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.

Well. Yes. If they're killing people here and over there, you should look to your own first. It's only common sense.

Sorry if you find me caring more about people I share culture with more than people I don't, many of whom most likely would love to kill me, to be offensive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well. Yes. If they're killing people here and over there, you should look to your own first. It's only common sense.

Sorry if you find me caring more about people I share culture with more than people I don't, many of whom most likely would love to kill me, to be offensive.

Sounds like the rhetoric ISIL and other extremists use.

Surely you can see that civilian casualties caused by western intervention would lead to.....extremism and terrorist attacks against 'your own'?

There is no simple solution to the problems of extremism, especially that coming from Islamic countries.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorry if you find me caring more about people I share culture with more than people I don't, many of whom most likely would love to kill me, to be offensive.

Well, I'm sure you are 100% fine with the fact I would care more about some of those Syrians than I care about you and I would gladly sacrifice you so they could leave. So it's alright! No offense either way.

Globalism v Tribalism.

And rudeness abounding with it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or we could drop the ridiculous revenge fantasies and stop entertaining the notion that we should be OK with killing thousands of civilians because someone wants to do something..

He's just being consistent on a larger scale.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
We didn't let potential civilian casualties stop us from taking out Nazi Germany. Why should these Islamic radicals be treated any differently? Do what it takes to destroy them. If you can reduce unnecessary casualties then go for it, but the job has to be done. We the west need to stop being softies and wimps.

So yes, we should go in and take out any and all radical Islamic factions with extreme prejudice and overwhelming force. And when the next one pops up, do it again. It's quite clear that taking a hands off approach to radical Islam doesn't work. And as you say, the civilians over there seem appreciative of getting rid of ISIS.

What you're really asking for is an undertaking that is incredibly massive - we're talking about a multi-country occupation that would last 30 or 40 years. That's what it would cost. Do you think any American president could sell that? 30 or 40 years of troops being blown up by roadside bombs and IEDs and so on, and so forth? At a cost of literally trillions of dollars, for a payoff of nothing particularly tangible?

And of course that's without getting into the fact that there is Russian involvement in one of the key countries that would make it impossible to do what you're suggesting, and with ISIL, unlike Nazi Germany, there isn't a fixed command structure, and they don't all wear uniforms, the actual combat itself will actually strengthen their numbers, and jfc, this all seems really self evident.

What you're really asking, it seems, is why no one has yet waved a magic wand to have made this problem go away yet.

 Grey Templar wrote:
We are the one's who have enabled terrorists to make hostage taking and hiding among civilians an effective tactic. If it stops being effective, they'll stop doing it.

Wipe out all the civilians then, that'll leave them nowhere to hide. And handle hostage situations like the Russians do, make sure to kill at least ten times more hostages than actual terrorists. That'll show them! We value life less than you do so stop threatening us with loss of life!

Or don't. The drone strikes carried out by two drones, one coming in 5-10-15 minutes later to "make sure", already send this message. The second strike means anyone trying to rescue survivors and put out fires might also get killed. That's pretty much telling people that you will kill anyone near a suspected terrorist, no matter if they're aiding him for free, for money or at gunpoint, not to mention the neighbors who might not even know he's there.

The best way to stop ideas from spreading, is with better ideas.

I doubt killing "them" all is an idea that will be persuasive to the "them" no matter what idea you are battling.

Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The best way to stop ideas from spreading, is with better ideas.

I doubt killing "them" all is an idea that will be persuasive to the "them" no matter what idea you are battling.

Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.

Here is a link: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/iran-mastermind-tehran-attacks-killed-170610193344217.html

 djones520 wrote:
Globalism v Tribalism.

Can be globalist and still tribalist if your “tribe” is present all around the world.

 Easy E wrote:
I doubt killing "them" all is an idea that will be persuasive to the "them" no matter what idea you are battling.

Are you saying genocide is not a great thing that we should be cheering? Woah incredible stuff really!

 Easy E wrote:
The best way to stop ideas from spreading, is with better ideas.

I doubt killing "them" all is an idea that will be persuasive to the "them" no matter what idea you are battling.

Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The best way to stop ideas from spreading, is with better ideas.

I doubt killing "them" all is an idea that will be persuasive to the "them" no matter what idea you are battling.

Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.

Here is a link: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/iran-mastermind-tehran-attacks-killed-170610193344217.html

FSB?.
Russia are a closer nation..

That or someone like Mossad hates terrorists more than Iran right now.

 Easy E wrote:
Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.

Mossad?

Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Edit: Iran is now claiming that they have killed the mastermind of the attack witht eh help of a foreign intelligence agency that has gone unnamed.

Mossad?

As one of regions premier intelligence agencies.. Plus most Arab nations would never admit they used there info publicly...

 feeder wrote:
Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

Clearly the Nazis were PC softies who were far too left-wing for their own good.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

Clearly the Nazis were PC softies who were far too left-wing for their own good.

Well they had "Socialism" right in their name, so yah.... /s

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

Clearly the Nazis were PC softies who were far too left-wing for their own good.

We so not need to go full on SS but also lets say we find the house of the Raqqa defense commander. However the target I with his wife, mate a kid.

Now do you kill the guy knowing this is your solid shot to get a clear KIA or do you hold off as civilians but know he could cause death pth others allied to you.

There's a hard question that the military have to answer.

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

Clearly the Nazis were PC softies who were far too left-wing for their own good.

We so not need to go full on SS but also lets say we find the house of the Raqqa defense commander. However the target I with his wife, mate a kid.

Now do you kill the guy knowing this is your solid shot to get a clear KIA or do you hold off as civilians but know he could cause death pth others allied to you.

There's a hard question that the military have to answer.

Of course, but the answer isn't "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out".

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Ask the Nazis how they stopped the various Occupied Resistances how well that "extreme prejudice" worked out.

Clearly the Nazis were PC softies who were far too left-wing for their own good.

We so not need to go full on SS but also lets say we find the house of the Raqqa defense commander. However the target I with his wife, mate a kid.

Now do you kill the guy knowing this is your solid shot to get a clear KIA or do you hold off as civilians but know he could cause death pth others allied to you.

There's a hard question that the military have to answer.

Replace "Raqqa defense commander" with "suspected terrorist" and they have already answered it, and the answer is "Drone strike, followed by a follow up drone strike later"

It's not like we are sitting around wringing our hands and asking Daesh nicely to stop. The West is already dropping a feth ton of munitions in all kinds of places all over the world.

At one point the US was being so soft and politically correct in dealing with ISIL that we were literally running out of bombs to drop.

But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

 Ouze wrote:
At one point the US was being so soft and politically correct in dealing with ISIL that we were literally running out of bombs to drop.

But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

True.
It sounds harsh but with nature off fight, IS, civilians will get killed.
I've just seen others who seem to think that it cab be done perfectly cleanly and precisely.

It ain't.

Marines might have been firing WP recently at them reportedly.
So yeah, US is taking the fight seriously.