There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.
Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.
Yes, because that's always turned out so well for.. .well, pick your western military. Generally speaking, oversight exists for a reason, there have been MANY incident that have been documented over the years as to WHY, and dakka mods have expressly forbid me from posting pictures like THAT anymore, even with spoiler blocks ON.
And politics and active oporations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.
Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.
Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.
They are deployed to assist an allied government. Bombing civilians by the boatload even by accident might win you the battle but will lose you the war. Sunni resentment played a big part in IS getting this far in the first place. Bombing Sunnis isn't going to solve this.
Political guidance is needed. Because the fight against IS is first and foremost a political one. Militarily speaking they were always midgets that just happened to punch above their weight due to some amazing incompetence and mishandling of the Sunni population by Iraq.
jhe90 wrote: Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.
There are middle ground options as well. It isn't 'admin vets every strike' vs 'let the generals do what they want'.
You can give generals scope for quick decisions where time is critical, and have admin involvement where there's significant lead time before the strike.
You can have directives set, admin set guidelines for balancing the importance of the target vs the risk of civilian casaualties and political blowback. This is essential because, as Disciple of Fate points out war there is primarily political, there is no isolated military victory, instead military strikes are just a supporting element to the building of strong, US aligned governments in the region.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I still feel its better that every strike doesn't need to be vetted by the White House before it goes through. If the strikes are causing too many civilian casualties then the relevant generals should be told to bring that into line. If we can't trust them to do something like that when instructed to, there is a serious problem of why they are there in the first place. Obviously the Trump administration has not given such instructions but that's a different point from the delegation of command, and a much more complex one. To ensure there would be the absolute minimum casualties is an exercise in how much resources can be thrown into a bottomless pit, but at the same time civilian casualties are something to be minimized as much as possible without compromising the objective. To be directing such matters is an unenviable position at best which makes me hesitant to criticize, but in this instance I question how much good is being done when so many innocents are being killed.
Vetting every strike. So you see a key situation going on, delays, delays, waiting for aproval. Opertunity lost.
There right to not delay every strike and have to authorise every one prior to deployment. Political delays cost initiative and drag it on and on.
Thr military in west are highly trained professionals. Trust them to do job they trained for years to do.
I absolutely trust that the military knows how to do their job, certainly better than I do at any rate. What I question is why the job right now is 'accept any amount of civilian casualties to kill the enemy'. I believe that if the military was instructed to limit civilian casualties below a certain level they could do so. The issue is that those instructions aren't being given.
And politics and active operations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.
Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.
Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.
If they cannot. Why did we even deploy them.
I'm struggling to find a nice way to say this, and based on your previous posts, you would not understand the idea that sometimes that 'political rubbish' might be more important than the target. I'll use an extreme example, a known terrorist in a crowded marketplace in an otherwise allied country. Do you: A) risk alienating that nation by possibly killing a large number of civilians to bag one bad guy, no matter how important, or B) pass up the shot for the possibility of a more 'precise' take-down at some later date?
ROE may be a pain in the ass, but it tends to exist for a reason. Make the wrong decision, and the people that ten minutes ago were so glad to see you, turn their guns on you. And that guy that's been in for 20 year's 'experience' might not translate well to what he's doing *now*. A good example would be, say, the US occupation of Iraq. Men with plenty of experience found themselves doing something that they were neither trained nor had the temperament for, but had all the right time in grade. (Not an issue unique to the military side of the US government, either).
And politics and active operations and tactical decisions are a recipe for disaster.
Ground command should always be the chosen officers. Trained professionals members with up to 20-30 years experience depending on rank.
Oversight is important but too much political rubbish and such just means those troops on the ground cannot do there jobs effectively.
If they cannot. Why did we even deploy them.
I'm struggling to find a nice way to say this, and based on your previous posts, you would not understand the idea that sometimes that 'political rubbish' might be more important than the target. I'll use an extreme example, a known terrorist in a crowded marketplace in an otherwise allied country. Do you: A) risk alienating that nation by possibly killing a large number of civilians to bag one bad guy, no matter how important, or B) pass up the shot for the possibility of a more 'precise' take-down at some later date?
