MeanGreenStompa wrote: The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .
So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.
We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.
They should be liquidated. Entirely.
They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.
Erase them. Grind them into dust.
So you kind of have to kill everyone to do that though. Does that make them worse or us worse?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.
We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.
They should be liquidated. Entirely.
They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.
Erase them. Grind them into dust.
Yes, they are probably even worse than the Nazis (Godwinned!).
No, the West shouldn't do anything about them.
ISIS came out of the ashes of Afghanistan and Iraq, who knows what would come out of the ashes of ISIS if the West became involved again?!
This is simply not our problem. We have proved time and again that we don't have the first clue about how to handle people in that culture. Let the other countries in the region deal with it, issue a ban on all western civilians to stop them from travelling to the region and hire mercenaries to protect western interests over there. Keep the oil flowing but other than that GTFO from that hellhole!
Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?
ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.
Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?
Except we hadn't already had two wars with Japan, left - watch it fall apart - and have p[eople said we should go back in.
I'm firmly of the mind that tens of thousands of crazies will now flock wherever the other crazies are at.
Not our fight. If it is our fight, you use EVERY weapon you have. But if you do that, how does it help our long term position?
Also, if you mysteriously wiped out ISIS, what happens with the Syrian dictatorship. You just supported a true Fascist party that kills children, by taking out one of their primary competitors.
Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?
ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.
Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.
Now, with that said, I do not condone nuking the middle east like some have suggested. This is a threat that needs to be dealt with quickly. When I say quickly, I mean before Pakistan and India start going at it.
Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.
Ask yourself this... are you repeating what American said before Pearl Harbor was bombed?
ISIS doesn't have the resources to cause any major damage to western nations. It sure as hell doesn't have the same resources and capabilities that pre-WWII Japan had.
Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.
Now, with that said, I do not condone nuking the middle east like some have suggested. This is a threat that needs to be dealt with quickly. When I say quickly, I mean before Pakistan and India start going at it.
You think that area is bad now, just wait.....
Thats an argument for securing our borders, not Operation Linebacker III. How does one tell an ISIS member from your average farmer? I mean the lefties love to shout "bazillions of Iraqis are dead and its all YOUR fault!" They include all the dead from insurgent IEDs. How are we going to tell ISIS from your average Iraqi? How are we not going to get that thrown in our face and thousands more crazies come to kill us.
Its like throwing blood in a river full or piranhas.
Are you serious? All they need to do is get people in to the country. They are a terrorist organization. Why would you think they couldn't cause major damage to western nations? I believe you are forgetting some important historical incidents.
Such as?
At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.
At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.
I'm not.
Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.
And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.
Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).
So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?
At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.
I'm not.
Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.
And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.
Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).
So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?
"9/11 doesn't count because more was lost in the War on Terror that followed", ah ...what?
Ah, and I think I'll just enter and leave this thread at that. Eugh, OT.
At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.
I'm not.
Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.
And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.
Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).
So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?
"9/11 doesn't count because more was lost in the War on Terror that followed", ah ...what?
Ah, and I think I'll just enter and leave this thread at that. Eugh, OT.
I find the ISIS situation very frustrating. However, they are small potatoes try to hit way above their weight. Russia and China those are real threats to the US, not annoying mosquitoes like ISIS.
The only way ISIS becomes a real threat is if we actually try to engage them in a conventional way. Then, the threat is that we destroy ourselves battling them. They can;t harm us, only we can harm ourselves.
However much it pains me, the best way to deal with ISIS is local proxies within Syria/Iraq doing the dirty work with limited US support, and leading a ME containment coalition including people we don't normally like to deal with.
I see this as a huge diplomatic opportunity to broaden and strengthen our hand in the ME at "relatively" little cost*.
*= Althought to many individuals the cost is already very, very high.
If we were playing ME realpolitik this would be an excellent way to get close to Syria and thaw relations with Iran, while at the same time creating a Kurdestan state.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .
So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?
Actually, wasn't talking about nukes. I was referring to every other weapon we had, up to and including chemical.
You think we couldn't have flown in and dropped a fully capable army on that mountain where the Yazidis were trapped and being slowly murdered off, or immediately have reinforced and then led the Kurdish on a sweep into ISIS controlled ground?
We have the most ridiculously expensive killing machine on the planet, not by a few degrees, but by degrees of magnitude, and we're paying for it all to sit idle? Take the fething nations and make them protectorates. Seize them and bring them to peaceful compliance, stop acting like a world police and just remake the fething world in our image.
We want their oil etc etc, want to invest billions attacking etc etc then withdraw and leave it turn back to gak? No, bring it enlightenment.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. .
So you're ok nuking them? What about the tens of thousands of other crazies. Won't they, lkike not like us and stuff?
Actually, wasn't talking about nukes. I was referring to every other weapon we had, up to and including chemical.
You think we couldn't have flown in and dropped a fully capable army on that mountain where the Yazidis were trapped and being slowly murdered off, or immediately have reinforced and then led the Kurdish on a sweep into ISIS controlled ground?
We have the most ridiculously expensive killing machine on the planet, not by a few degrees, but by degrees of magnitude, and we're paying for it all to sit idle? Take the fething nations and make them protectorates. Seize them and bring them to peaceful compliance, stop acting like a world police and just remake the fething world in our image.
We want their oil etc etc, want to invest billions attacking etc etc then withdraw and leave it turn back to gak? No, bring it enlightenment.
How are chemical weapons better? Then what? I now you were an anti Bushite. But thats what we did since 2004. Now you want to do it some more?
The longer I think about ISIS, the more I am convinced that the US really should act.
Consider the following:
We decide not to act based on our understanding that we have three major players in the region:
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.
I am skeptical about Saudi Arabia because that nation already beheads people on state television and is Sunni. There's a chance it might actually ally itself with ISIS.
However, not a snowball's chance in hell will Iran ally with ISIS - they are Shia, and thus arch enemies of the ISIS movement.
And then we have Israel. Their armed forces are one of the toughest S.O.Bs in the world. And they have nukes - just in case.
So if ISIS continued to expand, the biggest victory they could possibly achieve is defeating Iraq, Jordan and possibly Kuwait. If they then allied with the Saudi people and toppled the Saudi monarchy, then its Christmas and Easter at the same time for them. Especially because they then control Mekka and Medina. But they have said they will destroy these places of shirk...which in turn would enkindle the full wrath of the international ummah (unless they did a 180 on their policy). Maybe Yemen and Oman, Qatar and Kuwait could also fall...but then what? Causasus? That might be as far as they'll ever get.
However, they have supporters in Libya too. By this time, Libya might be fully radicalized...and then it's just a cats leap to Algeria. And despite having Sisi, Egypt is now cornered. Israel and Iran are then the only other powers in the region capable of stopping ISIS. Where will Turkey be in this situation? Erdogan is a closet extremist. For the past decade he has slowly been sliding his country back into Islamic conservatism, favoring the analphabetic, numerically superior people of the anatolian highlands to the liberal intellectuals of Istanbul and Ankara.
Now regarding the option of nuking:
The United States nuked Japan.
Twice.
Do the Japanese hate us? Did they spend the next few decades screaming for American blood?
No.
They are allies now.
And speaking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...are they wastelands of radioactive rubble?
No. They are blooming centres of commerce today.
So that's the "nuke Raqqa" argument.
Now, moving on:
Occupation.
For 10 years, Germany and Austria were under allied administration. Not partial, like post 2003 Iraq, but complete. Did Germans and Austrians violently protest to this state of occupation and go to great lengths to martyr themselves in bomb attacks against the "evil oppressors"? No. Did pockets of post-war nazi cells erupt all across the lands? No.
So if we send in ground troops and exterminate ISIS through a war of attrition that make Afghanistan and Iraq look like Basic, and if we then remained there for an unspecified amount of time till the people there learn to adapt secular ideals, IT WILL WORK.
Sorry, but colonialism is the only answer. Will it unite all Muslims against America? No. That's just talk and little else. All the muslims can do is rant on the internet about how evil America is. But while Daesh is busy slicing the necks of fellow muslims and selling women as sex slaves is muslim countries, the inhabitants of these muslim countries rather throw a hissy fit everytime something happens in Israel than in their own back yard.
Frazzled wrote: Why doesn't Austria go? We'll sell you all the military hardware you need.
After all, the Turks never attempted to besiege Washington.
I am all for the EU being more active in international military policy. Anybody who suggests a unification of all EU member armies into one force has my 100% backing.
But right now fact of the matter is that the US is the only guy in the world who can turn words into deeds and clean house. It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money an opportunity to flex their muscles and earn their pay.
No I meant Austria, not the commercial enterprise that is the EU.
You're fine offering up Americans to die. Turnabout. you go, and go full bore. Tell us how it turns out.
It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money to flex their muscles and earn their pay.
Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.
Frazzled wrote: No I meant Austria, not the commercial enterprise that is the EU.
You're fine offering up Americans to die. Turnabout. you go, and go full bore. Tell us how it turns out.
It would also give the largest military in the world that otherwise just patrols around on taxpayer money to flex their muscles and earn their pay.
Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.
No. No, you're not "DONE".
Last time I checked, it wasn't Austria that decided to topple a country relatively stable under a dictator in the name of Iraqi Freedom. The United States created this mess in the first place and as such, it should be her moral obligation to FINISH what she started.
I understand the American public doesnt get the implications of their government's post 9/11 foreign policy and think the best idea is to get all soldiers home and call it a day, but wouldnt the world be an awesome place to live if things were that simple?
If you decide to liberate a people and lead them into a better way of life, you should stay put until you achieve your goals. Either that, or dont decide to improve their lives in the first place. But prematurely leaving is a worse deed than remaining.
If you decide to liberate a people and lead them into a better way of life, you should stay put until you achieve your goals. Either that, or dont decide to improve their lives in the first place. But prematurely leaving is a worse deed than remaining.
I know right. Killing their murdering dictator, and trying to hold the country together since 2003 we're just completely the bad guys.
ISIS wasn't then when we left. Even if they were, so what? They weren't in Syria. But now you want to kill all of them. Thats an excellent option. And replace them with whom?
Dear God what planet on you from. The US has been in active combat for THIRTEEN YEARS. We Were in two wars and multiple "peace actions" in the decade before that. WE're still in Afghanistan, Bonsia, freaking Asia and Europe. We're fething DONE.
Sadly, Frazz, he has a point. *most* wars through out history have run for decades, some as long as a century. The United States has been very lucky in that most of their wars have been relatively brief, and fairly one sided. There's a reason a lot of the Europeans in the room are looking at us and wondering why we're whining so much when their wars have been, statistically, about twice this in length, and among recent ones, about ten times as bloody.
I'm reminded, looking at the Calender, that the US casualties have also been very light, compared to any other conflict of this duration in history. Between 19 September, 1944, and the Battle of the Bulge, the US lost a comparable number of men WIA/KIA in about two months fighting in the Hürtgen Forest in an effort to keep the Germans from reinforcing Aachen, to the entire war in Iraq.
If the US had gone in earlier *cough* we would not be in this position. As I've been saying for more than a year now, the longer the US allows this to go on, the worse it will be when they finally get dragged into it regardless of what anyone wants.
I'm reminded, looking at the Calender, that the US casualties have also been very light, compared to any other conflict of this duration in history. Between 19 September, 1944, and the Battle of the Bulge, the US lost a comparable number of men WIA/KIA in about two months fighting in the Hürtgen Forest in an effort to keep the Germans from reinforcing Aachen, to the entire war in Iraq.
Our methods, technology and medical care have all progressed light years since then.
That's not to say the pattern for US military conflicts doesn't still hold true, it's just that the scale changes with each conflict
Our methods, technology and medical care have all progressed light years since then.
They have advanced, but not as much as a lot of people might think. The big reasons were actually that the Germans were able to fight the US army on equal terms rather than an insurgency fighting a army.
Battlefield medicine is the biggest advance. Otherwise, we've more or less copied Germany's approach (better tech, smaller numbers of better trained and equipped professional soldiers, focus on quickly overwhelming opposition at the expense of potential staying power, trying make every aircraft a fighter AND a ground support, overly expensive tanks, and pocket battleships .... this list goes on...)
The fact people are currently living right where the Bombs in Japan went off says its not really that long.
Three reasons that those cities could be recovered: the relatively low yields of the bombs in question, the materials used, and the fact they were both air-bursts, and the general clean up effort removing a LOT of surface contaminants. Cancer levels were high into the 1950s even with the relatively light amount of residual radiation. Most modern nukes have a much higher yield which in turn leads to a much higher level of contamination.
Three reasons that those cities could be recovered: the relatively low yields of the bombs in question, the materials used, and the fact they were both air-bursts, and the general clean up effort removing a LOT of surface contaminants. Cancer levels were high into the 1950s even with the relatively light amount of residual radiation. Most modern nukes have a much higher yield which in turn leads to a much higher level of contamination.
Actually, that's not quite true.
Modern nukes are hydrogen bombs, which only needs a fraction of the fission material used in WW2 to initiate the fusion stage.
I'm talking about the tactical fusion nukes... not the mother of all M.A.D.D warheads we have on ICBM/Sub.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.
The Vietcong had old AKs and pajamas and adherence to a political ideology, and we had dramatically better technology then as well. The Vietcong still won the war.
Technological superiority obviously makes a huge difference in winning battles, but winning wars takes political will; something we do not have.
At this point, not sure if you are trolling or not.
I'm not.
Please tell me what are these incidents of foreign terrorism that managed to cause major damage to a western nation because I can't think of a single one.
And in the of chance that you are referring to 9/11, without wanting to belittle the very real tragedy that was 9/11 in any way, but that cannot be considered major damage.
