Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
Damn. This thread got stupid while I was buying tickets for Motley Crue/Alice Cooper tickets.

Thats what happens when you get tickets to guys who wear makeup.

Frazz, if there's one thing I've learned in all my years on this Earth, it's this: America can do no right in the Middle East. If it attacks somebody, whatever the reason, it's the bad guy. If it helps somebody, they resent you for it, and you're still the bad guy. You guys can never win. If you gave the Middle East the cure for cancer, they'd complain it was too expensive. America is the dominant power on this planet, and rightly or wrongly, they get the blame for a lot of things (sometimes justified in my view).

And the most tragic thing of all, is this: America doesn't need to lose soldiers or money in the Middle east. All they had to do was look at any history book about the British in the Middle east and avoid making those same mistakes. Did the USA do that? I think we know the answer to that one.

Yep better to stay out.

Why did the Brits leave by the way?
EDIT Never mind, Wiki has provided illumination.

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed.

BS! The west has other enemies, such as Iran and North Korea, both have real WMDs and nuclear programs, why no regime change there? Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked because they were soft targets, no airforce, no nukes, no missiles, and no powerful allies. How convenient that the bad guys are holding up there -- oh wait where was Bin Laden hiding again?

 Frazzled wrote:
Why did the Brits leave by the way?

We didn't know there was oil there...

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep better to stay out.

Why did the Brits leave by the way?

Well, there was a great war against this mad guy with a moustache and dodgy fringe. Britain was on the winning side, but bankrupted itself in the process. Britain then tried to re-assert itself in the Middle east by grabbing the Suez canal from the Egyptians, but some pesky colonists from across the great Atlantic pond, who had loads of money, a bigger army, wiener dogs, prestzels and a President with a German name (which really confused us ) said get the hell out of there!

People with Nukes are actually slightly less of a threat because we also have nukes. If they use a nuke, we will obliterate them in Nuclear fire.

If you don't have nukes you can actually attack a nuclear power and not need to fear nuclear retaliation.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed.

BS! The west has other enemies, such as Iran and North Korea, both have real WMDs and nuclear programs, why no regime change there? Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked because they were soft targets, no airforce, no nukes, no missiles, and no powerful allies. How convenient that the bad guys are holding up there -- oh wait where was Bin Laden hiding again?

I was referring to Pakistan.
Afghanistan was attacked because AQ was there and they wouldn't give them up.

I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep better to stay out.

Why did the Brits leave by the way?

Well, there was a great war against this mad guy with a moustache and dodgy fringe. Britain was on the winning side, but bankrupted itself in the process. Britain then tried to re-assert itself in the Middle east by grabbing the Suez canal from the Egyptians, but some pesky colonists from across the great Atlantic pond, who had loads of money, a bigger army, wiener dogs, prestzels and a President with a German name (which really confused us ) said get the hell out of there!

Thats interesting. Thanks

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:

A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.

Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.

Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.

Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.

Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.

And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People with Nukes are actually slightly less of a threat because we also have nukes. If they use a nuke, we will obliterate them in Nuclear fire.

If you don't have nukes you can actually attack a nuclear power and not need to fear nuclear retaliation.

N. Korea and (maybe Iran) are actually more likely to use that option. To deal with them, we wouldn't need to use that option, and we would win. They'd be more likely to push that button as a last resort type of thing. Put some Taepo Dong's into Tokyo and Seoul. Sure we may be going down, but we're going to take as many with us.

That's the problem with isolated states like that. When they have no friends, they're more likely to want to burn it all down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:

A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.

Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.

Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.

Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.

Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.

And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.

No. Attacking other armed forces is never "cowardly". A sniper may not be presenting a clear target to fire back at, but the simple fact of the matter is that those they are attacking can still fire back.

What is cowardly is attacking the unarmed, ie civilian population and the like.

 skyth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:

A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.

Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.

Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.

Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.

Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.

And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.

Do you really wanna know why it's not cowardly?

Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible... and keep on killing them until there's none left.

