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.

 dogma wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

There's also the bigger issue that Islamists are forever using their civilian populations as human shields for their fighters, leaders & weapon stores, in the hopes that either we'll be too reluctant to strike at them, (for fear of the collateral civilian tolls), and/or else just use their own inhuman tactics to further blame the big bad West as a bunch of baby-killing devils.

Bear in mind that "civilian" is a Western concept, and that many terrorists could be correctly classified as "civilians".

 CptJake wrote:

It is a terrible thing, but a true thing, the party responsible for those deaths would be the party using the structure and the civilians as cover. The laws of war are pretty clear on that.

I'm pretty sure civilian casualties are on the head of the attacker under international law.

Wrong.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOW-Deskbook-2011.pdf lays out the US perspective based on international law.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If I set up a TOC/leadership node in a Mosque courtyard or inside a school building I turn that structure into a legitimate target. It works that way for Da'Ish too.

Which is fine, as long you don't blow it up whilst its full of worshipers or school children. The building is irrelevant. The potential for civilian deaths is not.

It is a terrible thing, but a true thing, the party responsible for those deaths would be the party using the structure and the civilians as cover. The laws of war are pretty clear on that.

That doesn't absolve the people dropping the bomb of responsibility for dropping that bomb in the full knowledge that non combatants would die as a result.

It sure as hell does. The attacker must attempt to minimize collateral damage/civilian casualties, but if it is a legitimate target (in this case a Da'Ish command node) it can be hit, even if collateral damage is gonna happen.

But again, the point is:

We DO attempt to minimize civilian casualties, and have indeed let legitimate targets go we did not have to as a result. And that IS different from Da'Ish specifically targeting civilians.

 CptJake wrote:

Wrong.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOW-Deskbook-2011.pdf lays out the US perspective based on international law.

It would be nice if you quoted the element of that pdf which disproved my point.

Anyway looks like ISIS is starting to get a foothold in Libya now. I guess sadly we have now learnt that countries in the Middle East do actually need iron-fisted dictators or they will immediately go to Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Wrong.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOW-Deskbook-2011.pdf lays out the US perspective based on international law.

It would be nice if you quoted the element of that pdf which disproved my point.

It would have been nice if you provided even some reference to back up your point.

But you didn't.

I did, read it/search through it/ ignore it. I could care less.

 CptJake wrote:

It would have been nice if you provided even some reference to back up your point.

But you didn't.

No, I didn't. I posted on the basis of wit, and said as much.

It is also worth noting that the US interpretation of I-Law is not I-Law.

 CptJake wrote:

I did, read it/search through it/ ignore it. I could care less.

I will read it, but it seems that you care a great deal.

Edit: I just finished reading the 269 page text wall you dropped on me, and did not find a single instance in which the blame for civilian casualties would be placed on the defending party. Rather the document discusses instances in which civilian casualties would be considered acceptable, and the specific nature of a civilian. It does not support your point, or detract from mine.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Anyway looks like ISIS is starting to get a foothold in Libya now. I guess sadly we have now learnt that countries in the Middle East do actually need iron-fisted dictators or they will immediately go to Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad.

Not so much iron-fisted dictators but, at the least, popular and popularly-supported, effective political leadership. Then again, people of all stripes will sacrifice an awful lot in the name of security and stability.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm taking exception to people who think bombing a Mosque or public space crowwded with civilians (as twisted as their morals and religious beliefs may be) to kill one Jihadi leader is somehow acceptable regardless of the civilian casualties.

People rightly condemn ISIS, or Russia, or Israel when they launch rockets/artillery/air strikes and kill (inadvertently or intentionally) non-combatant civilians, but here is someone (David Choe) proposing exactly that and your (you, Frazzled et al) condemnation of such a proposal is luke warm at best.

That's unfortunate, because I have not taken place in that side discussion. So because I am not familiar with the argument Mr. Choe is advocating, and have made no comment on it, I am somehow supporting his idea? That is a strange position to take.

So, could you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm taking exception to people who think bombing a Mosque or public space crowwded with civilians (as twisted as their morals and religious beliefs may be) to kill one Jihadi leader is somehow acceptable regardless of the civilian casualties.

People rightly condemn ISIS, or Russia, or Israel when they launch rockets/artillery/air strikes and kill (inadvertently or intentionally) non-combatant civilians, but here is someone (David Choe) proposing exactly that and your (you, Frazzled et al) condemnation of such a proposal is luke warm at best.

That's unfortunate, because I have not taken place in that side discussion. So because I am not familiar with the argument Mr. Choe is advocating, and have made no comment on it, I am somehow supporting his idea? That is a strange position to take.

So, could you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

Thats what the discussion is about. If you're going to butt in in the middle of an argument and take sides, you should be up to speed and know what that side is.

And I'm not specifically singling out the US. My own country is involved too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats what the discussion is about. If you're going to butt in in the middle of an argument and take sides, you should be up to speed and know what that side is.

And I'm not specifically singling out the US. My own country is involved too.