Especially considering that the US lost a comparable amount of servicemen and suffered much, much higher economic damages with the Afghanistan war that followed it (and I'm not even counting Iraq in these numbers).
So you wan't to commit your country to a probably even costlier war, both in economic and in human lives, simply on the very small chance that some terrorist organization manages to pull of a similar blow?
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right... How do you propose to actually do that then?
Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.
At what point do you consider it major damage?
No that didn't provoke you in to a long and costly war, your inept political leadership did that! The US could have gone to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban and all the Al-Qaeda fighters that it could find and then GTFO. All that was needed was a retaliation for the attack and a strong "don't mess with us or you all die" message, instead you decided to occupy a hostile country for 10+ years for some odd reason...
Do you wan't to know what I consider major damage to a country? What you guys did to Iraq. Almost all infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead. THAT is major damage. 9/11 caused major psychological damage to the US but in terms of actual casualties and economic damage, it was barely a pinprick.
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?
You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?
You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.
America, this is the perfect time to unveil any secret oribital weapons you may or may not have hanging around.
Seriously though, I think we are at a point now where we just wait and see if the middle east can sort itself. If in the end they don't, that's when we go in.
There is no way for the west to uproot ISIS without extreme levels of collatoral damage. If the middle east can sort itself, for once, we won't have (as many) fingers pointing to us(the west).
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right...How do you propose to actually do that then?
You find another way; our options are greater than either going to war or doing nothing. Just because you can't think of another option doesn't mean they aren't out there.
Thats not being argued here. Frankly bombing someone = war. We're at war now.
Wait wait wait. Hold on a second here. I said they need to be dealt with. Nowhere did I say we needed to get in to another war. But, words in mouth help win arguments!
So you wan't to deal with it, but you don't wan't to get in another war... right... How do you propose to actually do that then?
Anyways, back to the baffling part of what you posted, at what point do you consider it major damage? I mean, they only destroyed two iconic buildings in the largest city in the US. They also caused so much damage, people are still dying from the attacks. (Cancer and the such) They also flew a plane in to the Pentagon and they were attempting to fly a plane in to the white house. This provoked us in to a long and costly war that has divided our nation.
At what point do you consider it major damage?
No that didn't provoke you in to a long and costly war, your inept political leadership did that! The US could have gone to Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban and all the Al-Qaeda fighters that it could find and then GTFO. All that was needed was a retaliation for the attack and a strong "don't mess with us or you all die" message, instead you decided to occupy a hostile country for 10+ years for some odd reason...
Do you wan't to know what I consider major damage to a country? What you guys did to Iraq. Almost all infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead. THAT is major damage. 9/11 caused major psychological damage to the US but in terms of actual casualties and economic damage, it was barely a pinprick.
Are you saying that without 9/11, our inept political leadership was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
Are you saying that without 9/11, our inept political leadership was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
Afghanistan probably not, Iraq? You betcha. Junior was itching to "finish" what Bush Senior had started (I don't actually think anything needed finishing, I think that Bush Sr. understood the ramifications that eliminating Saddam would have had for the geopolitical situation in the ME and that is why he didn't actually depose him in 91), and the excuse that he used as a pretext for the invasion was pretty much independent from 9/11.
Of course you could also argue that without 9/11 and the rallying effect that it had in the US, Bush probably wouldn't even have been re-elected in the first place and that would be a valid argument as well, in which case who knows how the world would look today...
After the Syrians die, three more minutes of historical narration follow. Then comes the final scene with the prized victim, Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known as Peter Kassig. Based on previous ISIS videos, you’re expecting Kassig, an American aid worker, to deliver a parting speech damning President Obama and the United States. Instead, all you get is Kassig’s corpse, mercifully edited out of the picture by SITE. The executioner, unable to extract any scripted words from Kassig, delivers the closing lecture himself. Kassig “doesn’t have much to say,” says the executioner, trying to pass off this disappointment as a triumph. “His previous cellmates have already spoken on his behalf.”
Why the botched ending? One theory is that ISIS was afraid to stage a long production out in the open, where U.S. drones or aircraft might see it. But if that had been ISIS’s concern, the execution could easily have been moved indoors. It’s also possible that Kassig died in custody before he could be decapitated, though in that case, it might be suicide. My bet is that Kassig, unlike the others, didn’t go quietly to his death. He wasn’t a journalist. He was an Army Ranger who had served in Iraq.
We may never know what happened. ISIS shows us only what it wants to show.
In other (disturbing news), a city in Libya with approx- 200,000 inhabitants is now flying the black flag of ISIS and declared itself part of the caliphate. City is near Benghazi.
Just this summer I had seen a documentary of how the Libyan Transitional Government has now actually completely lost control of the country and is in fact hiding off shore on a Greek cruise ship.
The propaganda of ISIS expanding across all borders might not be so far fetched after all. In a couple months, Libya might just become an exclave.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down amid criticism of the president’s national security team on a series of global issues, including the threat posed by the militant group known as ISIS.
Senior defense officials confirmed to NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign.
The officials say the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon. According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.”
Another senior administration official said that Hagel has been discussing a departure from the White House "for several weeks."
"Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready," the official said. "Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola. In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time."
Multiple sources also said that Hagel was originally brought to the job to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, as the fight against the Islamic State ramped up, he was not as well matched for the post.
"Rather than winding down two wars, we’re winding up,” said one source close to Hagel and top Pentagon officials.
President Barack Obama is expected to make the announcement at the White House at 11:10AM ET. A successor will be named "in short order," an official said, but Hagel will stay in the job until his replacement is confirmed.
That replacement will not be named today, administration sources said, but possible nominees include: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy (who would be the first female Defense Secretary) and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B Carter.
Hagel, the only Republican on the president's national security team and the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the Department of Defense, has served in the job since February 2013. His tenure began with a shaky performance at his confirmation hearing in January of that year.
Jihadin wrote: Putin just laughing and giggling his arse off tossing back victory shots of Vodka
As I said before, I'm no Putin fan, but he seems to be the only world leader to have a sound, coherent foreign policy.
Russian interests threatened in Ukraine - Putin acts
Russian bases in Syria threatened - Putin acts
etc etc and slightly OT
With regard to ISIS, you would think the west, with all that money and advisors, could conjure up something similar. Hell, dakka could probably formulate better Middle Eastern policy than the Obama administration.
Jihadin wrote: Putin just laughing and giggling his arse off tossing back victory shots of Vodka
As I said before, I'm no Putin fan, but he seems to be the only world leader to have a sound, coherent foreign policy.
Russian interests threatened in Ukraine - Putin acts
Russian bases in Syria threatened - Putin acts
etc etc and slightly OT
With regard to ISIS, you would think the west, with all that money and advisors, could conjure up something similar. Hell, dakka could probably formulate better Middle Eastern policy than the Obama administration.
When ones foreign policy resumes itself to only act in our own self interest and completely disregard any and all international laws, it becomes easy to formulate coherent plans. I especially appreciate where you once again seem to be advocating that the US sends its own troops to fight and die in a foreign country for no apparent reason and at the same time, praise Putin for not doing the same thing...
And lets see how sound Russia's foreign policy is when Europe starts importing the majority of its gas from other places in about 5 years, especially if the Russian inflation continues to rise as much as it is rising, the Ruble continues its free fall and oil prices remain relatively low.
My guess in by the end of next year, Putin won't have enough money to keep its 70 year old planes taking trips to western Europe... again. Only this time he has burned the majority of his economic bridges. I wonder which country he will invade then to take his countrymen's attention away from their tanking economy?
Oceania is being threatened by the evil forces of Eurasia, while the Eastasians stand helplessly by. If we all tighten our belts and work for the common good, Oceania may survive these troubled times.
I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east. Everything was rather smooth in comparison until iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and the usa decided to attack iraq.
Torga_DW wrote: Oceania is being threatened by the evil forces of Eurasia, while the Eastasians stand helplessly by. If we all tighten our belts and work for the common good, Oceania may survive these troubled times.
I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east. Everything was rather smooth in comparison until iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and the usa decided to attack iraq.
The Orwellian reference is cute but misses the point - some people simply need to die, and these ISIS feths have earned their spot at the front of the line.
They didn't earn their spot at the front of the line, they were bumped up from the rear when america attacked the ally that was keeping them in check. Much like america was against the evil syrians who were trying to keep the valiant rebels in check. Who were the valiant rebels again? Let me think. ISIL seems to ring a bell. The Orwellian reference is pertinent because american politicians use these self-created conflicts to do things that violate their own constitution in the name of protecting their citizens. Not blowing up the middle east and backstabbing allies for fun and profit would go much further towards protecting their citizens in the long run.
I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east.
Torga_DW wrote: They didn't earn their spot at the front of the line, they were bumped up from the rear when america attacked the ally that was keeping them in check. Much like america was against the evil syrians who were trying to keep the valiant rebels in check. Who were the valiant rebels again? Let me think. ISIL seems to ring a bell. The Orwellian reference is pertinent because american politicians use these self-created conflicts to do things that violate their own constitution in the name of protecting their citizens. Not blowing up the middle east and backstabbing allies for fun and profit would go much further towards protecting their citizens in the long run.
I think america just likes blowing things up in the middle east.
You know there are more Syrian rebel groups than just ISIS right? The Free Syrian Army is more of a moderate/secular militia that has fought against both Assad and ISIS. The situation is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. And what ally did America attack that was keeping them in check?
Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".
As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".
As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.
The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
Isn't that a gross over simplification? IMO, they're (ISIS and other radical groups, not legitimate militaries and governments) are honest to god religious zealots that respect nothing "heathens and blasphemers" do whatsoever, and will gladly fight to their death for what they believe.
Torga_DW wrote: As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the
Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea ), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.
You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
Isn't that a gross over simplification? IMO, they're (ISIS and other radical groups, not legitimate militaries and governments) are honest to god religious zealots that respect nothing "heathens and blasphemers" do whatsoever, and will gladly fight to their death for what they believe.
You could argue that they respect Islam, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate as they will kill you for being the wrong type of Muslim just as fast as they'll kill you for being a Christian or a Jew.
The only thing they appear to value is a very particular interpretation of their holy book. The only way to stop them is force.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".
As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.
The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".
As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.
The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.
Using force to secure access to natural resources is not terrorism. Posts like this are one reason Dakka needs an "eye roll" emoticon.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes i know, but for situations that are a lot more complex than i make them out to be, the end result is always "attack our allies in the middle east".
As for the ally america attacked, it started (for the current stuff) with... Iraq. As i said, iraq (friendly to america) invaded kuwait (hostile to america) and america attacked iraq. This destabilized the region to a critical point, where we have the ****fight that we have today.
Sometimes things aren't as complicated as people are led to believe. Randomly blowing up the middle east has caused a lot of america's current problems in the middle east.
The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
I hope you meant that in a sarcastic/criticising way, otherwise it would make you a terrorist.
Using force to secure access to natural resources is not terrorism. Posts like this are one reason Dakka needs an "eye roll" emoticon.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
Never a truer word was spoken, although that applies to america more than anywhere else. America wants the oil so badly, it needs to conquer these oil-producing countries and make them part of america. Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea ), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.
You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)
You might want to re-read that wiki, because america was on the side of iraq. You tried to get a working *american* government setup there, the problem is iraq isn't america. What works in america doesn't always work in the rest of the world. And the difference between sunni and shia is a really big and important one as far as religions go.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea ), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.
You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)
You might want to re-read that wiki, because america was on the side of iraq. You tried to get a working *american* government setup there, the problem is iraq isn't america. What works in america doesn't always work in the rest of the world. And the difference between sunni and shia is a really big and important one as far as religions go.
Notice the bit on the right hand side?? In the "Iran" column, you have Iran, with a couple of three letter groups as the "belligerents" with Support from Syria, USA, Israel, and North Korea
Yes, in 2003 with Gulf War part 2 (if you ascribe to the notion that Iran-Iraq War was "gulf war 1" then it's Gulf War 3), the US military and government tried to set up an US style democratic system.
In order for a US style system, the people MUST be able to divorce themselves from Religion (as the founding fathers did when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence... Many of them were religious, or at least theist/deist in nature, but felt that the Government should be "purely" secular in nature, in order to preserve and protect the rights of all), which is quite an oxymoron in an Islamic country.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually... Iraq has almost never been "friendly" to America. (in fact, when Iran and Iraq went to war, we sided with Iran (and, according to wikipedia, so did North Korea ), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.
You got no argument from me that removing Saddam has lead to a destabilization in the region. However, we did TRY to get a working government set up and running, just those idiots over there simply cannot/will not think outside their own religious points of view (shia=bad, sunni=good, and vice versa)
You might want to re-read that wiki, because america was on the side of iraq. You tried to get a working *american* government setup there, the problem is iraq isn't america. What works in america doesn't always work in the rest of the world. And the difference between sunni and shia is a really big and important one as far as religions go.
Notice the bit on the right hand side?? In the "Iran" column, you have Iran, with a couple of three letter groups as the "belligerents" with Support from Syria, USA, Israel, and North Korea
Right, but that hardly tells the entire story. The United States didn't really have a dog in the fight, and at different points during the war supported different sides. We protected Kuwaiti tankers carrying Iraqi oil for export, and actually engaged in limited combat operations against Iran in 1988 during Operation Praying Mantis.
America hasn't really supported iran since the revolution. I think you'll find the 'american & israeli support' during the iraq/iran war was the contra scandal, which was kind of bad for america.
The whole point of non-american countries is they may not want to be an american country. Some people get kind of angry when foreign powers smash their nation, remove their government and insist they start behaving like their occupiers.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:The decision to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 wasn't exactly "random."
Things only appear to be simple to you because your understanding of the Middle East and America's involvement there is simple. It's not random - it's all about the oil. It was about oil in 1991 and it was about oil again in 2003.
