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.
This is funny to me, because a person on another forum made a 'War. War never changes.' comment in relation to ISIS and the Paris attacks, and was subject to an intense forum witch hunt as a result of this 'barbarically insensitive comment'.
And from the people usually decrying 'hugboxes' and what have you.
Its pretty sad, but that is the sad reality people will use religion to justify their actions.
Heres a video that is extremely useful for those who wanted to be a bit more educated!
ISIS itself are made up of the most extreme people in their country. So It was no wonder that they would try to attack people.
1. Not just a religion, but also the teachings of specific school/sect/church. one armed group may also claim that THEIR versions of a religion IS the purest (or least corrputed) and demonizing the others. (including those practicing the same religion but different schools/churchs/sects), under the catch-all term of Heresy. (and teaching the fellas that Heresy is an utmost evil so legitimizing the bloody resolves)... This is especially what ISIS does. Other muslims practicing other sects than theirs are considered ther enemies and this explains why the ISIS kills some muslims too.
2. Local likeminded syrians may join the ISIS, but they originated in Iraq... it is said that core members were made up of former Saddam's goons. (which the Saddam regime itself did not fully oriented towards Islamic regime, quite a contray, much of his actions were obiviously Idolatry), and the bulk of ISIS foot soldiers were all muslim emigres (or the descendants thereof) living in Europe.
squidhills wrote: Okay, great article on Cracked today. Robert Evans, the guy they usually get to do interviews went and read every single issue of ISIS's propaganda newsletter. He learned some very interesting things, and I think everyone here should check out the article, because in one way or another, every single person in this thread is wrong about some aspect of ISIS. We all think we understand them, but we don't. We may understand part of them, but we don't get the whole picture (and none of our leaders do either). This article goes a long way to informing us of the reality of ISIS.
squidhills wrote: Okay, great article on Cracked today. Robert Evans, the guy they usually get to do interviews went and read every single issue of ISIS's propaganda newsletter. He learned some very interesting things, and I think everyone here should check out the article, because in one way or another, every single person in this thread is wrong about some aspect of ISIS. We all think we understand them, but we don't. We may understand part of them, but we don't get the whole picture (and none of our leaders do either). This article goes a long way to informing us of the reality of ISIS.
Just read it. Never thought they were so "modern" in their appearance. But yeah, now I understand a couple more things about these fethers.
Yeah, thanks for posting a good informative and substantiated article. It's helpful to see everything explained by ISIS itself.
It really highlights the misconceptions that are put forth by politicians more concerned with winning the next election than educating people with the truth.
The fact that ISIS attacks moderate "apostate" Muslims the most, since they're the biggest obstacle to forming their Islamic State in the region, shows how unserious US politicians are when they demand that moderate Muslims denounce ISIS. Moderate Muslims are already being targeted by ISIS and are fleeing ISIS in huge numbers, moderate Muslims are already fully aware of the evils of ISIS/Wahabbism and public denoucements of ISIS wouldn't do any good since ISIS is already discounting all other Muslims as apostates and written them off.
I can see why ISIS targets young people. There are some shockingly high unemployment rates among young people in a lot of countries and it's easy for young people to become disillusioned with a culture of consumerism and feel lost in a society that encourages people to be comfortable without being purposeful. Embarking on the Hijrah and becoming a holy paladin of Islam on jihad where even being killed by a drone attack serves a purpose for Allah could be construed as being more meaningful than just aimlessly getting by.
Sometimes I think it might be best to just quarantine ISIS in the middle east and let them have their Islamic State. In a very short time it would become a very unattractive failed state since it's very difficult for ISIS to attract educated professionals to come work in an anachronistic oppressive medieval theocracy.
The fact that ISIS attacks moderate "apostate" Muslims the most, since they're the biggest obstacle to forming their Islamic State in the region, shows how unserious US politicians are when they demand that moderate Muslims denounce ISIS. Moderate Muslims are already being targeted by ISIS and are fleeing ISIS in huge numbers, moderate Muslims are already fully aware of the evils of ISIS/Wahabbism and public denoucements of ISIS wouldn't do any good since ISIS is already discounting all other Muslims as apostates and written them off.
Good article post.
Regarding the quoted above. The reason the US need moderates to denounce ISIS isn't for Muslims in the region it is for:
1. Domestic Hardliners (See this very thread for examples of why this is important)
2. Help dissuade young western recruits
So, they need Moderates to do this not for themselves, but for domestic political reasons. That's my take anyway.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: 1. Domestic Hardliners (See this very thread for examples of why this is important)
To be fair, they do this and hardliners just tune them out. Every time there's a terrorist attack from some Islamic group, a bunch of Muslims stand up and denounce the attack, and then the internet gets filled with "we should look at those mosques very carefully" statements
Really, the denouncements aren't for hardliners. They're for people sitting on the fence who can notice when the hardliners are being raving lunatics
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/19 22:02:52
The fact that ISIS attacks moderate "apostate" Muslims the most, since they're the biggest obstacle to forming their Islamic State in the region, shows how unserious US politicians are when they demand that moderate Muslims denounce ISIS. Moderate Muslims are already being targeted by ISIS and are fleeing ISIS in huge numbers, moderate Muslims are already fully aware of the evils of ISIS/Wahabbism and public denoucements of ISIS wouldn't do any good since ISIS is already discounting all other Muslims as apostates and written them off.