And you're wrong... soliders ARE warriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

No. Attacking other armed forces is never "cowardly". A sniper may not be presenting a clear target to fire back at, but the simple fact of the matter is that those they are attacking can still fire back.

What is cowardly is attacking the unarmed, ie civilian population and the like.

^What he said.

I feel bad now. There was one shooter and 40 plus grunts trying our damndest to kill him

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People with Nukes are actually slightly less of a threat because we also have nukes. If they use a nuke, we will obliterate them in Nuclear fire.

If you don't have nukes you can actually attack a nuclear power and not need to fear nuclear retaliation.

N. Korea and (maybe Iran) are actually more likely to use that option. To deal with them, we wouldn't need to use that option, and we would win. They'd be more likely to push that button as a last resort type of thing. Put some Taepo Dong's into Tokyo and Seoul. Sure we may be going down, but we're going to take as many with us.

That's the problem with isolated states like that. When they have no friends, they're more likely to want to burn it all down.

True, they are wild cards. Although I would be more worried about them giving bombs to terrorists than using it themselves directly. At least with Iran the bigger threat is them giving terrorists the materials to make a dirty bomb.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?

I'm just pointing out what nonsense "fighting for freedom" is, since we only seem to be attacking people that aren't enough of a threat to fight back. All things considered I think invading NK would be an even worse idea than invading Iraq.

 whembly wrote:
Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.

Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.

Suicide missions are a legitimate tactic. As I said a few posts up, what makes it a cowardly one or not, is the method in which it is enacted.

Lets look at 9/11.

Where do you think all of the furor over the attack took place? New York, or DC?

New York of course. Because they attacked civilian targets there. The Pentagon, while tragic, was less so because the targets were uniformed personnel who even though were not serving on the front line at that time, were still people who lived a life of that risk.

How you differentiate your targets determines who you are.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we'd love regime change in Iran and NK. Not sure what you're saying. DO you want us to attack NK? I thought we were bad. We're not bad now?

I'm just pointing out what nonsense "fighting for freedom" is, since we only seem to be attacking people that aren't enough of a threat to fight back. All things considered I think invading NK would be an even worse idea than invading Iraq.

 whembly wrote:
Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible.

Which would imply that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. I don't know why it is such a sore point for comparisons on here, is it just the terrorist connotations? Everyone thought it heroic at the end of Independence Day when an American flies his plane into the enemy HQ. I guess it's all about perspective.

I've never said we're fighting for freedom. I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.

 djones520 wrote:
Suicide missions are a legitimate tactic. As I said a few posts up, what makes it a cowardly one or not, is the method in which it is enacted.

Lets look at 9/11.

Where do you think all of the furor over the attack took place? New York, or DC?

New York of course. Because they attacked civilian targets there. The Pentagon, while tragic, was less so because the targets were uniformed personnel who even though were not serving on the front line at that time, were still people who lived a life of that risk.

How you differentiate your targets determines who you are.

Well put.

I'd like to add that it also depends on just how much the bomber knows about his mission. Muslims often turn women, children, and male civilians into unwilling suicide bombers by telling them to drive a car or carry a package to a specific area. They are never told that the "package" will be remotely detonated. A while back, terrorists in Gaza strapped a bomb to a slowed kid and sent him to die. Really sick stuff.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:

A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.

Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.

Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.

Yep. Thus my comparison of the two.

Also, there's a pretty simple argument...
1) Attacking from ambush is a cowardly tactic.
2) Snipers attack from ambush.
Therefore, snipers use cowardly tactics.

And I appreciate that we use cowardly tactics. I want us to win and our people to come back home intact. I appreciate that we have soldiers not warriors.

Do you really wanna know why it's not cowardly?

Because War™ is hell and the only way to win War™ is to kill the enemy by any measures as possible... and keep on killing them until there's none left.

Non sequitor. That a tactic is useful has no bearing as to whether it is a cowardly tactic or not. I think those tactics should be used. I am, however, under no illusion that they are honorable tactics.