Note that I don't have a problem with this at all. We need it, they have it, and people in that region have demonstrated time and again that they don't know how to behave like civilized human beings. The only thing that they respect and understand is force, which brings us to the "blowing things up" part.
Never a truer word was spoken, although that applies to america more than anywhere else. America wants the oil so badly, it needs to conquer these oil-producing countries and make them part of america. Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
Guess you missed it when Obama diss'ed your all PM for halting Visa's to Ebola affected countries
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
It's not random at all. You are just too simple-minded to see the pattern. It's really a very basic pattern - America has interests. It uses military force to secure and protect those interests. One of those interests is oil. The Middle East contains a significant portion of the world's oil reserves. Therefore, America's interests lie in the Middle East.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
That's not a strawman. You might think it's a bad argument (I'm not saying one way or the other), but strawman describes a specific fallacy, which isn't what that is. Especially when you specifically argue that Nuggz' previous comment applies to America more than anywhere else, him mentioning another country that takes similar actions is in no way a strawman. In fact, I'm trying to figure out based on your post what you actually think a strawman argument is, and it's baffling.
trexmeyer wrote: Shame on US for thinking we could change centuries old bias in under a decade. When has that ever worked?
Worked pretty damn well in Japan.
Actually, the attitudes of the military and government (the same thing, really) in Japan during WWII were only around 20 years old at that time. The rampant militarism which siezed the country developed as a philosphy only after WWI. Sure, the Japanese thought they were better than everyone else (every country thinks that to some degree at some point) but the death-before-dishonor "bushido" code of the military wasn't a part of their military until the interwar years. Looking back at Japanese history, and the Sengoku period in particular, it is clear that actual samurai never bought into that whole bushido business, at least not while they were actually fighting actual wars.
trexmeyer wrote: Shame on US for thinking we could change centuries old bias in under a decade. When has that ever worked?
Worked pretty damn well in Japan.
Actually, the attitudes of the military and government (the same thing, really) in Japan during WWII were only around 20 years old at that time. The rampant militarism which siezed the country developed as a philosphy only after WWI. Sure, the Japanese thought they were better than everyone else (every country thinks that to some degree at some point) but the death-before-dishonor "bushido" code of the military wasn't a part of their military until the interwar years. Looking back at Japanese history, and the Sengoku period in particular, it is clear that actual samurai never bought into that whole bushido business, at least not while they were actually fighting actual wars.
I think he was alluding to the Emperor worship and the fanatical devotion to him.
Not everyone followed Bushido, but just about everyone was down for fighting to the last for their Emperor.
trexmeyer wrote: Shame on US for thinking we could change centuries old bias in under a decade. When has that ever worked?
Worked pretty damn well in Japan.
Actually, the attitudes of the military and government (the same thing, really) in Japan during WWII were only around 20 years old at that time. The rampant militarism which siezed the country developed as a philosphy only after WWI. Sure, the Japanese thought they were better than everyone else (every country thinks that to some degree at some point) but the death-before-dishonor "bushido" code of the military wasn't a part of their military until the interwar years. Looking back at Japanese history, and the Sengoku period in particular, it is clear that actual samurai never bought into that whole bushido business, at least not while they were actually fighting actual wars.
I think he was alluding to the Emperor worship and the fanatical devotion to him.
Not everyone followed Bushido, but just about everyone was down for fighting to the last for their Emperor.
They were, but even that was a new attitude. Were those beliefs deeply held in Japan during WWII? Absolutely. Did they date back centuries? Not as much. The point I was clumsily trying to make was that, while we did change beliefs and attitudes in Japan after the war, the ones we changed were not long-held. The attitudes and beliefs we need to change/try to change in the Middle East have been around for a while longer. At least since the 19th century, in the case of Wahibbism (sp).
Emperor worship did, but the code of Bushido as instructed by the WW2 military was a new invention, a perversion of the original honor code. That code is gone, but much of Japan, including the divinity of the Emperor remains intact.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Emperor worship did, but the code of Bushido as instructed by the WW2 military was a new invention, a perversion of the original honor code. That code is gone, but much of Japan, including the divinity of the Emperor remains intact.
Even then, the "death before dishonor" and you must commit Seppuku (or whatever other names they've given it) are often seen as the "original" honor code, which only sprang up post unification, and some scholars suggest is as new as the 1800s and is a response to Japan's Westernization efforts of that period
easysauce wrote: So, ISIL's twitter is claiming they have dirty bombs apparently.
It's a sign of how self centered all of discussion on this thread is that this can be said, and everyone is so caught up in their own personal feuds that it passes unnoted.
ISIL having 88 pounds of Uranium is a serious problem, guys, and the University has confirmed it was looted. Officially it's 'low grade' but there's a Russian made breeder reactor in Syria that can fix that.
such fertile ground for the seeds of torment. Your're so ripe, Joey. And it's harvest time. Save your tears. We'll reap your soul slowly. We have centuries to discover the things that make you whimper.
sauhwq wrote: such fertile ground for the seeds of torment. Your're so ripe, Joey. And it's harvest time. Save your tears. We'll reap your soul slowly. We have centuries to discover the things that make you whimper.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
It's not random at all. You are just too simple-minded to see the pattern. It's really a very basic pattern - America has interests. It uses military force to secure and protect those interests. One of those interests is oil. The Middle East contains a significant portion of the world's oil reserves. Therefore, America's interests lie in the Middle East.
There's no randomness involved here.
Actually, just so you know, the USA didn't, and still doesn't, get very much oil from Iraq (http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/06/23/where-the-us-got-its-oil-from-in-2013/). The majority of our oil from the middle east comes from Saudi Arabia. Most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe. Leading up to the 2003 invasion, Saddam tried bribing us with cheap oil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1446152/Saddam-offered-Bush-a-huge-oil-deal-to-avert-war.html) to convince us to not invade (Saddam was in a bad position in that the main thing preventing a war with Iran was the rumor that Iraq still had WMD's, but at the same time if he did have WMD's then the US would invade). Obviously, we turned down that offer. Post-invasion, Europe swooped in and got an even larger share of Iraq's oil production. Incidentally, we did find WMD's in Iraq (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq). If we were only concerned with oil, then we would have threatened Iraq into a deal that got us cheap oil, left Saddam in power to ensure the middle east wouldn't crumble the way it has and threaten the existing status quo that was quite beneficial to us from a monetary perspective, and Saddam would still be alive.
Just sayin'. Of all the possible reasons why we invaded Iraq, securing our oil supply was not one of them.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats a nice strawman you've presented there. If america wants to randomly blow things up in the middle east and backstab allies every chance they get then have fun. Chickens come home to roost, though.
It's not random at all. You are just too simple-minded to see the pattern. It's really a very basic pattern - America has interests. It uses military force to secure and protect those interests. One of those interests is oil. The Middle East contains a significant portion of the world's oil reserves. Therefore, America's interests lie in the Middle East.
There's no randomness involved here.
Actually, just so you know, the USA didn't, and still doesn't, get very much oil from Iraq (http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/06/23/where-the-us-got-its-oil-from-in-2013/). The majority of our oil from the middle east comes from Saudi Arabia. Most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe. Leading up to the 2003 invasion, Saddam tried bribing us with cheap oil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1446152/Saddam-offered-Bush-a-huge-oil-deal-to-avert-war.html) to convince us to not invade (Saddam was in a bad position in that the main thing preventing a war with Iran was the rumor that Iraq still had WMD's, but at the same time if he did have WMD's then the US would invade). Obviously, we turned down that offer. Post-invasion, Europe swooped in and got an even larger share of Iraq's oil production. Incidentally, we did find WMD's in Iraq (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq). If we were only concerned with oil, then we would have threatened Iraq into a deal that got us cheap oil, left Saddam in power to ensure the middle east wouldn't crumble the way it has and threaten the existing status quo that was quite beneficial to us from a monetary perspective, and Saddam would still be alive.
Just sayin'. Of all the possible reasons why we invaded Iraq, securing our oil supply was not one of them.
Darky... it doesn't really matter where we get the oil.
Simply stated Oil is a Commodity. As such, any major turmoil in the mideast that impacts the exports of oil will drive up the crude per barrel.
In short: Yeah, oil is one of America's interest in the mideast.
DarkLink wrote: Actually, just so you know, the USA didn't, and still doesn't, get very much oil from Iraq (http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/06/23/where-the-us-got-its-oil-from-in-2013/). The majority of our oil from the middle east comes from Saudi Arabia. Most of Iraq's oil goes to Europe. Leading up to the 2003 invasion, Saddam tried bribing us with cheap oil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1446152/Saddam-offered-Bush-a-huge-oil-deal-to-avert-war.html) to convince us to not invade (Saddam was in a bad position in that the main thing preventing a war with Iran was the rumor that Iraq still had WMD's, but at the same time if he did have WMD's then the US would invade). Obviously, we turned down that offer. Post-invasion, Europe swooped in and got an even larger share of Iraq's oil production. Incidentally, we did find WMD's in Iraq (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq). If we were only concerned with oil, then we would have threatened Iraq into a deal that got us cheap oil, left Saddam in power to ensure the middle east wouldn't crumble the way it has and threaten the existing status quo that was quite beneficial to us from a monetary perspective, and Saddam would still be alive.
Just sayin'. Of all the possible reasons why we invaded Iraq, securing our oil supply was not one of them.
Indoctrination: its disturbing to behold, no? America wanted the oil, even if it didn't want the oil. Oceania is doubleplusgood, Eurasia is doubleplusbad.
As the release of a report on the CIA's use of torture in a previous war against terrorists consumed Capitol Hill on Tuesday, a key Senate committee began debate on a resolution authorizing a much newer counter-terror campaign: President Obama's military offensive against the Islamic State.
Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the Senate panel he once led—the Foreign Relations Committee—to urge lawmakers not to constrain the president as he wages war against ISIS terrorists in Iraq, Syria, and wherever he needs to follow them. Though Obama has stressed repeatedly that the new conflict will be limited, and the U.S. would not be "dragged back" into another quagmire in the Middle East, the authorization his administration is seeking could allow for a much broader war.
Specifically, Kerry asked his former colleagues not to limit the use of military force to those two countries where Obama already has launched airstrikes, nor to bar the president from deploying combat troops on the ground, despite his repeated assurances that he will not do so. "In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria," Kerry said. On the use of ground troops, the secretary reiterated Obama's policy that "U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL." But he doesn't want Congress to put that in writing. "That does not mean," Kerry said, "we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief—or our commanders in the field—in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee." As examples, he said the administration needed flexibility to execute hostage rescues or respond if ISIS acquired chemical weapons outside the region.
Kerry was testifying about an authorization proposal drafted by his Democratic successor as chairman of the committee, Senator Robert Menendez, which includes no geographic limitation but precludes the deployment of ground combat troops. It would last for three years, with the possibility for extensions. Kerry said the plan was "very close" to something Obama could accept, but he objected to the limitation on forces and other, more minor, provisions. In a moment of unusual friction between the two Democrats, Menendez bristled at Kerry's critique and said his authorization would allow "everything [the military] is doing now and then some."
"I reject the characterization of my text as something that is constraining to the president," Menendez said. "My text precludes America from being dragged into another unlimited, unending war in the Middle East." He suggested that if the Obama administration wanted an unlimited authorization, "it should ask for it."
The exchange underscored simmering tensions between the administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill over its prosecution of the war against ISIS and the need for a new resolution authorizing military force. While Obama has said he would welcome congressional action as a sign of bipartisan unity and legislative support for the mission, he doesn't think he needs it: The administration maintains that the George W. Bush-era authorizations from 2001 and 2003 against al-Qaeda give the president just about all the power he needs to go after ISIS. Top Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, have pushed Obama to draft specific language and send it to Congress for approval early in the next Congress. "I told him that if he does, House Republicans will be ready to work with him to get it approved, and thus far, we’ve seen no urgency on the part of this White House," Boehner complained last week.
On Tuesday, Kerry outlined what the administration wants and said he'd be more than happy to work with Congress on an authorization, but he wouldn't commit to sending up a proposal. "You don’t have anybody over there who can type that up real quick?" rejoined Senator Marco Rubio.
The House has no plans to act before adjourning for the year, but some Democrats in the Senate, on the verge of losing their majority, are pushing to have a vote on Menendez's proposal this week, whether or not Obama supports it. Senator Rand Paul, prepping for a likely presidential bid, has introduced his own resolution that contains a formal declaration of war. "This is a threat to humanity that I don’t think humankind has ever seen before," Senator Barbara Boxer said after reading accounts of the Islamic State's brutal treatment of women. "I need to be on record because of what I am learning."
The Obama Administration is asking for a blank check to engage with ISIS.
O.o
Can't we just have a fething plan for once... ya know? Like, what would be the victory conditions?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Emperor worship did, but the code of Bushido as instructed by the WW2 military was a new invention, a perversion of the original honor code. That code is gone, but much of Japan, including the divinity of the Emperor remains intact.
Even then, the "death before dishonor" and you must commit Seppuku (or whatever other names they've given it) are often seen as the "original" honor code, which only sprang up post unification, and some scholars suggest is as new as the 1800s and is a response to Japan's Westernization efforts of that period
Depends on the extent. There's plenty of historical sources regarding seppuku and it's uses from far earlier then the 1800s. I'd say the early Sengoku Jidai (mid 15th century) is likely the era that much of what we think of as modern Bushido and Samurai practice came into being. It was certainly deeply ingrained by the time that Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote the Hagakure in the 18th century. This is of course also the time frame that the famous Forty Seven Ronin took their revenge.