Good article post.
Regarding the quoted above. The reason the US need moderates to denounce ISIS isn't for Muslims in the region it is for:
1. Domestic Hardliners (See this very thread for examples of why this is important)
2. Help dissuade young western recruits
So, they need Moderates to do this not for themselves, but for domestic political reasons. That's my take anyway.
Yeah, I see your point but its still a stupid policy based on enhancing electability and avoiding attack ads instead of reality. The majority of ISIS and Salafi attacks are against other Muslims. They blow up marketplaces, police stations, schools etc in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa. It should be self evident that the people ISIS maims, murders and terrorizes don't want to be hurt, killed or terrorized. We don't need France to openly condn the recent attacks to know that French people don't condone other French people murdering them.
Besides both the Allawi govt in Iraq and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan routinely condemned the terror attacks in their country. That didn't seem to matter to anyone. The Saudi family has condemned Al Qaeda and bin Laden, that didn't change anything either.
squidhills wrote: Okay, great article on Cracked today. Robert Evans, the guy they usually get to do interviews went and read every single issue of ISIS's propaganda newsletter. He learned some very interesting things, and I think everyone here should check out the article, because in one way or another, every single person in this thread is wrong about some aspect of ISIS. We all think we understand them, but we don't. We may understand part of them, but we don't get the whole picture (and none of our leaders do either). This article goes a long way to informing us of the reality of ISIS.
Just read it. Never thought they were so "modern" in their appearance. But yeah, now I understand a couple more things about these fethers.
Yeah, thanks for posting a good informative and substantiated article. It's helpful to see everything explained by ISIS itself.
It really highlights the misconceptions that are put forth by politicians more concerned with winning the next election than educating people with the truth.
The fact that ISIS attacks moderate "apostate" Muslims the most, since they're the biggest obstacle to forming their Islamic State in the region, shows how unserious US politicians are when they demand that moderate Muslims denounce ISIS. Moderate Muslims are already being targeted by ISIS and are fleeing ISIS in huge numbers, moderate Muslims are already fully aware of the evils of ISIS/Wahabbism and public denoucements of ISIS wouldn't do any good since ISIS is already discounting all other Muslims as apostates and written them off.
I can see why ISIS targets young people. There are some shockingly high unemployment rates among young people in a lot of countries and it's easy for young people to become disillusioned with a culture of consumerism and feel lost in a society that encourages people to be comfortable without being purposeful. Embarking on the Hijrah and becoming a holy paladin of Islam on jihad where even being killed by a drone attack serves a purpose for Allah could be construed as being more meaningful than just aimlessly getting by.
Sometimes I think it might be best to just quarantine ISIS in the middle east and let them have their Islamic State. In a very short time it would become a very unattractive failed state since it's very difficult for ISIS to attract educated professionals to come work in an anachronistic oppressive medieval theocracy.
Very interesting article. The payload is in the last section, as it should be.
The principle targets for ISIS are Moslems.
Ok, I would agree if they said the principle victims are Moslems, as Moslems are being made suspect and unwelcome in Europe by ISIS actions. Most people who flee are Moslems, though many are not.
However ISIS is calling Moslems to join them, and is not too fussed which Moslems answer the call. Yes there will be factional disputes but its hardly the case that they wish too target Islam, it goes against what they have said and done.
It does make sense to place distances between ISIS and other Moslems. Dabiq may be a propaganda rag, but the article was propaganda also; and I am OK with that. It's another iron in the fire.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
squidhills wrote: Okay, great article on Cracked today. Robert Evans, the guy they usually get to do interviews went and read every single issue of ISIS's propaganda newsletter. He learned some very interesting things, and I think everyone here should check out the article, because in one way or another, every single person in this thread is wrong about some aspect of ISIS. We all think we understand them, but we don't. We may understand part of them, but we don't get the whole picture (and none of our leaders do either). This article goes a long way to informing us of the reality of ISIS.
Just read it. Never thought they were so "modern" in their appearance. But yeah, now I understand a couple more things about these fethers.
Yeah, thanks for posting a good informative and substantiated article. It's helpful to see everything explained by ISIS itself.
It really highlights the misconceptions that are put forth by politicians more concerned with winning the next election than educating people with the truth.