ROE may be a pain in the ass, but it tends to exist for a reason. Make the wrong decision, and the people that ten minutes ago were so glad to see you, turn their guns on you. And that guy that's been in for 20 year's 'experience' might not translate well to what he's doing *now*. A good example would be, say, the US occupation of Iraq. Men with plenty of experience found themselves doing something that they were neither trained nor had the temperament for, but had all the right time in grade. (Not an issue unique to the military side of the US government, either).
I do understand. That some strikes are not worth long term concquences of the short term gains. That they may be a tactical success but a larger stratigic failure.
That some strikes yes. You need to have a drone follow them and wait for them to arrive home, wait for them to be on the road. Wait for a time when it can be performed within rules of engagement.
However over restricted Roe also means the returns deminish and negetive ly effect operating ability. It means overly political command is either too aggressive for a result or too timed to avoid scandal.
Either are bad traits in leadership of a military operation.
Yes their needs to be oversight but generals not under pressure for reelection are not as subject to those pressures and influences. With oversight and checks and balence they still need to be allowed to do there jobs. To complete the mission as required.
And yes. Post Iraq war and into occupation thr US army was ill equipped and prepared for the role.
UK was even worse.
However all in all. Overly political command and overly political pressures that come upon it is weaker and Roe too restricted.
When soldiers cannot do the job then lives are lost. You do need armies wiping out cities like crusades but when rules prevent soldiers doing there jobs effectively. There is no point in even being deployed.
I do understand. That some strikes are not worth long term consequences of the short term gains. That they may be a tactical success but a larger stratigic failure.
When soldiers cannot do the job then lives are lost. You do need armies wiping out cities like crusades but when rules prevent soldiers doing there jobs effectively. There is no point in even being deployed.
To give you an idea of how long this has been the state of things....
Gentlemen:
Whilst marching to Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with you request which has been sent to HM ship from London to Lisbon and then by dispatch rider to our headquarters.
We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents, and tent poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty's government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit, spleen of every officer. Each item and every farthing has been accounted for, with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg you indulgence.
Unfortunately, the sum of one shilling and ninepence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion's petty cash and there has been a hideous confusion as to the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in western Spain. This reprehensive carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstances since we are at war with France, a fact which may have come as a bit of a surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall.
This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty's Government, so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of two alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue one with the best of my ability but I cannot do both.
1. To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London, or perchance
2. To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain.
Don't jinx it. And even if it's gone, something new will take it's place...(Cut off one head, two more shall take it's place. Hail Hydra)
Yeah. But we slain one the most potant hydra.
And better make sure to Kia Baghdadi, and other senior members if any left. Not people you want left. Dangerous loose ends.
Not like we would take them alive anyway, they know there fate, and they know there is no get out cause. I'd imagine the odds on taking alive to be low and risky.
Don't jinx it. And even if it's gone, something new will take it's place...(Cut off one head, two more shall take it's place. Hail Hydra)
Where do these heads grow from? From Saudi Arabia. Why can not you do anything about them? Because it is so beneficial to your government. "Western world" continue to rejoice in the "democratization" of Iraq, Libya and Syria and wonder where so many terrorists come from. Well, at least in Syria they were exterminated. There are Al-Quaeda related groups left (a.k.a. innocent humanitarian convoys), But they too have patrons and they can be destroyed only with permission. Well this is all the details. Globally, the problem can only be solved at a high level by uniting (impossible with the existing political system). Well, anyways, personally, I'm glad that ISIL destroyed. And you?
Hopefully the Russians do us a favour and blow up any Western traitors, hm?
Dont really have any sympathy for someone born and raised in the first world, sees an oppressive religious theocracy in the Middle East, and decides 'Hey, I need in on that!'
Crazyterran wrote: Hopefully the Russians do us a favour and blow up any Western traitors, hm?
Dont really have any sympathy for someone born and raised in the first world, sees an oppressive religious theocracy in the Middle East, and decides 'Hey, I need in on that!'
Eh, that's the sort of job offer I'd be asking for Krugerrands as opposed to dollars or whatever monopoly money they printed locally. But yeah, you get all sorts of crazy when you combine Revolution with Religion.