Some of the confusion is probably because the term bushidō is a modern one, only coming into being during the Tokugawa Shogunate at the absolutely earliest. Prior to this point, no special term was needed as it was simply the culture of the age. Even if it wasn't formally codified until shortly before or after the Tokugawa Shogunate came to power, we're still talking three centuries or so before the Militarists in the Imperial Army and Navy corrupted their own version with which to "arm" Imperial Japanese Soldiers and Sailors.
Depends on the extent. There's plenty of historical sources regarding seppuku and it's uses from far earlier then the 1800s. I'd say the early Sengoku Jidai (mid 15th century) is likely the era that much of what we think of as modern Bushido and Samurai practice came into being. It was certainly deeply ingrained by the time that Yamamoto Tsunetomo wrote the Hagakure in the 18th century. This is of course also the time frame that the famous Forty Seven Ronin took their revenge.
Some of the confusion is probably because the term bushidō is a modern one, only coming into being during the Tokugawa Shogunate at the absolutely earliest. Prior to this point, no special term was needed as it was simply the culture of the age. Even if it wasn't formally codified until shortly before or after the Tokugawa Shogunate came to power, we're still talking three centuries or so before the Militarists in the Imperial Army and Navy corrupted their own version with which to "arm" Imperial Japanese Soldiers and Sailors.
A few samurai committed seppuku prior to the 18th century, but they were generally the exception, rather than the rule. The whole "kill yourself rather than face defeat" may have existed as an idea, but was ignored by and large until the 18th-20th centuries. Hideyoshi Toyotomi built the army he conquered Japan with out of guys he defeated in combat. People who lost to him usually ended up with jobs working for him, except for the Hojo (but that was because Hideyoshi had to buy off Tokugawa and he needed to use the Hojo lands to do it with). Yeah, Nobunaga had a habit of killing anyone who crossed him, but he isn't regarded favorably in Japan (in pop culture, he usually is depicted as a villain). A few samurai in the era did kill themselves rather than face capture (Nobunaga's sister's second husband did this when Hideyoshi was knocking at his castle gates) but they stand out because of how uncommon the practice was.
ISIS released a sex guide to the capture, punishment, and rape of sex slaves.
Someone, please tell me this is a joke... please.
Spoiler:
"Question 1: What is al-sabi?
"Al-Sabi is a woman from among ahl al-harb [the people of war] who has been captured by Muslims.
"Question 2: What makes al-sabi permissible?
"What makes al-sabi permissible [i.e., what makes it permissible to take such a woman captive] is [her] unbelief. Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us]."
"Question 3: Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?
"There is no dispute among the scholars that it is permissible to capture unbelieving women [who are characterized by] original unbelief [kufr asli], such as the kitabiyat [women from among the People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians] and polytheists. However, [the scholars] are disputed over [the issue of] capturing apostate women. The consensus leans towards forbidding it, though some people of knowledge think it permissible. We [ISIS] lean towards accepting the consensus…"
"Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
"It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: '[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]'..."
"Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
"If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn't, her uterus must be purified [first]…"
"Question 6: Is it permissible to sell a female captive?
"It is permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property, which can be disposed of [as long as that doesn't cause [the Muslim ummah] any harm or damage."
"Question 7: Is it permissible to separate a mother from her children through [the act of] buying and selling?
"It is not permissible to separate a mother from her prepubescent children through buying, selling or giving away [a captive or slave]. [But] it is permissible to separate them if the children are grown and mature."
"Question 8: If two or more [men] buy a female captive together, does she then become [sexually] permissible to each of them?
"It is forbidden to have intercourse with a female captive if [the master] does not own her exclusively. One who owns [a captive] in partnership [with others] may not have sexual intercourse with her until the other [owners] sell or give him [their share]."
"Question 9: If the female captive was impregnated by her owner, can he then sell her?
"He can't sell her if she becomes the mother of a child..."
"Question 10: If a man dies, what is the law regarding the female captive he owned?
"Female captives are distributed as part of his estate, just as all [other parts] of his estate [are distributed]. However, they may only provide services, not intercourse, if a father or [one of the] sons has already had intercourse with them, or if several [people] inherit them in partnership."
"Question 11: May a man have intercourse with the female slave of his wife?
"A man may not have intercourse with the female slave of his wife, because [the slave] is owned by someone else."
"Question 12: May a man kiss the female slave of another, with the owner's permission?
"A man may not kiss the female slave of another, for kissing [involves] pleasure, and pleasure is prohibited unless [the man] owns [the slave] exclusively."
"Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
"It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse."
"Question 14: What private parts of the female slave's body must be concealed during prayer?
"Her private body parts [that must be concealed] during prayer are the same as those [that must be concealed] outside [prayer], and they [include] everything besides the head, neck, hands and feet."
"Question 15: May a female slave meet foreign men without wearing a hijab?
"A female slave is allowed to expose her head, neck, hands, and feet in front of foreign men if fitna [enticement] can be avoided. However, if fitna is present, or of there is fear that it will occur, then it [i.e. exposing these body parts becomes] forbidden."
"Question 16: Can two sisters be taken together while taking slaves?
"It is permissible to have two sisters, a female slave and her aunt [her father's sister], or a female slave and her aunt [from her mother's side]. But they cannot be together during intercourse, [and] whoever has intercourse with one of them cannot have intercourse with the other, due to the general [consensus] over the prohibition of this."
"Question 17: What is al-'azl?
"Al-'azl is refraining from ejaculating on a woman's pudendum [i.e. coitus interruptus]."
"Question 18: May a man use the al-'azl [technique] with his female slave?
"A man is allowed [to use] al-'azl during intercourse with his female slave with or without her consent."
"Question 19: Is it permissible to beat a female slave?
"It is permissible to beat the female slave as a [form of] darb ta'deeb [disciplinary beating], [but] it is forbidden to [use] darb al-takseer [literally, breaking beating], [darb] al-tashaffi [beating for the purpose of achieving gratification], or [darb] al-ta'dheeb [torture beating]. Further, it is forbidden to hit the face."
Question 20: What is the ruling regarding a female slave who runs away from her master?
"A male or female slave's running away [from their master] is among the gravest of sins…"
"Question 21: What is the earthly punishment of a female slave who runs away from her master?
"She [i.e. the female slave who runs away from her master] has no punishment according to the shari'a of Allah; however, she is [to be] reprimanded [in such a way that] deters others like her from escaping."
"Question 22: Is it permissible to marry a Muslim [slave] or a kitabiyya [i.e. Jewish or Christian] female slave?
"It is impermissible for a free [man] to marry Muslim or kitabiyat female slaves, except for those [men] who feared to [commit] a sin, that is, the sin of fornication…"
"Question 24: If a man marries a female slave who is owned by someone else, who is allowed to have intercourse with her?
"A master is prohibited from having intercourse with his female slave who is married to someone else; instead, the master receives her service, [while] the husband [gets to] enjoy her [sexually]."
"Question 25: Are the huddoud [Koranic punishments] applied to female slaves?
"If a female slave committed what necessitated the enforcement of a hadd [on her], a hadd [is then] enforced on her – however, the hadd is reduced by half within the hudud that accepts reduction by half…"
"Question 27: What is the reward for freeing a slave girl?
"Allah the exalted said [in the Koran]: 'And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass [hell]? It is the freeing of a slave.' And [the prophet Muhammad] said: 'Whoever frees a believer Allah frees every organ of his body from hellfire.'"
It's not. These people are true evil. It's why I have zero issue going back over there to fight them. It's not an issue of state sovereignity, having Iraq safe, or anything like that. It's an issue of true evil that needs to be stopped.
American forces were involved in their first ground battle with Islamic State fighters, according to Kurdish media outlet Shafaq News, near the Ain Al-Assad base in the Anbar province of Iraq early Sunday. The report could not be independently verified.
US forces allegedly came to the aid of tribal fighters and the Iraqi Army battling Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) militants in the Al-Dolab area, 10 km (6.2 miles) from the Ain Al-Assad base, which is about 90 km (56 miles) west of Anbar’s capital, Ramadi.
"US forces intervened because … ISIS started to come near the base, which they are stationed in so out of self-defense, they responded,” said Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a tribal leader in the area, according to Shafaq.
The base hosts about 100 US military advisers, the report claimed.
An Iraqi Army field commander in Anbar said that "the US force equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by fighter force model F-18" was able to hit Islamic State targets, forcing them to retreat from Al-Dolab.
The clash with Islamic forces lasted for more than two hours, as American jets also hit several Islamic State fighters, according to Colonel Salam Nazim.
"We have made progress in Al-Dolab area, in which ISIS has withdrawn from to the villages beyond, after the battles which involved a private American force” that surprised Islamic State fighters, tribal leader Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi said.
The American forces returned to Ain Al-Assad base after the mission, according to Nimrawi, who added that the "US promised to provide tribal fighters who are in that region exclusively with weapons.”
The Pentagon has not released information on any American involvement in ground fighting with Islamic State.
Since announcing US-led-coalition airstrikes against Islamic State in August, US President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that he would not commit troops to another ground war in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon’s top brass have since said that the option remains on the table.
US Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress last week that President Obama “has been crystal clear” about his preference to rely on local forces to defeat the Islamic State. But Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that any congressional authorization of military force against Islamic State militants should not ban the use of American ground forces, or place a “geographic limitation” on the effort.
“[W]e certainly believe this is the soundest policy, and while the president has been clear he's open to clarifications on the use of US combat troops to be outlined in an AUMF, that does not mean we should preemptively bind the hands of the commander in chief – or our commanders in the field – in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee,” Kerry said.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdish forces began Wednesday an operation to retake Sinjar, in northwestern Iraq, after US-led coalition airstrikes targeted Islamic State positions overnight, Kurdish security officials said, according to Reuters.
"At 8:00 this morning the ground offensive began to liberate Sinjar town," said one official in the region's Security Council, adding that coalition jets hit the area beforehand.
"There's evidence that a lot of IS fighters abandoned their weapons and fled the area."
Should the offensive prove successful, it could open a path to Sinjar mountain, where hundreds of Yazidis - an ethnic Kurdish minority - have been trapped by Islamic State since August.
Upon authorizing airstrikes in August, Obama said the action was necessary to protect American personnel and to offer humanitarian aid to the besieged Yazidis
Kurdish forces have regained much ground lost to Islamic State in northern Iraq since the summer, according to Reuters.
Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along
Sing it as we used to sing it, 50,000 strong
While we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.
How the darkeys shouted when they heard the joyful sound
How the turkeys gobbled which our commissary found
How the sweet potatoes even started from the ground
While we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Sherman's dashing Yankee boys will never reach the coast!"
So the saucy rebels said and 'twas a handsome boast
Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the Host
While we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.
So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain
While we were marching through Georgia.
ISIS released a sex guide to the capture, punishment, and rape of sex slaves.
Someone, please tell me this is a joke... please.
Spoiler:
"Question 1: What is al-sabi?
"Al-Sabi is a woman from among ahl al-harb [the people of war] who has been captured by Muslims.
"Question 2: What makes al-sabi permissible?
"What makes al-sabi permissible [i.e., what makes it permissible to take such a woman captive] is [her] unbelief. Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us]."
"Question 3: Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?
"There is no dispute among the scholars that it is permissible to capture unbelieving women [who are characterized by] original unbelief [kufr asli], such as the kitabiyat [women from among the People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians] and polytheists. However, [the scholars] are disputed over [the issue of] capturing apostate women. The consensus leans towards forbidding it, though some people of knowledge think it permissible. We [ISIS] lean towards accepting the consensus…"
"Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
"It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: '[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]'..."
"Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
"If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn't, her uterus must be purified [first]…"
"Question 6: Is it permissible to sell a female captive?
"It is permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property, which can be disposed of [as long as that doesn't cause [the Muslim ummah] any harm or damage."
"Question 7: Is it permissible to separate a mother from her children through [the act of] buying and selling?
"It is not permissible to separate a mother from her prepubescent children through buying, selling or giving away [a captive or slave]. [But] it is permissible to separate them if the children are grown and mature."
"Question 8: If two or more [men] buy a female captive together, does she then become [sexually] permissible to each of them?
"It is forbidden to have intercourse with a female captive if [the master] does not own her exclusively. One who owns [a captive] in partnership [with others] may not have sexual intercourse with her until the other [owners] sell or give him [their share]."
"Question 9: If the female captive was impregnated by her owner, can he then sell her?
"He can't sell her if she becomes the mother of a child..."
"Question 10: If a man dies, what is the law regarding the female captive he owned?
"Female captives are distributed as part of his estate, just as all [other parts] of his estate [are distributed]. However, they may only provide services, not intercourse, if a father or [one of the] sons has already had intercourse with them, or if several [people] inherit them in partnership."
"Question 11: May a man have intercourse with the female slave of his wife?
"A man may not have intercourse with the female slave of his wife, because [the slave] is owned by someone else."
"Question 12: May a man kiss the female slave of another, with the owner's permission?
"A man may not kiss the female slave of another, for kissing [involves] pleasure, and pleasure is prohibited unless [the man] owns [the slave] exclusively."
"Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
"It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse."
"Question 14: What private parts of the female slave's body must be concealed during prayer?
"Her private body parts [that must be concealed] during prayer are the same as those [that must be concealed] outside [prayer], and they [include] everything besides the head, neck, hands and feet."
"Question 15: May a female slave meet foreign men without wearing a hijab?
"A female slave is allowed to expose her head, neck, hands, and feet in front of foreign men if fitna [enticement] can be avoided. However, if fitna is present, or of there is fear that it will occur, then it [i.e. exposing these body parts becomes] forbidden."
"Question 16: Can two sisters be taken together while taking slaves?
"It is permissible to have two sisters, a female slave and her aunt [her father's sister], or a female slave and her aunt [from her mother's side]. But they cannot be together during intercourse, [and] whoever has intercourse with one of them cannot have intercourse with the other, due to the general [consensus] over the prohibition of this."
