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.
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.
Judging from results to date, the Iraqi army couldn't "project" a car off a cliff. From the article it looks like 10: 1 force ratio of Iraq vs. ISIL. I predict they (the Iraqi army) will have collapsed within 36 hours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 18:02:45
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The Iraqi army couldn't protect what they had...what makes anybody think they actually assault a city?
The proposed assault for Spring involves military, police, and irregular elements. Considering most Middle Easterners' organizational skills (it's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing. Israelis are some of the worst offenders lol), I see fratricide being a HUGE problem.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The Iraqi army couldn't protect what they had...what makes anybody think they actually assault a city?
The proposed assault for Spring involves military, police, and irregular elements. Considering most Middle Easterners' organizational skills (it's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing. Israelis are some of the worst offenders lol), I see fratricide being a HUGE problem.
Possibly. I wouldn't doubt that they'll pull it off though. We're back in the mix, that's bound to help stiffen them up again. By all accounts they did a fair job of things while we were there before. Hopefully their leadership issue has been fixed after the SNAFU that allowed for ISIL's initial gains.
sirlynchmob wrote: 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.
So no quotes from me then that show where I ""decry the actions of ISIS while fully supporting the same actions [my] side is engaged in "? Just pithy comments hoping to bait me.
Also on the subject of outstanding questions I don't believe you ever gave an answer when I asked what peace would look like between ISIS and the rest of the world.
Dread... I think he's saying that we need to get down from our high horses and assess how our racists attitudes is causing world-wide strife because of the crusades.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Serious question (wasn't being entirely serious before...I'd like to strip them of citizenship because I'd like to get rid of them and stop them returning to be a danger to the UK, but they do have the rights like everyone else to due process of law, fair trials, legal representation etc).
If tried and convicted, can the British government strip a terrorist / Jihadist of their British citizenship?
Is there a legal process for that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 21:37:04
whembly wrote: Dread... I think he's saying that we need to get down from our high horses and assess how our racists attitudes is causing world-wide strife because of the ---------- because of the immoral, racist and barbaric activities we are engaged in today.
Or something...
Because REASON!
You were really close until you got to crusades.
REASONS: You can't defeat an ideology by violence. By resorting to violence you end up validating the ideology and become the evil you are trying to defeat.
Sort of, but the ramifications of such an action are murky, at best. In the case of the US, one of the problems that Gitmo has presented us is we are in possession of hundreds of inmates, charged with absolutely no crime, who are not American citizens... but their nation of origin refuses to accept them back. So what do we do with them? We don't know yet. We have nowhere to send them, nowhere to put them... but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Unless you wipe out everyone who believes in the ideology or instill them with terror, which is what ISIL appears to be attempting.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Dread... I think he's saying that we need to get down from our high horses and assess how our racists attitudes is causing world-wide strife because of the ---------- because of the immoral, racist and barbaric activities we are engaged in today.
Or something...
Because REASON!
You were really close until you got to crusades.
REASONS: You can't defeat an ideology by violence. By resorting to violence you end up validating the ideology and become the evil you are trying to defeat
If we were close then were "our racists attitudes ... causing world-wide strife"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 21:46:43
Psienesis wrote: Sort of, but the ramifications of such an action are murky, at best. In the case of the US, one of the problems that Gitmo has presented us is we are in possession of hundreds of inmates, charged with absolutely no crime, who are not American citizens... but their nation of origin refuses to accept them back. So what do we do with them? We don't know yet. We have nowhere to send them, nowhere to put them... but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
Put them on trial. If found guilty, jail them. Properly. If Not Guilty, let them go, to whatever country will accept them.
Psienesis wrote: Sort of, but the ramifications of such an action are murky, at best. In the case of the US, one of the problems that Gitmo has presented us is we are in possession of hundreds of inmates, charged with absolutely no crime, who are not American citizens... but their nation of origin refuses to accept them back. So what do we do with them? We don't know yet. We have nowhere to send them, nowhere to put them... but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
I'm actually in the camp that if we can't try them... then release them.
Psienesis wrote: Sort of, but the ramifications of such an action are murky, at best. In the case of the US, one of the problems that Gitmo has presented us is we are in possession of hundreds of inmates, charged with absolutely no crime, who are not American citizens... but their nation of origin refuses to accept them back. So what do we do with them? We don't know yet. We have nowhere to send them, nowhere to put them... but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
I'm actually in the camp that if we can't try them... then release them.
Agreed.
Put them on trial. If found guilty, jail them. Properly. If Not Guilty, let them go, to whatever country will accept them.
Including Antarctica. (continent, not country... I know).
Or, in the middle of the bush of a dangerous deathworld. aka, Austrialia.
Or maybe we could volunteer them for the mission to Mars. I hear that the first Colonists are expected to live out their lives and die there. Plenty of space for everyone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 21:55:00
Psienesis wrote: but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
Create a new "unit" of quasi-mercenary types, similar to the French Foreign Legion to go into places where most soldiers don't "want" to go and do things that most other people would rather turn a blind eye to???