Iraq has declared the war against Islamic State over and they won.
(with massive western support)
Though now the situation with Kurt's. This could get different as they want a state and would be unwilling to surrender ground and resources that would fund it.
jhe90 wrote: Iraq has declared the war against Islamic State over and they won.
(with massive western support)
They pushed a rebel group out, largely with Iranian support, and Kurdish fighters pushing from a different direction.
Though now the situation with Kurt's. This could get different as they want a state and would be unwilling to surrender ground and resources that would fund it.
Different? This will likely turn bloody. Their goals aren't compatible, both groups are armed, and the Kurds have little support in the region and a lot of hostility towards them.
I am also curious what those Iranian militias will do and where they'll go, now that they aren't pointed at obvious religious enemies.
jhe90 wrote: Iraq has declared the war against Islamic State over and they won.
(with massive western support)
They pushed a rebel group out, largely with Iranian support, and Kurdish fighters pushing from a different direction.
Though now the situation with Kurt's. This could get different as they want a state and would be unwilling to surrender ground and resources that would fund it.
Different? This will likely turn bloody. Their goals aren't compatible, both groups are armed, and the Kurds have little support in the region and a lot of hostility towards them.
I am also curious what those Iranian militias will do and where they'll go, now that they aren't pointed at obvious religious enemies.
Well militia tend not to go away.
But Iran might have a use for them... That's not good though.
Kurtds might not be a good place.
True. There will be yet more blood spilled in the sand, always is. Gah. Middle East is like the blood God. It will never be sated.
The Kurds are only group I'd even consider worth helping out there.. They deserve a state.
Them, thw other few minority who they worked with. Rest. They can enjoy there blood soaked sand.
On my Twitter today I’ve seen photos showing the destruction of a British commonwealth graves commission cemetery in Mosul. ISIS bulldozed the whole place. Even the Nazis respected war graves cemeteries, ISIS really haven’t a single shred of decency in them, there’s nothing they won’t desecrate and destroy. When the area becomes safe the CWGC say they’ll restore the cemetery.
Howard A Treesong wrote: On my Twitter today I’ve seen photos showing the destruction of a British commonwealth graves commission cemetery in Mosul. ISIS bulldozed the whole place. Even the Nazis respected war graves cemeteries, ISIS really haven’t a single shred of decency in them, there’s nothing they won’t desecrate and destroy. When the area becomes safe the CWGC say they’ll restore the cemetery.
If i remember right, tombstones above a certain height are prohibited for religious reasons in certain Muslim countries. I also find it funny that Commonwealth war-graves are sacred, and lots of outrage over illegal Thai salvage making off with the ships of the Java sea, but no outrage at all when the US bulldozes native cemeteries to make way for profitable business.
Howard A Treesong wrote: On my Twitter today I’ve seen photos showing the destruction of a British commonwealth graves commission cemetery in Mosul. ISIS bulldozed the whole place. Even the Nazis respected war graves cemeteries, ISIS really haven’t a single shred of decency in them, there’s nothing they won’t desecrate and destroy. When the area becomes safe the CWGC say they’ll restore the cemetery.
If i remember right, tombstones above a certain height are prohibited for religious reasons in certain Muslim countries. I also find it funny that Commonwealth war-graves are sacred, and lots of outrage over illegal Thai salvage making off with the ships of the Java sea, but no outrage at all when the US bulldozes native cemeteries to make way for profitable business.
Well might is right in this world. US goverment has the biggest guns.
The USA also isn't a commonwealth country so it's kinda an irrelevant point at this time and additionally is a country we can't discuss the various jerky things they do on this forum.
BaronIveagh wrote: ISIS attacks Hamas and Israel at the same time. No one would know who to shoot!
Or perhaps anyone even remotely sensible on the Israeli and Palestinian sides will finally realize there's way crazier people than them and decide to make a peace deal for real?
BaronIveagh wrote: ISIS attacks Hamas and Israel at the same time. No one would know who to shoot!