"Question 17: What is al-'azl?
"Al-'azl is refraining from ejaculating on a woman's pudendum [i.e. coitus interruptus]."
"Question 18: May a man use the al-'azl [technique] with his female slave?
"A man is allowed [to use] al-'azl during intercourse with his female slave with or without her consent."
"Question 19: Is it permissible to beat a female slave?
"It is permissible to beat the female slave as a [form of] darb ta'deeb [disciplinary beating], [but] it is forbidden to [use] darb al-takseer [literally, breaking beating], [darb] al-tashaffi [beating for the purpose of achieving gratification], or [darb] al-ta'dheeb [torture beating]. Further, it is forbidden to hit the face."
Question 20: What is the ruling regarding a female slave who runs away from her master?
"A male or female slave's running away [from their master] is among the gravest of sins…"
"Question 21: What is the earthly punishment of a female slave who runs away from her master?
"She [i.e. the female slave who runs away from her master] has no punishment according to the shari'a of Allah; however, she is [to be] reprimanded [in such a way that] deters others like her from escaping."
"Question 22: Is it permissible to marry a Muslim [slave] or a kitabiyya [i.e. Jewish or Christian] female slave?
"It is impermissible for a free [man] to marry Muslim or kitabiyat female slaves, except for those [men] who feared to [commit] a sin, that is, the sin of fornication…"
"Question 24: If a man marries a female slave who is owned by someone else, who is allowed to have intercourse with her?
"A master is prohibited from having intercourse with his female slave who is married to someone else; instead, the master receives her service, [while] the husband [gets to] enjoy her [sexually]."
"Question 25: Are the huddoud [Koranic punishments] applied to female slaves?
"If a female slave committed what necessitated the enforcement of a hadd [on her], a hadd [is then] enforced on her – however, the hadd is reduced by half within the hudud that accepts reduction by half…"
"Question 27: What is the reward for freeing a slave girl?
"Allah the exalted said [in the Koran]: 'And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass [hell]? It is the freeing of a slave.' And [the prophet Muhammad] said: 'Whoever frees a believer Allah frees every organ of his body from hellfire.'"
ALGIERS, Algeria – Algeria's Ministry of Defense says the man behind the kidnapping and beheading of a French hiker in September has been killed in a military operation.
The statement says Abdelmalek Gouri was killed together with two associates late Monday near the city of Boumerdes, east of the capital.
Two other militants were killed Tuesday morning nearby, added the statement.
A group calling itself Jund al-Khilafah and pledging allegiance to the Islamic State group in Syria kidnapped French hiker Herve Gourdel in the Djurdjura mountains.
Gourdel was beheaded on video a few days later when demands for France to end airstrikes were not met.
The Algerian army carried out a massive operation to find the group behind the kidnapping and said two other members have been killed in past months.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 82nd it seems is moving a Battalion to BIAP Iraq next month
GAZIANTEP, Turkey — The Islamic State’s vaunted exercise in state-building appears to be crumbling as living conditions deteriorate across the territories under its control, exposing the shortcomings of a group that devotes most of its energies to fighting battles and enforcing strict rules.
Services are collapsing, prices are soaring, and medicines are scarce in towns and cities across the “caliphate” proclaimed in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State, residents say, belying the group’s boasts that it is delivering a model form of governance for Muslims.
Slick Islamic State videos depicting functioning government offices and the distribution of aid do not match the reality of growing deprivation and disorganized, erratic leadership, the residents say. A trumpeted Islamic State currency has not materialized, nor have the passports the group promised. Schools barely function, doctors are few, and disease is on the rise.
In the Iraqi city of Mosul, the water has become undrinkable because supplies of chlorine have dried up, said a journalist living there, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his safety. Hepatitis is spreading, and flour is becoming scarce, he said. “Life in the city is nearly dead, and it is as though we are living in a giant prison,” he said.
In the Syrian city of Raqqa, the group’s self-styled capital, water and electricity are available for no more than three or four hours a day, garbage piles up uncollected, and the city’s poor scavenge for scraps on streets crowded with sellers hawking anything they can find, residents say.
ideos filmed in secret by an activist group show desperate women and children clamoring for handouts of food, while photographs posted on the Internet portray foreign militants eating lavish spreads, a disparity that is starting to stir resentment.
Much of the assistance that is being provided comes from Western aid agencies, which discreetly continue to help areas of Syria under Islamic State control. The United States funds health-care clinics and provides blankets, plastic sheeting and other items to help the neediest citizens weather the winter, a U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
The government workers who help sustain what is left of the crumbling infrastructure, in Syrian as well as Iraqi cities, continue to be paid by the Syrian government, traveling each month to collect their salaries from offices in government-controlled areas.
“ISIS doesn’t know how to do this stuff,” said the U.S. official, using an acronym for the group. “When stuff breaks down, they get desperate. It doesn’t have a whole lot of engineers and staff to run the cities, so things are breaking down.”
There are also signs of falling morale among at least some of the fighters, whose expectations of quick and easy victories have been squashed by U.S.-led airstrikes. A notice distributed in Raqqa this month called on fighters who were shirking their duties to report to the front lines, and a new police force was created to go house to house to root them out.
There is no indication that the hardships are likely to lead to rebellion, at least not soon. Fear of draconian punishments and the absence of alternatives deter citizens from complaining too loudly, the residents said, in interviews conducted while they were on visits to neighboring Turkey or over the Internet.
But the deterioration is undermining at least one important aspect of the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed identity — as a state, dedicated to reviving the 7th-century caliphate that once ruled the Muslim world. Governing is as central to that goal as the military conquests that occurred as Islamic State fighters swept through much of Syria and Iraq over the past year.
The group’s momentum on the battlefield has been slowed by the U.S.-led air campaign, which has helped reverse or stall Islamic State offensives on numerous fronts, from the tiny town of Kobane in northern Syria to the farmland south of Baghdad.
That the group is also failing to deliver services in the areas it does control calls into question the sustainability of its larger ambition.
The Islamic State “is not this invincible monster that can control everything and defeat everyone,” said an activist in the eastern Syrian city of Deir al-Zour, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the ineffectual delivery of services there.
“The whole idea that it is well organized and an administrative entity is wrong. It is just an image.”
‘They have no expertise’ It is in Raqqa, the first major city to fall under Islamic State control more than a year ago and the cradle of its governance experiment, that the discrepancy is perhaps most conspicuous. A Raqqa businessman who traveled to Mosul recently said the Iraqi city is in far better shape than his own city in Syria, where people are being driven away by the specter of hunger and devastating government bombing raids that have killed mostly civilians.
he bombardments have played a big role in straining the infrastructure. U.S. airstrikes, aimed at Islamic State targets, have also contributed, forcing the group to abandon many of its government buildings. American attacks on the small, makeshift oil refineries that many citizens relied on for income have deepened the deprivation, leaving many people without income and sending prices soaring.
Whether the Islamic State’s administration was ever as capable as it has been portrayed appears to be in doubt, Syrians say. Those who could afford to flee areas controlled by the group have done so, disproportionately including the professionals and technocrats whose skills are needed to run government services.
Syrians say the Islamic State’s administration is overseen by a network of shadowy emirs or princes. Lower-level positions are occupied by Syrians or foreigners who often lack administrative or technical skills.
“ISIS has become too big to control itself,” said a Syrian aid worker who regularly interacts with Islamic State officials and who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order not to compromise his dealings with the group. He finds them willing and cooperative, “but they’re not smart, and they’re not capable. They have no expertise.”
For most citizens, the main interaction with the Islamic State is with its ubiquitous police and security agencies, including the notorious Hesbah, which patrols the streets in quest of those transgressing the group’s harsh interpretation of Islamic law.
Those rules continue to be rigidly enforced. Shopkeepers shut their stores five times a day for prayer. Smokers have quit for fear of the obligatory three-day jail sentence for a first offense — and a month for a second. Public executions for theft, blasphemy and dissent are on the rise. A new punishment, for homosexuality, in which the accused is thrown off a tall building, has been implemented twice in recent weeks.
To some, better than Assad Meanwhile, crime has plunged, and for many residents the order is a welcome alternative to the lawlessness that prevailed when more moderate Syrian rebels were in charge. Syrians who lived for decades under the regime of President Bashar al-Assad are accustomed to obeying orders, and many have adapted to the new rules, said a government employee in the former tax department who collects his salary from the government, even though he is no longer working.
“Daesh are not as cruel as the regime was,” he said, using an Arabic name for the militants. With the Islamic State in charge, “if you don’t do anything wrong — according to their standards, not ours — they will not bother you.”
The strict enforcement of rules sometimes undermines efforts to deliver services, however. When electricity workers raced to repair cables damaged by government shelling in the town of Deir al-Zour, the Islamic State detained and lashed them for violating a prohibition on working during prayer time, said the Deir al-Zour activist.
Everyone on the staff of one of the city’s four functioning field hospitals was detained as they held a meeting because three of them were smoking.
There is no indication that the Islamic State’s income, estimated at $12 million a month, is suffering. Syrians continue to sign up because there are no other jobs available, residents say.
Islamic State functionaries also continue to exact payments, going door to door to collect taxes from shopkeepers and fees for electricity and telephones.
“If the regime did not supply telecoms and salaries, I don’t think ISIS could survive,” said Hassan Hassan, a Syrian analyst with the Abu Dhabi-based Delma Institute. “It charges people for things the regime is providing. But it’s not viable as a state.”
Tensions are emerging between the local populace and the foreign fighters, estimated by U.S. officials and analysts to number around 15,000, or about half of the total fighting force. Foreigners get paid in dollars, while Syrian recruits, known as munasir, or helpers, are paid in Syrian pounds.
Islamic State fighters are treated in their own secretly located field hospitals, while civilians are forced to rely on the collapsing private hospitals, said Abu Mohammed, an activist with Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, a group that works to draw attention to conditions under the Islamic State. He uses a nickname to protect his safety.
“People are fed up with them and would like to get rid of them,” he said. “But they don’t have the ability.”
Missy Ryan and Loveday Morris wrote:The U.S. and Iran are aligned in Iraq against the Islamic State — for now
A Shi'ite fighter, center, mans a heavy machine gun as he takes his position on at the outskirts of Balad, north of Baghdad December 25, 2014. (Stringer/Reuters)
Iranian military involvement has dramatically increased in Iraq over the past year as Tehran has delivered desperately needed aid to Baghdad in its fight against Islamic State militants, say U.S., Iraqi and Iranian sources. In the eyes of Obama administration officials, equally concerned about the rise of the brutal Islamist group, that’s an acceptable role — for now.
Yet as U.S. troops return to a limited mission in Iraq, American officials remain apprehensive about the potential for renewed friction with Iran, either directly or via Iranian-backed militias that once attacked U.S. personnel on a regular basis.
A senior Iranian cleric with close ties to Tehran’s leadership, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security matters, said that since the Islamic State’s capture of much of northern Iraq in June, Iran has sent more than 1,000 military advisers to Iraq, as well as elite units, and has conducted airstrikes and spent more than $1 billion on military aid.
“The areas that have been liberated from Daesh have been thanks to Iran’s advice, command, leaders and support,” the cleric said, using the Arabic acronym for the group.
At the same time, Iraq’s Shiite-led government is increasingly reliant on the powerful militias and a massive Shiite volunteer force, which together may now equal the size of Iraq’s security forces.
Although the Obama administration says it is not coordinating directly with Iran, the two nations’ arms-length alliance against the Islamic State is an uncomfortable reality. That’s not only because some of the militia shock troops who have proved effective in fighting the Islamic State battled U.S. forces during the 2003-2011 war there, but also because, in Syria, Iran continues to support President Bashar al-Assad, whom the United States would like to see toppled. U.S. diplomats, meanwhile, are pushing ahead with negotiations to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon.
Ali Khedery, who advised several U.S. ambassadors in Iraq, said the tensions that fueled a U.S.-Iran confrontation in Iraq after 2003 are masked by the shared desire to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
“ISIS will be defeated,” said Khedery, who runs a strategic consulting firm in Dubai. “The problem is that afterwards, there will still be a dozen militias, hardened by decades of battle experience, funded by Iraqi oil, and commanded or at least strongly influenced by [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps]. And they will be the last ones standing.”
While the departure of U.S. troops in 2011 provided space for Iran to expand its influence in Iraq, Tehran’s support for paramilitary groups has intensified since the appearance of the Sunni militant group, which Iran’s Shiite leaders see as a serious threat to their interests. Combat troops from the Quds Force, a unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, now travel to Iraq “from time to time for specific operations with coordination with the Kurdish and Iraqi governments,” the senior Iranian cleric said.
Qassim Soleimani, the Quds Force commander, has become the face of Iran’s operations in Iraq, with photos of the commander on the front lines circulating on social media.
“He’s our friend, and we are very proud of his friendship,” said Hadi al-Amiri, who heads the Badr Brigade, a Shiite militia. “Anyone now who comes and helps us fight Daesh, we welcome them. We cannot liberate the country by the Iraqi forces alone.”
James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said the Obama administration may have made a mistake by not conducting limited airstrikes after the Islamic State’s initial advance.
Iraqi officials pleaded for assistance this summer as the militants appeared poised to overrun the Iraqi Kurdish city of Irbil and even Baghdad, the capital. But White House officials, frustrated by what they saw as the sectarian policies of then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, insisted first on political reforms.
“The Iraqis were in desperate straits, and the only ones who came to their rescue was Iran,” Jeffrey said. “These guys will remember that.”
During that time, Iraqi Kurds, the United States’ most constant ally in Iraq, accepted weapons from Iran. “If it was Iran that was coming to [our] aid or the United States, we needed to prevent Irbil from falling into the hands of ISIS,” said a Kurdish official, who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security matters.