And you're wrong... soliders ARE warriors.

There is a differentiation between the two. Soldiers are part of a unit and fight for a team. A warrior fights more for personal glory.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've never said we're fighting for freedom.

No, H.B.M.C. brought it up with the often posed "solders are away defending the freedom of the people who criticize them", some people disagree, that is what we have been talking about in this thread. What are you talking about?

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.

That's a bit hostile! I thought we were buddies? I even came round to shoot beer cans and stroke your wiener dog

 skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

Just drop it. Please. You're just digging deeper.

I'm trying to figure out what time frame of warrior ethos is being applied here...

No, H.B.M.C. brought it up with the often posed "solders are away defending the freedom of the people who criticize them", some people disagree, that is what we have been talking about in this thread. What are you talking about?

Thats your problem right there. He's Aussie. When an Aussie says freedom they mean "I'd like just one day of not worrying that some killer spider is going to bite me in the manbits while on the crapper."

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't give a flying feth for your freedom.

That's a bit hostile! I thought we were buddies? I even came round to shoot beer cans and stroke your wiener dog

*shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.

If a sniper targets unarmed civillians, he's scum. If a suicide bomber targets unarmed civillians he's also scum. The method of killing isn't what makes it wrong, it's who they kill.

FWIW I'm sure snipers cause far less collateral damage, which generally means they are "better". And I know my brother has told me that several times his position and vantage was able to avert violence before it happened- warning that what was thought to be some insurgents setting up a mortar was actually some locals digging a well, for example. But my brother also said he was never really that worried when he was in Afghanistan because the Taliban were poorly trained and equipped, so he was confident they weren't a serious threat to him and his unit- outranged, out trained and out gunned.

Of course that's not to say going to war isn't more dangerous than the average job. And his experience might not be representative. He also didn't work alone but in a small team- I think from what he said working alone is unlikely.

 Da Boss wrote:
*shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.

If a sniper targets unarmed civillians, he's scum. If a suicide bomber targets unarmed civillians he's also scum. The method of killing isn't what makes it wrong, it's who they kill.

FWIW I'm sure snipers cause far less collateral damage, which generally means they are "better". And I know my brother has told me that several times his position and vantage was able to avert violence before it happened- warning that what was thought to be some insurgents setting up a mortar was actually some locals digging a well, for example. But my brother also said he was never really that worried when he was in Afghanistan because the Taliban were poorly trained and equipped, so he was confident they weren't a serious threat to him and his unit- outranged, out trained and out gunned.

Of course that's not to say going to war isn't more dangerous than the average job. And his experience might not be representative. He also didn't work alone but in a small team- I think from what he said working alone is unlikely.

Always have a spotter/recorder with the shooter

I fething hate that fat feth.

 Smacks wrote:
And there are more radical groups and fighters now as a reaction to the wars than there were before.

Except there aren't. The only way to even think there are is to have not watched any of the news from the region prior to 9/11. Al-Qaeda already existed. The Taliban already existed. Kurdish insurgents already existed. Hezbollah. Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood. PLO/PNA/Fatah. Armenian insurgents. All existed long before the war on terror. Everyone who is now ISIS already existed as members of other organizations. The thing that changed is we stirred the pot. We broke Al-Qaeda when we killed the man holding it together, forced the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and created an opening for ISIS to form, but all those insurgents and radicals didn't spring up from the wood work in 2001 as if they never existed prior.

Over a million people died as a direct result of us destabilizing the region.

Yes. What with Iran and Iraq staring at each other down the ends of gun barrels, tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees flooding surrounding states from the P/I conflict, the P/I conflict itself, increasing costs of food, brutal dictatorships, and radical terrorist organizations with political offices, the Middle East was a picture of stability and nothing was ever going to blow that powder keg up. Nope. Nothing at all.

The region was already unstable. We didn't suddenly make it unstable we just disrupted the very pin hair balance that was going to break eventually even if we did nothing.