Or perhaps anyone even remotely sensible on the Israeli and Palestinian sides will finally realize there's way crazier people than them and decide to make a peace deal for real?
So it takes a nigh on genocidal death cult to create peace. well thats not osmthing id bet on at first.
More likely a bloody fight in Gaza for control, and both sides coming under regular terror attcks
So it takes a nigh on genocidal death cult to create peace. well thats not osmthing id bet on at first.
More likely a bloody fight in Gaza for control, and both sides coming under regular terror attcks
So, Israel will lose 4 people again and call it a horrid terrorist attack and use it to justify killing another million non-combatants? I say, if ISIS and Israel go at it, let 'em, they deserve each other.
So it takes a nigh on genocidal death cult to create peace. well thats not osmthing id bet on at first.
More likely a bloody fight in Gaza for control, and both sides coming under regular terror attcks
So, Israel will lose 4 people again and call it a horrid terrorist attack and use it to justify killing another million non-combatants? I say, if ISIS and Israel go at it, let 'em, they deserve each other.
Sadly, no. If you add up the Israeli foreign ministries official numbers (since they like to spread them around a bit) about 4k Israeli civilians have died in terrorist attacks since 1948. Compare this to various humanitarian organizations, including the IRC pegging Palestinian casualties at near 6 million civilians killed in Israeli retaliations in the same time frame. This sadly jives with recent (since 2000) numbers, where only 4% of casualties are Israeli in any given conflict in Israel/Palestine.
Officially this policy of war against civilians, also known as 'total war' in war crimes circles, is refereed to by IDF as 'cutting the grass'. They bomb civilians neighborhoods to reduce the number of potential militants by killing civilians. As a matter of long term strategy. They just wait for the next excuse, which Hamas and others provide more often than not, and so the gak continues.
One of the better ones is an older one, the case of Colonel Yissachar Shadmi, who gave an order, illegal even there, to shoot all the non-jewish persons found out of their homes during a freshly imposed 24 hour curfew. While, fortunately for basic humanity, many of his commanders realized that having a curfew that they had not told anyone about may cause unnecessary casualties, and refused the order, one command carried out the order, which resulted in the deaths of 48 people, mostly 23 children, when they rolled through a village slaughtering everyone they met. While the officers who carried out the order were sentenced (and then pardoned), Shadmi was fined ONE CENT, not for the deaths, but for overstepping his authority by extending the curfew.
In 2005 the Israeli high court found the IDF had used Palestinian Civilians as human shields in what they refereed to as the 'Neighbor Procedure' over 1200 times in the previous 5 years. This is a direct violation of Protocol 1 (1977) of the Geneva Conventions, and a specific intent war crime under the Rome Statute of 1998.
The US has spent $10 million US tax dollars a day to support the Israeli military and has used it's Security council veto to shut down UN attempts to prosecute war criminals. Some of these men named in these war crimes investigations were accused of, or admitted to, crimes that have not been seen since the death of Oskar Dirlewanger in 1945.
Here's oen for Hilarity: Syrian government complains about violations of international law, and Turkey accuses US of building Terror Army, and threatens to attack US forces if not stopped.
Aye the fact earlier they where claimed to be working with IS...
They watched the Kurds fight and die defending a key border town and even here seen patrolling and talking to militants on thr border fence.
Eridgon and others are let's be honest, Islamist. And there's likely a degree of conspirators working within Turkey or worked who sysmpasized with them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42863531 Nice going Turkey. In a few years *everyone* who disagrees with Eurogondon will be arrested!
I like the part where opposing Imperialism made you an agent of Imperialism.
I don't think Syria can be a threat to Israel after what happen to it. And very limited participation of Israel shows that these actions are more political than for the actual destruction of the army of the Assad.
Syria barely controls much of its own lands, most of the army is in a battered and war weary state after year of civil war and combat.
Who knows what state the Syrian air power is in now, there army will hardly be able to devote resources heavily to borders. They gotta hold a thousand small points to protect land they have.
It was Russia who turned the campaign not the Syrians who before the intervention where starting to loose the war.
godardc wrote: Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going
Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.
godardc wrote: Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going
Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.