The collapse of much of Iraq’s army in June also provided momentum and popular support for the increasingly public operations of Iranian-backed militias, such as the Badr Brigade, Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and a growing number of smaller splinter groups.
Sheik Jassim al-Saidi, a commander with Kataib Hezbollah, said his group has more than tripled in size since June, now boasting more than 30,000 combatants.
“Iran never left Iraq,” he said in an interview in a house next door to his Baghdad mosque, which has turned into a military base for militia fighters and is packed with crates of weapons. “This very close relationship has made Iran support Iraq all they can.”
Saidi flicked through pictures on his phone showing him visiting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a recent visit to Iran.
Kataib Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the United States, has received new supplies of Ashtar and Karrar rockets from Iran in recent months, he said. The Karrar has been used by the group only once, Saidi said, against an American base in 2011. “It was like a thunderbolt falling from the sky on them,” he said.
American unease about the militia resurgence intensified when U.S. officials detected a lot of chatter via intelligence and diplomatic channels after Obama’s Sept. 10 speech, in which he outlined his administration’s expanded strategy for countering the Islamic State, including airstrikes and a growing U.S. force in Iraq.
“There was a lot of commotion . . . a lot of Shiite militant mobilization in a way that made us very nervous,” a senior U.S. official said. U.S. diplomats worked for weeks to allay Iranian concerns about a U.S. return to Iraq, reaching out to Iraqi Shiite officials in order to telegraph a message to Tehran: Renewed U.S. military involvement in Iraq would be much more limited than it was last time.
“That message we do know resonated and got through to people all over, in Iran and elsewhere,” the official said.
As Obama deploys a force of up to 3,000 to retrain Iraqi troops, there have been no signs of hostility between U.S. forces and Iranian advisers or Shiite militiamen. Unlike in the past, U.S. troops will be confined to bases or headquarters and will not have direct combat roles.
Yet the possibility for confrontation is “something we’re constantly worried about . . . as we flow more personnel in there,” a senior U.S. defense official said.
Reports of abuses by Shiite militiamen have increased in recent months, raising fears that militia death squads that helped fuel past sectarian violence are on the march.
Another U.S. official said the militias’ combat power has come “at a steep price.”
“Various Shia militants have pursued scorched-earth tactics, leading to the displacement of thousands of Sunni civilians,” the official said.
American officials are also watching to see whether Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has the political clout to hold his unity government together and keep paramilitary forces in check.
Obama’s top advisers are betting that the United States can help contain militia power in the long term by rebuilding a smaller, stronger Iraqi army and backing a new national guard that might incorporate Sunni and Shiite paramilitary fighters.
“This is the single best opportunity we have to counter the Shia militant efforts and mitigate the influence that Iran will have,” the senior U.S. official said.
I look at this two ways. ISIS is definitely the greater evil, so there is that. And if the Iraqi government has welcomed them, then who are we to say otherwise?
Sure, we could get into a pissing contest and pull out, but in the end we are the ones looking like jerks.
Because they can use state resources to fund active terrorist campaigns. Uncontested they can train, arm, and ship terrorists to various places around the world.
Breotan wrote: And if the Iraqi government has welcomed them, then who are we to say otherwise?
There is so much wrong with this sentiment I don't even know where to start.
He has a point though. the US has, on occasion, embraced terrorists when it suited US foreign policy. It will most likely bite everyone in the ass in the long run, though.
Iran is a major sponsor of terrorists groups, Hezballah and Hamas to pick the two we're most familiar with. Iran is one of the main reasons Lebanon is the hole it is. Iran also provides support to other groups as well.
Our withdrawing from the region left a power vacuum that Iran is filling.
Breotan wrote: Iran is a major sponsor of terrorists groups, Hezballah and Hamas to pick the two we're most familiar with. Iran is one of the main reasons Lebanon is the hole it is. Iran also provides support to other groups as well.
Our withdrawing from the region left a power vacuum that Iran is filling.
I'm quite familiar with what Iran is, and that they are not the good guys. I was just making sure you knew who it was he was referring to (it seemed like there might have been some confusion, but obviously that was not the case).
That's the reality of the middle east. There aren't many good guys over there, but without local assistance you can't get anything done unless you want to put hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground, and even then it should be obvious that doesn't always work out. Which means if you want to get anything done, sometimes you have to work with the lesser evils.
Well, we just wrapped up our "combat mission" (I'm sure that means I won't be getting mortared now...) in Afghanistan yesterday. Now we've got another 100,000 boots to put on the ground in Iraq...
MrDwhitey wrote: Wise men say a lot of gak that can be used to pseudo justify anything.
The reality is though that Iran is an ally the US might actually need right now against ISIS if they're willing to actually commit, which is more than their other allies in the region atm. If the US is serious about 'no boots on the ground' (yeah, right) then Iran is the only likely option. And, hey, they want to stick their hand in the meat grinder, more power to 'em.
mitch_rifle wrote: Proxy war between Iran and Saudi's, yemen may fall to shiite rebels backed by iran
we will see what saudi's do about this
Prediction is a war between iran and saudi's in the next 5-10 years
Whoever loses, we win?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Well, we just wrapped up our "combat mission" (I'm sure that means I won't be getting mortared now...) in Afghanistan yesterday. Now we've got another 100,000 boots to put on the ground in Iraq...
No thanks. Bring them home and put them on OUR border.
I imagine more or less many many innocent people will die and the schism in the islamic world between Sunni and shiite will explode into a level of religious violence which hasn't been seen for a few centuries.
Terrorism will only be fueled and a hell of alot more people are gonna die before it's done
Maybe it's a war that needs to happen, so much violence and destruction that the islamic world looks at itself and sees the need for reform and steps away from religion and have a type of age of enlightenment and focus on things like science,education,tolerance and democracy
My prediction though is that people will never stop killing each other and the violence will continue into the forseeable future
mitch_rifle wrote: I imagine more or less many many innocent people will die and the schism in the islamic world between Sunni and shiite will explode into a level of religious violence which hasn't been seen for a few centuries.
Terrorism will only be fueled and a hell of alot more people are gonna die before it's done
Maybe it's a war that needs to happen, so much violence and destruction that the islamic world looks at itself and sees the need for reform and steps away from religion and have a type of age of enlightenment and focus on things like science,education,tolerance and democracy
My prediction though is that people will never stop killing each other and the violence will continue into the forseeable future
But you can hope right?
So, basically they're going through their own "30 Years' War" or about to?? Well, I'll be glad to sit on my porch and watch it from here, provided we don't aid anyone and sit back pushing the fighting where it belongs.
Except ISIS has to inspire to AQ recent achievement accomplished in Yemen.
Gulf of Aden and southern part of the Red Sea might become "hostile" to some shipping now
What's up with that anyway? Is the Yemen revolution a good thing, a bad thing or some other thing?
Depends on the new government. The group that took over do not like the US/West. Also the new King of Saudi have no desire to have a AQ back government on that border. Means trouble for Saudi. So Yemen either a launching off point for a ground offensive into Saudi or shipping might get targeted in Aden and Red Sea.
Yemen Extremists in the North, Somali pirates to the South
The big news in Canada right now is that it's been revealed Canadian special forces have been in at least three firefights with ISIS in Iraq. The first Western nation to do so.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The big news in Canada right now is that it's been revealed Canadian special forces have been in at least three firefights with ISIS in Iraq. The first Western nation to do so.
Easy E wrote: We are talking Diplomacy and Geopolitics. The word Good Guys and the word Bad Guys should never be used as that is irrelevant.
Especially as outside of books and movies , these two things don't exist except in the imagination. There are people who want things and people who want other things.Worlds' policeman should also be consigned to the rubbish bin.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The big news in Canada right now is that it's been revealed Canadian special forces have been in at least three firefights with ISIS in Iraq. The first Western nation to do so.
I'm sure they were sufficiently polite.
"We're under attack! Order Airstrike."
"Airstrike in bound."
BOOM BOOM BOOM
"Sorry!"
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The big news in Canada right now is that it's been revealed Canadian special forces have been in at least three firefights with ISIS in Iraq. The first Western nation to do so.
ISIS photos appear to show Jordanian pilot burned alive
By Jason Hanna, CNN
Updated 12:09 PM ET, Tue February 3, 2015
(CNN)Pictures published on ISIS's official al Furqan media site apparently show Jordanian military pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh being burned alive while confined in a cage.
ISIS militants seized al-Kassasbeh after his jet crashed in Syria in December. The terror group said it captured him after he ejected from his crashing F-16 during U.S.-led coalition airstrikes near ISIS's de facto capital, Raqqa.
In January, video messages apparently from ISIS said that al-Kassasbeh would be killed if Jordan didn't release Sajida al-Rishawi, a female jihadist imprisoned in Jordan for her role in a 2005 suicide bombing.
The messages said it would release another ISIS hostage, Japanese journalist Kenji Goto, if Jordan released al-Rishawi, but it said nothing about whether it would free al-Kassasbeh.
Jordan in turn demanded al-Kassasbeh be freed as part of the exchange. On Saturday, a video distributed appeared to show Goto's beheaded body.
Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Burning a person alive is about the most uncivilized thing you could do to a human. Things like this bring out the evil in me. I do not even know if we (Americans) are friendly with Jordan ... this makes it not matter. What they have done was so VERY wrong.
He's a veteran, and he wants to go back to fight ISIS.**
O.o
**It doesn't work like that... doesn't it?
It can...The Kurds are looking for a few good bros to give them a helping hand. Apparently a former IDF girl (Canadian-Israeli) is over there kicking ass as we speak.
Hardly, it's too close to home for them to ignore.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
Actually the Jordanians are claiming quite the opposite - they threatened to kill a whole bunch of ISIS related captives if the pilot was harmed. We'll see if they've got the stones to follow through.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
It actually has worked in the past, if you actually follow through with the threat and aren't hampered by a population that has a large chunk who would lose their lunch over the sight of a chicken getting killed.
Well, ISIS is consistently proving that if you are fighting them, you might as well fight to the death. I have no idea why they would want to promote that idea, as it seems counter-productive to their cause and a waste. It will force them to waste resources fighting when people maybe willing to just let them roll in.
I guess they aren't as shrewd as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Julius Ceasar. They knew that your brutality had to be used selectively against your enemies.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
It actually has worked in the past, if you actually follow through with the threat and aren't hampered by a population that has a large chunk who would lose their lunch over the sight of a chicken getting killed.
Student- "My Mom says that violence never solved anything."
Michael Ironsides- "Tell that to the Carthaginians."
Actually the Jordanians are claiming quite the opposite - they threatened to kill a whole bunch of ISIS related captives if the pilot was harmed. We'll see if they've got the stones to follow through.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
It actually has worked in the past, if you actually follow through with the threat and aren't hampered by a population that has a large chunk who would lose their lunch over the sight of a chicken getting killed.
So we'll stop their crazy genocidal rampage with a crazy genocidal rampage of our own?
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
It actually has worked in the past, if you actually follow through with the threat and aren't hampered by a population that has a large chunk who would lose their lunch over the sight of a chicken getting killed.
So we'll stop their crazy genocidal rampage with a crazy genocidal rampage of our own?
Jihadin wrote: Jordan executing AQ prisoners and the female Bomber tomorrow
link?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: CNN is saying that the intelligence community is saying that the Jordanian pilot was killed about a month ago.
And that the negotiations since then has been a total farce, as one person said "we've been playing checkers and they're playing chess".
yea you kind of figured that when Jordan said they want proof of life and the other side suddenly got silent. isn't that a problem for them though tactically? Don't they make a good bit of money off kidnappings? If you kill the victims no one is going to pay you.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
Well, when a population doesn't respond positively to "sunshine and rainbows" other means become necessary.
I wouldn't call for a genocide personally.... But, I would very much like to break from Geneva Conventions for a short bit of time, and publicly destroy some of the extremists, after we've captured them... Put it on video, pictures, EVERY media available and say, "We're not doing this in the name of Allah, as you do. We're not doing this in the name of our god or gods, or in the name of any religion. We're doing this because of the innocent blood you have shed, AND because we can, and you cannot stop us."
whembly wrote: Don't watch the video... it's... really disturbing. (watched it on mute though)
I'm surprised at the production quality...
I watched it as well, personally I found the production quality took away from its horror, it looked, felt, and was too easy to dismiss as a scene from a TV show more than the horrific murder of a prisoner.
The whole thing however feels really weird. They've known for a month this guy was dead and kept trying to negotiate, I'm wondering if his murder wasn't known to all of the ISIS leadership or someone took things into their own hands, because negotiations would seem to be counterproductive at that point if they'd known he was dead for weeks.
Likewise, I'm still not sure what they get out of releasing these videos. I get that terror is a thing, but all this does is galvanize action against them from parties that can truly inflict harm on them, that otherwise might not have been forthcoming.
Vaktathi wrote: Likewise, I'm still not sure what they get out of releasing these videos. I get that terror is a thing, but all this does is galvanize action against them from parties that can truly inflict harm on them, that otherwise might not have been forthcoming.
For those Muslims that feel/perceive to be victimized by the West and their Middle Eastern allies, showing video's that essentially flip the script are very useful recruiting tools. If they were truly as detrimental as you say they were, such video's would've stopped years ago.
Its also for bragging rights within Jihadi circles so as to poach members from other organizations.
I wouldn't call for a genocide personally.... But, I would very much like to break from Geneva Conventions for a short bit of time, and publicly destroy some of the extremists, after we've captured them... Put it on video, pictures, EVERY media available and say, "We're not doing this in the name of Allah, as you do. We're not doing this in the name of our god or gods, or in the name of any religion. We're doing this because of the innocent blood you have shed, AND because we can, and you cannot stop us."