Psienesis wrote: but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
Create a new "unit" of quasi-mercenary types, similar to the French Foreign Legion to go into places where most soldiers don't "want" to go and do things that most other people would rather turn a blind eye to???
As long as it doesn't involve blowing up Mosques mid sermon, I'm all for it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: 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.
The problem with that is that Assad has been in a de facto alliance with ISIS against western supported factions including the Kurds and is in Putin's pocket.
What about Israel? Isn't there another dust up with Hezbollah on the horizon?
I hope not, the US is having a hard enough time with their allies bombing each other, throwing in Israel's occasionally 'guns free' attitude toward anything Arab pretty much means that SNAFU would require almost daily redefinition.
Basically this. Using human shields is, in and of itself, a serious war crime, under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of 1998, and in the event that a human shield is killed, it's considered the responsibility of the person or persons who authorized their use.
Create a new "unit" of quasi-mercenary types, similar to the French Foreign Legion to go into places where most soldiers don't "want" to go and do things that most other people would rather turn a blind eye to???
Technically legal as long as they are a 'part' of someone's military command structure. England and France thoughtfully wrote themselves a loophole in the UN's anti-mercenary agreement.
Or, just, you know, do like the CIA does and pretend they have no idea what happened and pay everyone out of a slush fund in a Australian bank.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 22:25:39
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Psienesis wrote: Sort of, but the ramifications of such an action are murky, at best. In the case of the US, one of the problems that Gitmo has presented us is we are in possession of hundreds of inmates, charged with absolutely no crime, who are not American citizens... but their nation of origin refuses to accept them back. So what do we do with them? We don't know yet. We have nowhere to send them, nowhere to put them... but, well, here they are, and now wtf do we do?
I'm actually in the camp that if we can't try them... then release them.
Put them on trial. If found guilty, jail them. Properly. If Not Guilty, let them go, to whatever country will accept them.
Including Antarctica. (continent, not country... I know).
Or, in the middle of the bush of a dangerous deathworld. aka, Austrialia.
That's the thing, we'd like to release them... but there is nowhere to release them to. A fair number of these people may not have been radicals when they were originally arrested, but they've since become radicalized (or otherwise just have a raging hatred for the US. Can't imagine how ten years in a max-sec prison without charges or legal representation can cause that). Australia definitely doesn't want them.
And, again, this is the problem... we have never charged these people with a crime. There's nothing to charge them with. And there are no countries that will accept them. So they sit in Gitmo in legal limbo.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Serious question (wasn't being entirely serious before...I'd like to strip them of citizenship because I'd like to get rid of them and stop them returning to be a danger to the UK, but they do have the rights like everyone else to due process of law, fair trials, legal representation etc).
If tried and convicted, can the British government strip a terrorist / Jihadist of their British citizenship?
Only if they have another citizenship or if some other nation is willing to make them their citizens.
UN declaration of universal human rights number 15 wrote:1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As such, if your British citizenship is your only citizenship, revoking it would be breaking the treaty.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
UN declaration of universal human rights number 15 wrote:2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As such, if your British citizenship is your only citizenship, revoking it would be breaking the treaty.
For an action to be arbitrary it typically must involve some random choice, or personal whim. Revoking the citizenship of someone for leaving their country of origin to join a vicious terrorist group does not match this criteria.
UN declaration of universal human rights number 15 wrote:2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As such, if your British citizenship is your only citizenship, revoking it would be breaking the treaty.
For an action to be arbitrary it typically must involve some random choice, or personal whim. Revoking the citizenship of someone for leaving their country of origin to join a vicious terrorist group does not match this criteria.
True, but they still have the right to a nationality; if you revoke their only citizenship you're violating their rights.
Assuming of course that my assumption of nationality=citizenship in this case is correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 22:42:07
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
UN declaration of universal human rights number 15 wrote:2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As such, if your British citizenship is your only citizenship, revoking it would be breaking the treaty.
For an action to be arbitrary it typically must involve some random choice, or personal whim. Revoking the citizenship of someone for leaving their country of origin to join a vicious terrorist group does not match this criteria.
True, but they still have the right to a nationality; if you revoke their only citizenship you're violating their rights.
Assuming of course that my assumption of nationality=citizenship in this case is correct.
They still have the right to a nationality - of whatever country will have them
I see that the UK was a signatory to the UN declaration of universal human rights, but I cannot see which countries ratified the treaty
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: In that case, let ISIS form their own state. That way, we can deport all our Islamist undesirables to them, no?
Like a modern day Australian penal colony...in the desert. And camels not Kangeroos.
The horror of Australia without kangaroos?That is far too cruel. Nuke them and end their suffering....
Kote!
Kandosii sa ka'rte, vode an.
Coruscanta a'den mhi, vode an.
Bal kote,Darasuum kote,
Jorso'ran kando a tome.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad vode an.
Bal...
Motir ca'tra nau tracinya.
Gra'tua cuun hett su dralshy'a.
Aruetyc talyc runi'la trattok'a.
Sa kyr'am nau tracyn kad, vode an!
Agreed.