If you think that nationality is a driving factor in my posts let me clear that up for you; my country (Ireland) is not involved in this.

Except that I did not "butt in", nor did I "take sides". Here is my initial post that started this sidebar;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And THATS why we're no better than ISIS...

True that.

I missed the news where we're systematically stoning people to death, keeping women as sex slaves, and burning others alive.

No reference to drone/air/artillary strikes that would harm civilians. I was instead pointing out the inane and wholly incorrect comparison.

Maybe now you can finally answer this; can you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Anyway looks like ISIS is starting to get a foothold in Libya now. I guess sadly we have now learnt that countries in the Middle East do actually need iron-fisted dictators or they will immediately go to Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad.

Soon the world will be ready for Genghis Connie and her 100 tumen of Winchester wielding Mongols.

"Frazzled, what is good in life?"
"Bacon"
"er.."
"And chocolate"
"um"
"And barbeque"
ok
"and Kraken rum with a splash of water"
"really, where'd you get this guy..."

 Frazzled wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Anyway looks like ISIS is starting to get a foothold in Libya now. I guess sadly we have now learnt that countries in the Middle East do actually need iron-fisted dictators or they will immediately go to Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad.

Soon the world will be ready for Genghis Connie and her 100 tumen of Winchester wielding Mongols.

"Frazzled, what is good in life?"
"Bacon"
"er.."
"And chocolate"
"um"
"And barbeque"
ok
"and Kraken rum with a splash of water"
"really, where'd you get this guy..."

All in one? Chocolate coated barbecued bacon washed down by Rum. Sounds delicious.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


So, could you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

The funny thing is, you don't know what moral equivalence is, and yes you are the one doing it. You're also using moral relativism wrong, as that's not what is going on either.

allow me:
"The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is morally superior. They use history, possibly selectively, to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil."

For you to decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions your side is engaged in is moral equivalence.

The more you know.

If something is immoral, it's immoral for us to do as well. If we agree killing kids is wrong, then we should stop doing things known to kill kids. Knowing killing children is wrong, yet doing it anyways is more immoral because we should know better, and if we're the enlightened ones we should be able to come up with better solutions than sink below their level.

Thats does actually

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


So, could you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

The funny thing is, you don't know what moral equivalence is, and yes you are the one doing it. You're also using moral relativism wrong, as that's not what is going on either.

allow me:
"The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is morally superior. They use history, possibly selectively, to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil."

For you to decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions your side is engaged in is moral equivalence.

The more you know.

If something is immoral, it's immoral for us to do as well. If we agree killing kids is wrong, then we should stop doing things known to kill kids. Knowing killing children is wrong, yet doing it anyways is more immoral because we should know better, and if we're the enlightened ones we should be able to come up with better solutions than sink below their level.

I'd like to see a statement that shows where I "decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions [my] side is engaged in "

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


So, could you please explain how my pointing out someone trying to make the US and ISIS morally equivalent is somehow me indulging in moral relativism

The funny thing is, you don't know what moral equivalence is, and yes you are the one doing it. You're also using moral relativism wrong, as that's not what is going on either.

allow me:
"The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is morally superior. They use history, possibly selectively, to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil."

For you to decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions your side is engaged in is moral equivalence.

The more you know.

If something is immoral, it's immoral for us to do as well. If we agree killing kids is wrong, then we should stop doing things known to kill kids. Knowing killing children is wrong, yet doing it anyways is more immoral because we should know better, and if we're the enlightened ones we should be able to come up with better solutions than sink below their level.

I'd like to see a statement that shows where I "decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions [my] side is engaged in "

It must be because the way you were incorrectly using phrases, that I didn't realize you were agreeing with me. So would you say the US and their allies are just as immoral as ISIS, or more immoral than ISIS because they should know better?

Because as I've seen many times, if you aren't vocally disapproving of something your religion or government is doing, than you are supporting it and equally responsible for their actions.

Feel free to clarify your position, take your time and look up the phrases you're using to make sure you are using them correctly.

Battle for Mosul scheduled:


http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/19/centcom-battle-of-mosul-could-begin-in-april/23697219/


Did I just hear a C5 filled with JTACs take off from Pope AFB?

Announcing when you're going to launch an offensive, unless its designed as a trick appears contraindicated from Doctor's advice.

Well, unless the build up is obvious and ISIS already knows it's coming, in which case it's a moot point. I imagine there are quite a few Sunni sympathisers acting as informers for ISIS.

I'd assume all the Iraqi sunnis are potential sympathizers.

Battle for Mosul? Is it just me, but didn't the American Marines fight a big battle there a few years back. Or am I thinking Fallujah?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Battle for Mosul? Is it just me, but didn't the American Marines fight a big battle there a few years back. Or am I thinking Fallujah?

Nope... you're right.

Monsul and Fallujah were major battles.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd assume all the Iraqi sunnis are potential sympathizers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/19/iraq-syria-war/23698589/

Apparently the Iranian "advisers" who are not officially there, but everyone knows they're there, share that view.