So again, lord of hats is just talking out of his 'hat' as usual.

And you're talking out of hindsight (the hero of the modern age) and ignorance. If it makes you feel better to pretend the world is run by farseers who can always know exactly how things will turn out before hand, go ahead, but you're due for lots of disappointment.

My argument is that rolling troops into the middle-east has done feth-all to increase our freedom or safety,

That's naive. Removal of the Taliban from control in Afghanistan most certainly increased our security. Iraq did not, though at the time it certainly looked like it would improve the stability of the region because everyone was terrified of another Iran-Iraq war and boy did Iran and Iraq want to have another war. Of the two, Iraq was the easier to neutralize and most of the Mid-East was pretty happy about that (especially the Saudis) cause nobody in the Mid East liked having Saddam as a neighbor.

There was already widespread anti-West sentiment in the Mid East. Governments in that region run themselves by stoking anti-West sentiment (they like taking our money in the back door though). Saying we made it worse is like saying we took a poo in a portapotty. It's already full of poo, adding more ain't making much difference. Our continued aggressive relationship with Iran over it's nuclear program and the inability to resolve the Palestine/Israel conflict have by far done more damage to relations between the Mid-East and west than any wars we've fought in the last 10 years. 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran probably played a bigger role in increasing radicalization in the Mid East than us.

and may actually have [url=http://www.alternet.org/story/48620/the_war_on_terror_is_the_leading_cause_of_terrorism]

So the war on terror is so disastrous that it caused a time paradox and created all the terrorist attacks that happened before the war on terror got started*. Most of the organizations we see today have been around for a long time (many have changed their names naturally). ISIS isn't even new. ISIS is just one end of Al-Qaeda that's gone balls to the walls now that Al-Qaeda has gone the way of the Beatles.

Your ignorance is showing.

*And that's just the Mid East and Europe. Go check out Chechnya, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia sometime. Here's a convenient list, and look! Every year after 1970 has it's own damn page! But don't let that mislead you. Terrorism has been a staple of Middle Eastern politics and governance since the Crusades. What else happened in the 1970s? Oh right! The 24/7 news cycle! Well ain't that just convenient! Now what makes more sense. That terrorism starts rising dramatically because of the war on terror, or that news reports about terrorism start rising dramatically because there is a war on terror and war is news?

All while our governments erode our freedoms from within with anti-terror laws. Which is the real threat.

Don't disagree.

 LordofHats wrote:
Everyone who is now ISIS already existed as members of other organizations.

That's obviously not true. Jihadi John is thought to be in his mid 20s, in 2001 he would have been about 10. New people are being radicalized and recruited all the time. To say that it is all the same people for the last 15 years is actually stupid.

Michael Adebowale one of the terrorists who killed Lee Rigby in London last year was 22. Are you going to tell me he was an insurgent during the 90s?

After the killing, here are some of the statements they made about the attack:

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers ... by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? … when you drop a bomb do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? … Through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us … I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same ...Tell them to bring your troops back … leave our lands and you will live in peace."

This attack was clearly motivated as revenge for western military operations in the middle east. The wars are a rallying cry for extremists to recruit more young people, and recruitment is on the rise.

 LordofHats wrote:
The region was already unstable. We didn't suddenly make it unstable we just disrupted the very pin hair balance that was going to break eventually even if we did nothing.

Thus provoking even more hate from extremists, and making ourselves a target for the kind of revenge attacks I mentioned above.

 LordofHats wrote:
And you're talking out of hindsight (the hero of the modern age) and ignorance.

Actually I'm not. I opposed the war back in 2002 when it was winding up. And I distinctly recall a conversation at university where I fairly accurately predicted that we would depose Saddam, destabilize the country, get bogged down in peacekeeping, which would eventually lead to the usual "why are our troops over there getting killed?", at which point we would pull-out and leave the country on the brink of civil war.