I have the exact same feelings. Isn't it sad we had to wait for the Russian to do «our job» of world police ?
Yep... The slave markets in thr country, Isis and more make it certainly a improvement...
Gudaffi was bad, but it seems we broke a pretty gakky region alot more.
We didn't break anything through our intervention in Libya. We didn't start the armed uprising against Gaddafi. People ignore that the fighting in Syria and Libya started due to people rising up against their own governments without western backing or instruction.
The Libyan civil war wouldn't have suddenly disappeared if NATO didn't take out Gaddafi's artillery and ground his planes, it just would have ground on even longer and ISIS would still have risen and gained ground. The failure in Libya was a failing in making a working government but that requires a lot more resources and manpower than western countries were prepared to commit, not to mention the question of whether such support would even have been welcome by the various groups who had fought the ground war against Gaddafi's government.
With the current isolationist (at least militarily) trend in quite a few western countries following Iraq and Afghanistan, committing the level of support and resources and, most critically, time to ensuing a unified Libya post-Gaddafi was untenable. Sending some planes to hit targets from carriers in the Mediterranean was easier to sell to the public than a full deployment of ground forces to try and hold yet another country together. And nothing short of that full deployment would have prevented ISIS from gaining ground in Libya, whether Gaddafi was still in power or not as he had lost control of his country and his people.
godardc wrote: Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going
Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.
I have the exact same feelings. Isn't it sad we had to wait for the Russian to do «our job» of world police ?
Many question if, why, and should that be 'our job' at all.
godardc wrote: Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going
Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.
I have the exact same feelings. Isn't it sad we had to wait for the Russian to do «our job» of world police ?
Many question if, why, and should that be 'our job' at all.
Honestly I enjoy watching geopolitics, so I do get entertainment out of watching the US world police. Taxes are annoying but I'm assuming the cheapness of goods in the US has something to do with how thoroughly the US promotes free trade and globalization abroad. Can't have cheap widgets without China, cheap clothing without SEAsia and cheap semi-conductors without Taiwan. Since I have no guarantee pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia or Northern Syria will lower my taxes, I'll consider it a wash. The voluntary military is so small I rarely have to be confronted with body bags and honestly most Americans understand that these are foreign adventures that don't "protect our freedom" so the military/USGov has a vested interest in keeping casualties low for PR reasons back home.
If you want a reason why the US political elite, regardless of party, have no interest in pulling back. It feels good to be The Empire. It's unfathomable to permanently drawn down, empire is self perpetuating, it's like asking why the British Empire didn't try to step back in 1897. You'll find the US political elite truly believe that there's an altruistic motive beyond hegemony to justify their involvement in the cycle of violence and distrust. Just listen to the Nulands and Mattis's of the world. (I'm borrowing someone's point here):
“You guys want me to send troops everywhere,” Trump said, according to officials in the Situation Room meeting. “What’s the justification?”
...
“Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis replied.
Faisal Shahzad, the naturalized American citizen who recently pled guilty after attempting to set off a car bomb in Times Square, was a troubled fellow
...
During his court hearing Shahzad said: “until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S.”
Well, something has to justify worlds biggest military budget...
Oh, and you told us we couldn't have an army anymore to do this sort of thing. If you want to reconsider, I promise we won't take back the land your army seized from us. Honest!
godardc wrote: Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going
Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.
ISIS was not really anything worth intervening about until they started blitzkrieging their way through Syria and Iraq. At which point they arguably weren't a small and manageable threat anymore. The thing with ISIS is that they really exploded (pun not intended) suddenly. Sure, they were there before, but nobody really predicted what happened.
Unless, they want to keep losses off thr book as it goes.
That's been pretty standard since Russian servicemen 'on vacation' started coming back in bags from their 'Ukrainian Holiday'.
And now Syrian holiday resorts...
There casualties must be alot higher than the official numbers then, if there this much driven to keep that number down on official counts.
Worried like western wars they may lose backing perhaps.
They aren't on holiday, that was in Ukraine to excuse involvement of Russian army. That is not needed in Syria because the Russian military is there legally and openly. The not-Russian people in Syria aren't army personnel on leave but professional mercenaries.