As much as I'd like to see any of those guys suffer a horrifying death, publicly doing so would be counter-beneficial as you'd make martyrs out of them and thus fuel the propaganda machine.
I watched the video and it is sad to see anyone lose their life, especially in such a manner. ISIS are exceptionally well funded for an organisation that is twisting Islam into it's own creed. I just don't understand why their neighbors (Qatar & Saudi) are doing so little to stop them.
It feels like those with the power to do something about this are just waiting for the narrative to playout for whatever nefarious reasons.
He's a veteran, and he wants to go back to fight ISIS.**
O.o
**It doesn't work like that... doesn't it?
It really depends.
First, if he just ETS'ed from the service, technically he could rejoin "IF" the service is accepting prior service. Being as we are drawing down, thats probably not going to happen.
There are organizations that are actively recruiting U.S. and other western nations veterans to help the Kurds fight the ISIS. I know one is called "lions of rojava" (spelling). Many veterans have already joined and are using their training to train the Kurds in all manner of military knowledge.
Lastly there are also private security companies that are recruiting heavily right now, supposedly with the intent of fighting the ISIS, but I don't know much about those companies other then they pay HUGE and recruit only former SAS, Green berets, SEALS etc etc.
Easy E wrote: Well, ISIS is consistently proving that if you are fighting them, you might as well fight to the death. I have no idea why they would want to promote that idea, as it seems counter-productive to their cause and a waste. It will force them to waste resources fighting when people maybe willing to just let them roll in.
I guess they aren't as shrewd as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Julius Ceasar. They knew that your brutality had to be used selectively against your enemies.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Call me a savage or an arsehole ... I would make it a point to coat all of my rounds in pig fat before I put them in the magazine ... and I would explain to the kids in the area that I have done this and to let all of the adults around to know I have done this. War on terror is hell, but you have to strike fear into their heart ... I think that would do it too.
Yes, ruling through terror has really worked well in the past to stop people hating their enemy. It's clearly the best thing possible, and not in any way counterproductive.
It actually has worked in the past, if you actually follow through with the threat and aren't hampered by a population that has a large chunk who would lose their lunch over the sight of a chicken getting killed.
Student- "My Mom says that violence never solved anything."
Michael Ironsides- "Tell that to the Carthaginians."
Yeah, they are definately not a organization I'd like to be captured by.
What makes me sad, is even with the brutality being committed by the ISIS there are STILL people who are advocating "being nice" and making exuses on why they are being crazy I.E. "disenfranchized by the West" I really wish we could just package up all the ISIS sympathizers and apologists and send them to ISIS controlled Syria.
I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
I kind of hope they do, it seems that if there was ever a enemy that should unite western style civilizations, ISIS is it. Although I wonder if the Japanese have the ability to force project enough to actually aid in the fighting.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
I kind of hope they do, it seems that if there was ever a enemy that should unite western style civilizations, ISIS is it. Although I wonder if the Japanese have the ability to force project enough to actually aid in the fighting.
The SDF has planes don't they? If Canada can send some planes figure Japan could. You know....the kind that transform into giant robots or something...
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
I kind of hope they do, it seems that if there was ever a enemy that should unite western style civilizations, ISIS is it. Although I wonder if the Japanese have the ability to force project enough to actually aid in the fighting.
The SDF has planes don't they? If Canada can send some planes figure Japan could. You know....the kind that transform into giant robots or something...
Lolz transformers
Anyway, sure they have planes, but do they have the logisical capabilites to deploy those planes to a nation like Iraq? I mean sure, if they are going to team up with nations already involved, but I imagine that the Japanese armed forces is primarily geared towards defensive capabilites. Force projection and forward deployments may present a challenge.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
I kind of hope they do, it seems that if there was ever a enemy that should unite western style civilizations, ISIS is it. Although I wonder if the Japanese have the ability to force project enough to actually aid in the fighting.
The SDF has planes don't they? If Canada can send some planes figure Japan could. You know....the kind that transform into giant robots or something...
Lolz transformers
Anyway, sure they have planes, but do they have the logisical capabilites to deploy those planes to a nation like Iraq? I mean sure, if they are going to team up with nations already involved, but I imagine that the Japanese armed forces is primarily geared towards defensive capabilites. Force projection and forward deployments may present a challenge.
They've already deployed some troops to Iraq during the war. They would simply have the US help them deploy. They have the capability, there's just no appetite for anything war like in Japan.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I wonder what kind of debates are happening in Japan right now. They are very dedicated to their pacifist ways but some hawks have been stirring up debate on getting more involved militarily in the world the past few years. I wonder if they will use this incident as a point in their favor.
I kind of hope they do, it seems that if there was ever a enemy that should unite western style civilizations, ISIS is it. Although I wonder if the Japanese have the ability to force project enough to actually aid in the fighting.
The SDF has planes don't they? If Canada can send some planes figure Japan could. You know....the kind that transform into giant robots or something...
Lolz transformers
Anyway, sure they have planes, but do they have the logisical capabilites to deploy those planes to a nation like Iraq? I mean sure, if they are going to team up with nations already involved, but I imagine that the Japanese armed forces is primarily geared towards defensive capabilites. Force projection and forward deployments may present a challenge.
They've already deployed some troops to Iraq during the war. They would simply have the US help them deploy. They have the capability, there's just no appetite for anything war like in Japan.
you'd never know from some of the anime, figure they would be riding robots into battle while watching underage girls get raped by tenacle monsters.
The king cut short a visit to the United States to return home following word of Kasaesbeh's death. In a televised statement, he said the pilot's killing was an act of "cowardly terror" by a deviant group that had no relation to Islam.
whembly wrote: Don't watch the video... it's... really disturbing. (watched it on mute though)
I'm surprised at the production quality...
Why? With all these European Muslims travelling abroad to join ISIS, I expect they have at least a few members now with Media degrees etc.
Just a few hours ago some talking head "expert" on Sky News said that at least 5 Muslims a day are travelling to Syria. Don't recall if he just meant France or all Europe though.
Opera wrote: I just don't understand why their neighbors (Qatar & Saudi) are doing so little to stop them.
I don't think either Qatar or Saudi are really in a great position, militarily to go after a camel loose from the farm, much less a terrorist organization.... For some reason I was thinking that Qatar was extremely unstable... but then remembered that that's Yemen
The king cut short a visit to the United States to return home following word of Kasaesbeh's death. In a televised statement, he said the pilot's killing was an act of "cowardly terror" by a deviant group that had no relation to Islam.
Jihadin wrote: One ISIS prisoner and the female AQ Suicide Bomber were executed around 2200 PST
Edit
Last night our time
Reuters wrote:The prisoners were executed in Swaqa prison, 70 km (45 miles) south of Amman, just before dawn, a security source who was familiar with the case said. "They were both calm and showed no emotions and just prayed," the source added without elaborating.
Apparently they were hanged. Should have lit them on fire.
On a more serious note, dealing with enemy like this is a great reason to invest in unmanned systems. It would be nice to have an inventory of either autonomous or remotely piloted ground robots that could go there and do our bidding for us, narrowing terrorists' options significantly for striking back. The IDF dealt with this in Lebanon and Gaza - the enemy was incredibly determined to kidnap one of us for propaganda purposes. If it'd been robots though, big deal! Capture a robot...with any luck it'll just detonate itself.
The king cut short a visit to the United States to return home following word of Kasaesbeh's death. In a televised statement, he said the pilot's killing was an act of "cowardly terror" by a deviant group that had no relation to Islam.
But anyway...commence the Islamic holy sport of killing the feth out of each other, and don't forget to have fun!
The Islamists really aren't true Muslims in the sense of being religious adherents. The entire basis of Islamism comes from the likes of Wahabism and other medieval tribal sects & beliefs.
The problem is, especially in the Middle East itself, no one listens to the moderates. Until the Muslim world as a whole rejects the jihadi mindset, reform the clergy which preaches nothing but intolerance & hate for all non-Muslims and just generally wake-up and smell the fething 21st century, we're going to stay stuck in this idiotic mess.
The king cut short a visit to the United States to return home following word of Kasaesbeh's death. In a televised statement, he said the pilot's killing was an act of "cowardly terror" by a deviant group that had no relation to Islam.
But anyway...commence the Islamic holy sport of killing the feth out of each other, and don't forget to have fun!
The Islamists really aren't true Muslims in the sense of being religious adherents. The entire basis of Islamism comes from the likes of Wahabism and other medieval tribal sects & beliefs.
The problem is, especially in the Middle East itself, no one listens to the moderates. Until the Muslim world as a whole rejects the jihadi mindset, reform the clergy which preaches nothing but intolerance & hate for all non-Muslims and just generally wake-up and smell the fething 21st century, we're going to stay stuck in this idiotic mess.
I'd argue that there are very few true moderates in Islam, according to the Western example of moderates.
In Islam, an extremist wants to cut your head off, while a moderate wants an extremist to cut your head off even though he won't do it himself.
At this point i'm confused. On the one hand I think salting the earth would be good but then you have all those that die by simply being in the region but the other option is to let these guys get more entrenched.
I don't think putting boots on the ground is the answer because feth that mess.
Medium of Death wrote: At this point i'm confused. On the one hand I think salting the earth would be good but then you have all those that die by simply being in the region but the other option is to let these guys get more entrenched.
I don't think putting boots on the ground is the answer because feth that mess.
Damn you empathy! Damn you to hell!
What about 'sploding an EMP bomb* over ISIS' territory? Really put them back into the stone age.
*will never happen due to the fact that the EMP bomb is a "nuke bomb" and any nation using it would automatically be labeled as an international pariah.
Read an interesting article on the BBC about ISIS funding and where it gets its cash from but more importantly where do they get their weapons from? Sure theyve looted a portion from bases/areas and other factions but surely cutting off their weapon supplies is the option?
Medium of Death wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.
Honestly what can be done about these guys now?
Short of nuking them.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.
The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.
Medium of Death wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.
Honestly what can be done about these guys now?
Short of nuking them.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.
The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.
I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.
Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.
Medium of Death wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.
Honestly what can be done about these guys now?
Short of nuking them.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.
The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.
I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.
Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.
Medium of Death wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse than beheading videos it does.
Honestly what can be done about these guys now?
Short of nuking them.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL. Air strikes alone will not win anything. Training local militias and ethnic groups to fight back will not win anything. Pretending it is Iraq's problem will not win anything. Those nations that have professional armies need to commit them to destroying ISIL on the ground.
The problem is that none of the nations that can fight ISIL on the ground want to. The US is tired of ground wars and lengthy occupations (despite both being requirements for victory here) as are our allies. We don't have the will for it, and our leaders don't have the desire to lose their jobs enough to push for it. So instead we leave ourselve nothing but half-measures that will ultimately accomplish feth all.
I don't think it's that easy. The problem isn't ISIS - it's Islam. Everyone is seriously underestimating the extent to which Western Muslims support ISIS. The ones who vehemently oppose ISIS are simply doing so because they're the "other type of Muslims." If there was ever a time to do away with the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's right fething now.
Killing these goons over there is kind of pointless. We need to focus on the problem at home.
Um...
*whembly raises his hand*
What's the problem "at home" again?
Religious Muslims, usually Sunnis, given the fact that Islamic terrorism is far from generation-blind. That is, secular parents who come to the West to build better lives raise children who grow up to be extremists, through no fault of their own mind you. It's about influences, and a male Sunni Muslim teenager who keeps in contact with religious Muslims has the concept of Martyrdom thrown in his face constantly.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.
F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.
15000 out of a population of 1.5 billion hardly equates to a heavy backing for ISIS amongst Western Muslims.
As the articles state most of these are the old disillusioned youth going off to fight for a cause which gives their otherwise mundane lives some sort of meaning.
Exact same thing happened up North during the troubles. Its the worst sort of sweeping generalisation and helps nothing and no one to propagate it.
Like Hussein or Khaddafy? Like Assad? All you're really saying is we need to put dictatorships back in. Where's a colonel with a tank column when you need one.
Like Hussein or Khaddafy? Like Assad? All you're really saying is we need to put dictatorships back in. Where's a colonel with a tank column when you need one.
Let them find their own dictators.
Yah... no man.
MacArthur and allied forces totally changed their culture too. That's the missing ingredient to that peaceful sauce man.
Grey Templar wrote: We don't need to change their entire culture. Just the stone age barbarian aspects of it.
HOW?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I actually agree with Fraz... too much lately for my liking.
However, the problem is they are attacking our allies, and we have to help our allies or why would anyone bother to be our ally?
Turkey is helping ISIS. Are you going to nuke one ally to protect another? Saudi Arabia helps AQ. Are you going to nuke one ally to protect another? Ever since we started developing "allies" we've been in more and more wars.
But you make a fair argument. To what extent does that help go?
To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.
But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.
Frazzled wrote: How did it work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia?
Did we use Nukes? And do we have "a General Douglas A. MacArthur" dude to lead the reconstruction work?
So we nuke them, kill their entire military, occupy them and kill anyone that doesn't get with the program.
Yea that might do it.
So everyone up for that? Show of hands. Not you Whembly. And take off your gas mask. I've told you before you can't eat pizza with a gas mask on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.
But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.
Grey Templar wrote: To be fair, that would be more difficult in this case. The Japanese were more unified than this current foe, who are just as likely to fight themselves as outsiders.
But it would still ultimately be worthwhile in the long run. But nobody has the stomach for what needs to be done.
Why will it be worthwhile?
We avoid WW3 with a future Islamic super power intent on conquering the world and bring stability to a region that has never had it.
Grey Templar wrote: All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.
So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around?
We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.