I suppose it was kind of hindsight since I had Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and every other place where we've intervened and then left the place fethed, from which to draw inspiration, but I definitely thought of it before it happened. A lot of other people disagreed with the war too, there were protests, it was a very unpopular invasion. So I'm afraid you're wrong, not hindsight at all.

There was already widespread anti-West sentiment in the Mid East.

And you're arguing that the wars have made that better? Because I think they have clearly exasperated that particular problem.

 Smacks wrote:
Michael Adebowale one of the terrorists who killed Lee Rigby in London last year was 22. Are you going to tell me he was an insurgent during the 90s?

I'm saying insurgents don't pop up out of thin air. The current War on Terror is just the latest in centuries of western influence in the Middle East. The organizations and groups (what I mean by terrorists in my post) we face today already existed in some way long before the War on Terror started.

This attack was clearly motivated as revenge for western military operations in the middle east.

And before that it was Colonialism. Basically the only way to avoid their ire is to be isolationist (which in this modern age of globalism is suicidal) and even then, it's really easy for some dictator to stand up to the local mob and say "It's not my fault your life sucks. Blame those westerns for sabotaging us because they're afraid of our awesomeness and hate our religion!"

Thus provoking even more hate from extremists, and making ourselves a target for the kind of revenge attacks I mentioned above.

We were already targets for attack. I see you didn't even glimpse half the links I gave. If you look back the US was on the receiving end of some serious terrorist action from the Mid East once every five or six years since 1980 up to 2001. Terrorists there have been terrorizing each other on a weekly basis for ages. We didn't create them so much as got more of their attention and started paying much more attention to them.

I distinctly recall a conversation at university where I accurately predicted that we would dispose Saddam, destabilize the country, get bogged down in peacekeeping, which would eventually lead to the usual "why are our troops over there getting killed?", at which point we would pull-out and leave the country on the brink of civil war.

Except we didn't. We masterfully managed to avoid Iraq spiraling into a serious civil war. ISIS isn't a civil war in any classic sense. It's an invasion by an force that goes beyond Iraq's borders and nobody saw it coming. You're twisting the very valid and predictable concerns that were held at the onset of everything to pretend that ISIS was somehow a forseable outcome. It wasn't. That's why I call it hindsight.

I suppose it was kind of hindsight since I had Vietnam, Korea, Somalia and every other place where we've intervened and then left the place fethed, from which to draw inspiration

We are pretty good at it (I wouldn't include Somalia though, we left that one in pretty much the same state we found it) I fully expected Iraq (and Afghanistan) to become cluster feths because of course we'd just cop out in the end, but I didn't expect it to turn out this way. Arab Spring was a serious wild card that through a wrench in everything. Popular uprisings have a tendency of popping up when people least expect them.

And you're arguing that the wars have made that better?

I'm arguing its so bad it can't really be made worse. When someone hates you so much they go across a 3000 mile ocean to crash planes into buildings, there's not really anyway for it to get worse. That's pretty much maximum worseness.

 Da Boss wrote:
*shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.

You are equating someone who uses a precision weapon to eliminate a target to someone who uses explosives in an indiscriminate manner (and often civilian filled area).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
*shrug*
I can see the comparison between a sniper and a suicide bomber. Not sure why you can't, it's an obvious one.

You are equating someone who uses a precision weapon to eliminate a target to someone who uses explosives in an indiscriminate manner (and often civilian filled area).

By definition either one can do both.

A sniper could easily be someone who indiscriminately kills civilians and a suicide bomber could use precision to eliminate a specific target.

"Sniper" and "suicide bomber" is just a role, neither of which is inherently good or bad. A sniper could be the soldier doing what a soldier does, or it can be the bad guy just randomly killing people for the heck of it. A suicide bomber can be the terrorist blowing up innocent people at the market, or it could be the wounded US service member that tells his buddies to go on and holds on to all the grenades ready to pull the pin as soon as the bad guys come by to blow himself up as well as them.

How each term is perceived will depend on personal experiences.

They made an attempt to blow up twin Towers in 1993

Edit

Twin Towers.