They are hired not to keep losses of the records (that certainly is an additional benefit, but Russia has a high tolerance for losses so it is not an important reason) but for their deniability. It is part of maskirovka. Russians destroyed that village? Not the fault of Russian government, must have been mercenaries. But certainly they operated on orders from Moscow? No, no orders from Moscow, they did that on their own initiative. Basically, it allows to do the Russian army to do things while simultaneously denying they do those things, and to confuse enemies/NATO about which units are really Russian army, which are mercenary/militia units under control from Moscow and which ones are not under control from Moscow. It is a standard part of Russian warfare, you can see the same thing in the Baltics, Transdnistria and Central Asia (during breakup of USSR), Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Early forms of the strategy were already pioneered in Afghanistan.
The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.
Freakazoitt wrote: The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.
How is it the US's fault that the Kurds were declared terrorists, and how is the Assad government not a complete failure that required a military campaign from Russia to stay in power?
What does that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? I wasn't arguing that we should topple Assad, I was arguing that "the rebels failed, Assad didn't" is a silly (almost circular, from a Russian perspective) justification of supporting Assad when the only reason he has any semblance of power left is the Russian intervention on his side. He's just as big a failure as the rebels. Sure, he's currently probably the least awful alternative, but because of Russian interests in the region, not because he's any better than the rebels.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What does that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? I wasn't arguing that we should topple Assad, I was arguing that "the rebels failed, Assad didn't" is a silly (almost circular, from a Russian perspective) justification of supporting Assad when the only reason he has any semblance of power left is the Russian intervention on his side. He's just as big a failure as the rebels. Sure, he's currently probably the least awful alternative, but because of Russian interests in the region, not because he's any better than the rebels.
Our of all choices. He is preferable and leave the Kurds to border lands or somthong semi autonomous?
Genie out bottle. No solution cannot involve Kurds. They hold too much land.
Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.
The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.
The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.
This is what I tried to get across, except expressed more eloquently than I managed.
Who the feth are we going to replace him with? Al Qaeda? The so called Free Syrian Army, who have links and affiliations with Al Qaeda? People defect from Al Qaeda to ISIS to the FSA on a daily basis.
Our previous attempts at regime change haven't exactly turned out so well, have they? Iraq is still a mess over a decade later. Our governments and mainstream media are too embarrassed to talk about the gak hole that was once Libya.
We have a proven track record of failure in regime change.
Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.
Freakazoitt wrote: The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.
How is it the US's fault that the Kurds were declared terrorists, and how is the Assad government not a complete failure that required a military campaign from Russia to stay in power?
Well, it may not be the US' fault that got the Kurds declared terrorists, but it was an action by the US government that got Turkey to launch a military expedition against them. Maybe Freakazoitt is referring to that.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.
The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.
Well, most people just want an end to the war. The original rebel cause has been dead for years already, and the people who are still fighting Assad are mostly just islamists of different varieties. Certainly, those groups can continue causing trouble for a long time, but it is nothing that is going to be an existential threat to Assad's regime. The revolutionary spark has been pretty much extinguished, the people made numb by the horrors of the war. Really most people don't care anymore who is in power as long as the fighting stops and they can go back home to their old lives.
That is not to say that the Assad regime will last forever. Hafez already faced some big revolts, and now his son gets this civil war, so evidently there is some pretty big discontent that is highly likely to surface again. Just not anytime soon, I think. There is always a period between the suppression of a revolt and the inevitable next revolt, and the more brutal the repression usually the longer that period will be (but the fiercer the revolt).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.
I would not call Assad capable, but certainly he is more capable than the rebels. That is what is making him the least bad option, right? A brutal police state is still better than a terrorist caliphate or a bunch of feuding warlords.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.
I would not call Assad capable, but certainly he is more capable than the rebels. That is what is making him the least bad option, right? A brutal police state is still better than a terrorist caliphate or a bunch of feuding warlords.
He's more capable than the rebels as long as Russia lends him their big stick. If Russia lent the rebels that stick instead they'd be more capable than Assad. What they do with the capability is separate from whether or not that is desirable. Both sides would be pretty impotent without the Russian intervention, but I'd argue Assad would be even more so than the rebels.