15000 out of a population of 1.5 billion hardly equates to a heavy backing for ISIS amongst Western Muslims.
As the articles state most of these are the old disillusioned youth going off to fight for a cause which gives their otherwise mundane lives some sort of meaning.
Exact same thing happened up North during the troubles. Its the worst sort of sweeping generalisation and helps nothing and no one to propagate it.
Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.
If you don't think that 15,000 Muslims going to join ISIS isn't indicative of some kind of problem, then I'll chalk this up to White Guilt (tm) or whatever liberal ideology has landed you in this stupor, and say that this interaction is going to be less than fruitful.
Grey Templar wrote: All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.
So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around?
We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.
F that. We have oceans.
Those oceans no longer keep us safe... that's been made plenty clear.
Grey Templar wrote: All it takes is someone to unite them. Things can change quickly, letting them stew indefinitely is playing some dangerous odds.
So occupying all of North Africa, the ME, and Central Asia wouldn't unite them? Does someone have a spare million troops sitting around? We've played the "they're the next Hitler!!!!! game far too many times in my life.
F that. We have oceans.
Those oceans no longer keep us safe... that's been made plenty clear.
Has it? They came on planes. We can stop planes. Going to all out For the Motherland!!!! War with 1.7Bn people seems like a really bad idea. Better to just stop the planes no?
Again don't see a lot of terrorism against China or Switzerland.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.
F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and thanks to the "international" in international terrorism, problems over there have a distressing tendency to make their way over here.
The answer is easy: A coalition of nations (US, Europe, Middle East) need to commit ground forces to battling ISIL.
F that.
1. Every time we go into the Middle East it gets worse.
2. Every time we go for a humnitarian mission in the ME or North Africa it gets worse.
3. I see the same nattering chickenhawks (not you-the guys on TV) saying we have to invade invade invade. These are the same chickenhawks who have never been in a war - usually draft dodgers in college or "deferments" and none of their relatives are in any way in danger. RIch man's war Poor man's fight. F them, hard.
3. Its always been crazy. Let it stay crazy without us.
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, and thanks to the "international" in international terrorism, problems over there have a distressing tendency to make their way over here.
not with good border security they don't.
You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.
Er no, a little extra border security should work vs. the tens to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.
But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.
Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.
Knowwhatimean?
How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".
Deosn't work. They feed on it. It builds their membership. Look at Hamas/Hezzbullah. They need the conflict to survive.
I mean we walloped two contries in the space of a yawn.
whembly wrote: First of all... I wanna make this clear: I'm NOT advocating that we'd nuke them.
But, I wonder that the world feared the US after WW2 when we nuked Japan twice. I mean, truly feared the US.
Almost like, a nerdy kid beat the living gak out the toughest kid on the block, such that the other kids doesn't want to feth with him anymore.
Knowwhatimean?
How do we, or any other Western nation, cultivate a reputation that says, "whoa... we better do what they say".
Deosn't work. They feed on it. It builds their membership. Look at Hamas/Hezzbullah. They need the conflict to survive. I mean we walloped two contries in the space of a yawn.
I go back to this: What have we've done to inspire respect, if not fear?
They're obviously not going to leave us alone, even *if* western allies/influences leave the Middle East (if that were possible).
You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.
Please show me where I said anything in the neighborhood to that. I'll wait.
You're advocating taking over the region Japan style. Well hey thats 1/3 of the world there (and most of the bad parts).
Now that you see what you're really saying you won't own it.
You do realize you're effectively advocating total war and potentially geneocide against 1/3 of the entire world.
Please show me where I said anything in the neighborhood to that. I'll wait.
You're advocating taking over the region Japan style. Well hey thats 1/3 of the world there (and most of the bad parts).
Now that you see what you're really saying you won't own it.
So ISIL is 33% of the Earth's population? Really? When did that happen? When did I say occupy the whole Middle East? Protip: I didn't.
I said we needed a ground war and occupation to elinimate ISIL. I didn't say anything about fighting the whole damn Middle East. Other people have advocated nukes and cultural destruction, I have not. All I said is that eliminating ISIL will require a ground war and occupation of the affected areas. You've somehow inflated that into my calling for a genocidal war of cultures.
Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.
If you don't think that 15,000 Muslims going to join ISIS isn't indicative of some kind of problem, then I'll chalk this up to White Guilt (tm) or whatever liberal ideology has landed you in this stupor, and say that this interaction is going to be less than fruitful.
So we're just breaking down isis support to western muslims now. Ah that backs your premise up much better then.
I have little to no doubt a % do back isis but terms like "plenty" do your argument no justice.
Thanks for the cursory summation of my entire political viewpoint though, youre right this interaction based on your previous views elsewhere is going nowhere. I doth gracefully bow out.
squidhills wrote: I said we needed a ground war and occupation to elinimate ISIL. I didn't say anything about fighting the whole damn Middle East.
And what do you think ends up happening when we initiate "a ground war" and "an occupation". Oh right, you end up fighting the whole damn Middle East when you stir up so much bad blood with the indiginous population that extremists from all over the Middle East and even other parts of the world start streaming into the region to fight you.
Jesus Christ. If insanity is doing the same damn thing and expecting a different result, then what is it called when you spend over a decade, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars doing something that clearly didn't work, and then advocate doing it again?
plastictrees wrote: There are options between "Staying at home" and "Waging a war with a nebulous entity across multiple nations".
Jihadin wrote: Are we, US Military, going below Pre WWII strength?
As long as we actually have an Army that's kind of impossible XD. Pre-WWII US army didn't even have many soldiers, just a bunch of officers (and not enough guns for them all )
Your numbers are way off. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims IN THE WORLD, not in the West. Your litmus test of support is equally ridiculous - plenty of Muslims support the actions of ISIS even if they don't physically put themselves in the conflict. This could be through monetary (donations to "charities") and ideological means.
One of the Pillars of Islam is Zakat. One of the few things Zakat can legitimately be spent on is Jihad and the the support of those who wage jihad. Perhaps the 1.5 billion Muslims paying zakat are enabling the handful of 'bad' Muslims? Even if their dollars/dinar are not directly funding actions they disapprove of, they are freeing up other funds to do so. Most paying zakat have no idea where the funds go/do not go. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that if one of the purposes of zakat is to fund jihad, perhaps zakat helps fund jihad.
There are Islamic insurgents and terrorist groups in more than 20 countries around the globe. A cursory understanding of guerrilla warfare (read your Mao or Che) is going to lead you to understand these movements require support structures which include safe havens among the populations and funding sources.
You want to fight this? You need to get those that truly feel Islam is the religion of Peace (and not of submission) to quit supporting the bad actors. This means a cultural shift and leaders stepping up and refusing to collect zakat and transfer it to those that use it to wage jihad. It means western nations looking hard at how hawala and zakat enable the bad groups and implementing policies to destroy the systems that are used to provide the support. Yes, that is going to hurt some legitimate charities. War is never a kind and charitable endeavor.
With 1.5 billion folks, there are clearly enough who at least tacitly approve of the current situation, other wise the support required would not be possible.
Jihadin wrote: Are we, US Military, going below Pre WWII strength?
As long as we actually have an Army that's kind of impossible XD. Pre-WWII US army didn't even have many soldiers, just a bunch of officers (and not enough guns for them all )
The U.S. was ranked about 19th militarily in the world at that time. Romania and Portugal were both in possession of bigger militaries.
Putin just having his way with Ukraine. Since we have all this excess vehicles and equipment we can supply Ukraine military with that hardware and watch that conflict escalate Hell we're even withdrawing/bringing home/closing bases in Germany.
There is no defense they are already all around you... you seen how they all freaked out about the new pic right after one of theirs shot up the french comic strip. They are a highly aggressive highly volatile people.
Relapse wrote: One wonders where things are headed when the King of Jordan begins quoting Clint Eastwood from "Unforgiven" as he talks about vengeance.
Relapse wrote: One wonders where things are headed when the King of Jordan begins quoting Clint Eastwood from "Unforgiven" as he talks about vengeance.
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
The King is a super interesting guy, US & UK educated, great military background, huge Trekkie (with a small part in Voyager), been on the Daily Show, has Islamic religious credibility as the Jordanian royal family claims to descend from Muhmmad but leads probably the most westernized state in the middle east along with Turkey aside from Israel, etc
The King is a super interesting guy, US & UK educated, great military background, huge Trekkie (with a small part in Voyager), been on the Daily Show, has Islamic religious credibility as the Jordanian royal family claims to descend from Muhmmad but leads probably the most westernized state in the middle east along with Turkey aside from Israel, etc
Also he has a super hot wife.
I'm liking him more and more.
Heres hoping that Jordan will lead the fight.
Ultimately the only people who can deal with the root causes of Islamic extremism are "moderate" Muslims.
Indeed, hopefully this incident galvanizes others in the region to action. It would appear popular opinion in Jordan now is extremely behind military action.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My Jordanian friend suggests that the reports of King Abdullah personally leading a strike on Daesh are... exaggerated to say the least.
I guess that is true. He is probably just personally commanding units on the frontlines rather than actually hopping in a fighter jet and bombing stuff in person. He would be a fool if he put himself at risk like that. There is a clear reason kings and other leaders no longer lead from the front nowadays (unless you are Motorola, but he is crazy) If he did, he would totally beat Putin as the most badass world leader tough.
(Reuters) - Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves, and killing other youth, including by crucifixion or burying them alive, a United Nations watchdog said on Wednesday.
Iraqi boys aged under 18 are increasingly being used by the militant group as suicide bombers, bomb makers, informants or human shields to protect facilities against U.S.-led air strikes, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child said.
"We are really deeply concerned at torture and murder of those children, especially those belonging to minorities, but not only from minorities," committee expert Renate Winter told a news briefing. "The scope of the problem is huge."
Children from the Yazidi sect or Christian communities, but also Shi'ites and Sunnis, have been victims, she said.
"We have had reports of children, especially children who are mentally challenged, who have been used as suicide bombers, most probably without them even understanding," Winter told Reuters. "There was a video placed (online) that showed children at a very young age, approximately eight years of age and younger, to be trained already to become child soldiers."
Islamic State is a breakaway al Qaeda group that declared an Islamic caliphate across parts of Syria and Iraq last summer. It has killed thousands and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes, in what the United Nations has called a reign of terror.
On Tuesday, the group, which is also known as ISIL, released a video showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive.
The U.N. body, which reviewed Iraq's record for the first time since 1998, denounced "the systematic killing of children belonging to religious and ethnic minorities by the so-called ISIL, including several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive".
A large number of children have been killed or badly wounded during air strikes or shelling by Iraqi security forces, while others had died of "dehydration, starvation and heat", it said.
ISIL has committed "systematic sexual violence", including "the abduction and sexual enslavement of children", it said.
"Children of minorities have been captured in many places... sold in the market place with tags, price tags on them, they have been sold as slaves," Winter said, giving no details.
The 18 independent experts who worked on the report called on Iraqi authorities to take all necessary measures to "rescue children" under the control of Islamic State and to prosecute perpetrators of crimes.
"There is a duty of a state to protect all its children. The point is just how are they going to do that in such a situation?", Winter said.
(Additional reporting by Marina Depetris; Editing by Crispian Balmer)
They’re having the time of their lives. This kind of violence is captivating, exhilarating and thrilling to these guys. It’s never going to get better for them than this,” Peters said. “They have power now. They can exert their will over others.
This was better than the best sex they’ve ever had, and it’s easier on the goats!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My Jordanian friend suggests that the reports of King Abdullah personally leading a strike on Daesh are... exaggerated to say the least.
I guess that is true. He is probably just personally commanding units on the frontlines rather than actually hopping in a fighter jet and bombing stuff in person. He would be a fool if he put himself at risk like that. There is a clear reason kings and other leaders no longer lead from the front nowadays (unless you are Motorola, but he is crazy)
If he did, he would totally beat Putin as the most badass world leader tough.
According to reports I am wrong, as is my friend and His Majesty has personally engaged the enemy however at least once blog has an Arabic translation that is apparently the Jordanian government publicly denying King Abdullah will be personally stomping terrorist skulls in (much to his own disappointment I'm sure)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: My Jordanian friend suggests that the reports of King Abdullah personally leading a strike on Daesh are... exaggerated to say the least.
I guess that is true. He is probably just personally commanding units on the frontlines rather than actually hopping in a fighter jet and bombing stuff in person. He would be a fool if he put himself at risk like that. There is a clear reason kings and other leaders no longer lead from the front nowadays (unless you are Motorola, but he is crazy)
If he did, he would totally beat Putin as the most badass world leader tough.
According to reports I am wrong, as is my friend and His Majesty has personally engaged the enemy however at least once blog has an Arabic translation that is apparently the Jordanian government publicly denying King Abdullah will be personally stomping terrorist skulls in (much to his own disappointment I'm sure)
Hordini wrote: It's subsidized defense for western Europe.
We do not need that, we have our own armies. And nukes. Enough nukes. Who needs an army for defense when you have nukes? You just nuke your invader's country off the surface of the Earth.
Hordini wrote: It's subsidized defense for western Europe.
We do not need that, we have our own armies. And nukes. Enough nukes. Who needs an army for defense when you have nukes? You just nuke your invader's country off the surface of the Earth.
Britain and France have nukes. None of the other European nations have nukes (IIRC).
If Putin wanted to drive into Germany tomorrow, you would do nothing about it.
Frazzled wrote: Britain and France have nukes. None of the other European nations have nukes (IIRC).
If Putin wanted to drive into Germany tomorrow, you would do nothing about it.
Do you actually believe that? The U.K. and France just letting Russia invade Germany? And why would Russia do that anyway?
), whereas Kuwait was somewhere between ambivalent and friendly with us, til Saddam invaded them.