And the International Middle East Pastime continues, with the big game set for this spring. Tune in to CENTCOM Sports for more bloodthirsty savagery, and a halftime show involving unspeakable acts inflicted upon goats.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Battle for Mosul? Is it just me, but didn't the American Marines fight a big battle there a few years back. Or am I thinking Fallujah?

Nope... you're right.

Monsul and Fallujah were major battles.

And now it's going to be another major battle. Those marines must be wondering why they bothered turning up in the first place.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Battle for Mosul? Is it just me, but didn't the American Marines fight a big battle there a few years back. Or am I thinking Fallujah?

Nope... you're right.

Monsul and Fallujah were major battles.

Battle for Mosul II: Electric Boogaloo

First time wasn't USMC though, it was elements of the 101st and some Stryker units.

Of course, even in Fallujah the Army's 1st ID (Big Red One) did a lot of fighting (read House to House by Bellavia for a very good account).

This time will be interesting. The Iraqi army should be the lead/supported organization. It is going to be a good test of the Iraqi Gov't ability to project force into a Sunni stronghold, and if not done correctly may cause a lot more trouble than it solves.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd assume all the Iraqi sunnis are potential sympathizers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/19/iraq-syria-war/23698589/

Apparently the Iranian "advisers" who are not officially there, but everyone knows they're there, share that view.


And the International Middle East Pastime continues, with the big game set for this spring. Tune in to CENTCOM Sports for more bloodthirsty savagery, and a halftime show involving unspeakable acts inflicted upon goats.

What about Israel? Isn't there another dust up with Hezbollah on the horizon?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd assume all the Iraqi sunnis are potential sympathizers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/19/iraq-syria-war/23698589/

Apparently the Iranian "advisers" who are not officially there, but everyone knows they're there, share that view.


And the International Middle East Pastime continues, with the big game set for this spring. Tune in to CENTCOM Sports for more bloodthirsty savagery, and a halftime show involving unspeakable acts inflicted upon goats.

What about Israel? Isn't there another dust up with Hezbollah on the horizon?

Hezbollah is busy in Iraq from what I can tell.

The United States' downright schizophrenic foreign policy, based upon the "enemy of my enemy" heuristic, is really becoming laughable.

2003: Saddam's Baath party are the bad guys. Better help out the Shia!
2005: Iranian-trained Hezbollah terrorists teach Iraqis (Mehdi army etc.) how to make bombs and kill American soldiers.
2015: Iranian-trained Hezbollah terrorists are our friends, and the Sunnis are the bad guys.

To go back in time, we got rid of the relatively secular Sunnis (Arab Nationalist-type socialists) to replace them with the majority Shia, while being attacked by Shiites, only to leave and watch the BAAAD Sunnis (the religious ones) take over.

When do you throw in the towel and focus on CONTAINMENT? You can quote me on this - history books will look back on this Iraq debacle as a fantastic example of what not to do. The writing was on the wall from day 1: Secular government in place? Check. Rule by the minority? Check. Hyper religious Islamic death cultist forces kept at bay by a dictator? Check. Time to remove the dictator from power...what could go wrong?

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Battle for Mosul? Is it just me, but didn't the American Marines fight a big battle there a few years back. Or am I thinking Fallujah?

Nope... you're right.

Monsul and Fallujah were major battles.

Battle for Mosul II: Electric Boogaloo

First time wasn't USMC though, it was elements of the 101st and some Stryker units.

Of course, even in Fallujah the Army's 1st ID (Big Red One) did a lot of fighting (read House to House by Bellavia for a very good account).

This time will be interesting. The Iraqi army should be the lead/supported organization. It is going to be a good test of the Iraqi Gov't ability to project force into a Sunni stronghold, and if not done correctly may cause a lot more trouble than it solves.

Read some of Michael Yon's work for some info on Mosul.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd assume all the Iraqi sunnis are potential sympathizers.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/19/iraq-syria-war/23698589/

Apparently the Iranian "advisers" who are not officially there, but everyone knows they're there, share that view.


And the International Middle East Pastime continues, with the big game set for this spring. Tune in to CENTCOM Sports for more bloodthirsty savagery, and a halftime show involving unspeakable acts inflicted upon goats.

What about Israel? Isn't there another dust up with Hezbollah on the horizon?

Hezbollah is busy in Iraq from what I can tell.

They also have units in Syria supporting Assad.

 CptJake wrote:


They also have units in Syria supporting Assad.

Also very true, thanks for mentioning this.

So it really gets murkier - Hezbollah are the good guys in Iraq, but the bad guys in Syria, according to the Obama administration.

You won't often hear a Jewish IDF veteran say this, but it's the truth: If there was ever a case of "the enemy of our enemy" that held weight in the real world, it's Assad in Syria. The US should be throwing support at that goofball left and right. The only constant in the Middle East is that secular dictators = good, anything else = bad. Let them focus on amassing collections of golden toilet seats...whatever it takes to keep their psychotic death cultist populations in check.

May be in bad taste to say this but the situation is becoming so absurd that it's almost 40K Grimdark.