Assad being preferable to other options from a geo-political perspective does not make him more capable than those other options.
He's more capable than the rebels as long as Russia lends him their big stick. If Russia lent the rebels that stick instead they'd be more capable than Assad. What they do with the capability is separate from whether or not that is desirable. Both sides would be pretty impotent without the Russian intervention, but I'd argue Assad would be even more so than the rebels.
And the rebel weren't capable enough even with US aid, so wouldn't that still put Assad on top?
Maybe we should actually try to find that preferable alternative to Assad first, rather than just removing him and hoping for the best like we did with Libya?
Does anyone here seriously think that the Rebels are capable of forming a stable government?
The best outcome that can happen is Russia props up the Syrian regime and helps to crush the motley alliance of rebels, Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist extremists and ISIS. Russia takes on the economic and military burden of supporting the rebuilding of Syria and it's economy, and suppressing any insurgency.
Russia is therefore weakened and tied down for the next couple of decades, much like the USA was with Iraq, and they'll be less inclined to press its luck elsewhere like Europe because they'll lack the resources. At a later date, Russia can "persuade" Assad to retire and put a new successor in place. Sure, he'll be Russia's puppet, but at least there'll be an opportunity to make moderate reforms over time.
Sucks for ordinary Syrians, as Syria will continue to be a suppressive authoritarian state, and it'll never become a Democracy. But then again, that was never going to happen, and its infinitely preferable to any other currently foreseeable alternatives.
The only alternative I can see to an Assad government at the moment with the information currently available to me...is a Libyan style power vacuum. The only way to prevent that...is to get entangled in another Iraq style, decades long rebuilding project. Its going to require a direct and hands-on long term, outside intervention and occupation to fix the problems of Syria.
And I'm sure that nobody here wants Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo.
The best outcome that can happen is Russia props up the Syrian regime and helps to crush the motley alliance of rebels, Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist extremists and ISIS.
Russia takes on the economic and military burden of supporting the rebuilding of Syria and it's economy, and suppressing any insurgency.
Yeah, like Russia is going to do that. Russia is just going to have fun bombing the gak out of Syria until Assad it is certain that Assad will be able to manage on his own. Then they will be "good luck with the rebuilding and such." and then mostly just leave.
The US likes to rebuild countries because it gives them a lot of soft power. It also helps to make the war more justifiable for the people at home. Russia doesn't really have those concerns, and it lacks the money for such things anyway. All Russia has to offer is a very powerful military and arms industry. Without that Russia would be some third-rate power.
So you will see Russia continuing to back up the Assad regime with military guarantees (though probably not with a lot of direct assistance), sell and donate lots of weapons to Assad's military and send some more trainers and advisors. Maybe they will build a nuclear power plant or two. Quite possibly it will also offer to educate Syrian personnel at Russian universities. You will probably see Russian advisors assisting or supervising some projects, but that is as far as Russia will be able to help. To put it quite simply, those are the only things Russia can do. Even if it wanted to do more, it can't, because Russia is poor as dirt. It can't afford to do things the way the Americans have done in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone in places like Germany or Japan. The Syrians will have to do almost everything themselves with the Russians only in an advisory role. If Syria is lucky, Russia may cancel part of Syria's huge debts, but you won't see Russia pumping big sums of money to Syria like the US did to Iraq.
Russia will do what it can do cheaply to get some extra credit with the people of Syria, but it won't take up any burdens.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Maybe we should actually try to find that preferable alternative to Assad first, rather than just removing him and hoping for the best like we did with Libya?
Shadow, I'm not sure whether to claim you're more cynical than I, or more optimistic: Hell will freeze over before the Kurds accept Assad as their rightful Dictator, anointed by God and Stalin.
Second, please point me to the occasion that backing a man like Assad has not eventually ended in dead US and English soldiers and, at the very least, thousands of dead civilians. After all, Assad was ISIS ally until they predictably turned on each other. So tell me again how handing the reigns of power to him will reduce terrorism? I keep forgetting with all this poison gas being used on civilians.
But, hey, I suppose you're keeping up with the grand English tradition of Peace in Our Time!
This is a very reckless statement. ISIS was against everyone, except for Turkey for some period of time. Also, the ISIS and US acted like allies in an attempts to defeat the besieged Deir ez-Zor.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Propping the Syrian regime up is infinitely preferable to handing the country over to Al Qaeda.
The idea that AQ will be stopped from expanding in a country ruled by tyrant is the worst kind of broken logic. Tyranny is precisely what breeds extremists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.
Exactly. The pro-Assad logic at this point is that Assad faced protests calling for an end to his rule, he responded with torture and killings, this provoked a brutal civil war, and now the civil war is ended people should be happy with Assad ruling the country. Its a perfectly acceptable conclusion from a particularly short sighted Russian view, but outside of that its absolutely bonkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: This is a very reckless statement. ISIS was against everyone, except for Turkey for some period of time. Also, the ISIS and US acted like allies in an attempts to defeat the besieged Deir ez-Zor.
ISIS is against everyone, but Assad has been happy to work with ISIS. He's bought oil from captured ISIS facilities, bypassing international blockades, and there's a lot of instances of Syrian offensives bypassing ISIS positions to target FSA. Assad air strikes have been made in support of ISIL attacks on Aleppo. Assad and ISIS have at times through the fighting had very limited attacks on each other.
Of course, at other times ISIS have focused their attacks on Assad, so the times they've allied have been temporary, and based on immediate circumstances.
Now, we can accept this is as brutal realism on the behalf of Assad, even an astute assessment of what was needed to secure his power - he rightly picked ISIS as an organization with a fast expiring use by date, while other rebel groups were real and lasting threats to his regime. It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Propping the Syrian regime up is infinitely preferable to handing the country over to Al Qaeda.
The idea that AQ will be stopped from expanding in a country ruled by tyrant is the worst kind of broken logic. Tyranny is precisely what breeds extremists.
Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.
sebster wrote: It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.
Is there any group involved that hasn't at the very least ignored and not shot at another group because right now they're fighting someone we hate more, or have less use for? Turkey is attacking the Kurds right now, calling them terrorists (aka too succesful) but previously they allowed Iraqi Kurds to send reinforcements to the Syrian Kurds through Turkish territory when ISIS seemed close to breaking Kurdish lines! Assad himself has fought the Kurds earlier, then realized they aren't the worst threat and now even offers to reinforce them against Turkey. ISIS and Al-Quaeda fought each other over who is the true rightful Islamic overlord faction. If there ever was a war to perfectly illustrate the US armed forces slang short "SNAFU" this would be it.
sebster wrote: It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.
Is there any group involved that hasn't at the very least ignored and not shot at another group because right now they're fighting someone we hate more, or have less use for? Turkey is attacking the Kurds right now, calling them terrorists (aka too succesful) but previously they allowed Iraqi Kurds to send reinforcements to the Syrian Kurds through Turkish territory when ISIS seemed close to breaking Kurdish lines! Assad himself has fought the Kurds earlier, then realized they aren't the worst threat and now even offers to reinforce them against Turkey. ISIS and Al-Quaeda fought each other over who is the true rightful Islamic overlord faction. If there ever was a war to perfectly illustrate the US armed forces slang short "SNAFU" this would be it.
Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.
Actually the only real difference is that backing Assad is handing it over to AQ AND a war criminal. Since Assad has in the past supported Al Qaeda, and a wide variety of other terrorist organizations, such as the PLO, HAMAS, and according to Turkey's ranting madman, PKK.
Assad is only anti-terrorist when they're anti-him. Otherwise he's happy to supply them and allow them to train in Syria.
Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.
Actually the only real difference is that backing Assad is handing it over to AQ AND a war criminal. Since Assad has in the past supported Al Qaeda, and a wide variety of other terrorist organizations, such as the PLO, HAMAS, and according to Turkey's ranting madman, PKK.
Assad is only anti-terrorist when they're anti-him. Otherwise he's happy to supply them and allow them to train in Syria.
. I lived in the 
US Politics Detected, Modquisution Inbound.