The fact that ISIS attacks moderate "apostate" Muslims the most, since they're the biggest obstacle to forming their Islamic State in the region, shows how unserious US politicians are when they demand that moderate Muslims denounce ISIS. Moderate Muslims are already being targeted by ISIS and are fleeing ISIS in huge numbers, moderate Muslims are already fully aware of the evils of ISIS/Wahabbism and public denoucements of ISIS wouldn't do any good since ISIS is already discounting all other Muslims as apostates and written them off.
I can see why ISIS targets young people. There are some shockingly high unemployment rates among young people in a lot of countries and it's easy for young people to become disillusioned with a culture of consumerism and feel lost in a society that encourages people to be comfortable without being purposeful. Embarking on the Hijrah and becoming a holy paladin of Islam on jihad where even being killed by a drone attack serves a purpose for Allah could be construed as being more meaningful than just aimlessly getting by.
Sometimes I think it might be best to just quarantine ISIS in the middle east and let them have their Islamic State. In a very short time it would become a very unattractive failed state since it's very difficult for ISIS to attract educated professionals to come work in an anachronistic oppressive medieval theocracy.
Very interesting article. The payload is in the last section, as it should be.
The principle targets for ISIS are Moslems.
Ok, I would agree if they said the principle victims are Moslems, as Moslems are being made suspect and unwelcome in Europe by ISIS actions. Most people who flee are Moslems, though many are not.
However ISIS is calling Moslems to join them, and is not too fussed which Moslems answer the call. Yes there will be factional disputes but its hardly the case that they wish too target Islam, it goes against what they have said and done.
It does make sense to place distances between ISIS and other Moslems. Dabiq may be a propaganda rag, but the article was propaganda also; and I am OK with that. It's another iron in the fire.
Any Sunni Muslim can become a Wahhabist/Salafi as the sect is an ultra conservative version of the Sunni sect. If ISIS is truly adhering to Wahhabist then they would accept any Shia Muslims as their religious doctrine is considered false and not true Islam by Salafis. I don't know if anyone is keeping track of where ISIS recruits are coming from but KDA, Jordan, Syria, UAE, Qatar and Egypt are predominately Sunni nations so most everyone from those countries or whose families emigrated from those countries would be Sunni and eligible to convert to Wahhabist.
squidhills wrote: Okay, great article on Cracked today. Robert Evans, the guy they usually get to do interviews went and read every single issue of ISIS's propaganda newsletter. He learned some very interesting things, and I think everyone here should check out the article, because in one way or another, every single person in this thread is wrong about some aspect of ISIS. We all think we understand them, but we don't. We may understand part of them, but we don't get the whole picture (and none of our leaders do either). This article goes a long way to informing us of the reality of ISIS.
Cracked has such good articles when they decide to talk about serious subjects. I knew ISIS was tech literate but I had no idea they were that modern in their multimedia campaign. Ignoring the brutality, that magazine wouldn't look out of place on a corner news stand.
170 hostages (30 employees, 140 guests) taken in Bamako's Radisson Hotel in Mali by two armed men. They arrived in a diplomatic vehicle and no one claimed responsibility yet.
Two Malians and one French citizens are dead.
EDIT : French GIGN (SWAT) is coming to Mali.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/20 12:12:08
Any Sunni Muslim can become a Wahhabist/Salafi as the sect is an ultra conservative version of the Sunni sect. If ISIS is truly adhering to Wahhabist then they would accept any Shia Muslims as their religious doctrine is considered false and not true Islam by Salafis. I don't know if anyone is keeping track of where ISIS recruits are coming from but KDA, Jordan, Syria, UAE, Qatar and Egypt are predominately Sunni nations so most everyone from those countries or whose families emigrated from those countries would be Sunni and eligible to convert to Wahhabist.
Thing is ISIS is making a broad call for western volunteers who don't live in communities that are specifically Sunni or Sh'ia, such as the UK. Many are fairly recent converts and are non- or trans-denominational.
In the Levant someone from a Sh'ia community would have different loyalties, a different structure as to who their Imams report to. Doctrines are just an excuse though. ISIS is accepting people with only a fairly shaky grounding in Islam, transferable loyalties are the issue not authenticity of creed.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
ISIS' ideology (the doomsday cult part) actually has a lot more in common with Sh'ia than Sunni Islam. Their ideology seems to have borrowed a fair bit from Twelver Eschatology. This seems to be something a lot of news outlets, that I assume are unfamiliar with these differences, are glossing over. ISIS is talked of as a Wahhabist group, but Eschatology isn't really something Wahhabists believe in (Sunnism really down plays it).
Though it seems unclear to me what ISIS considers an 'apostate.' Is it a Muslim who disagrees with their idea of Islam, or is it just any Muslim who refuses their Caliphate?
d-usa wrote: Russian bombing so far has killed 300+ civilians and ~100 kids.
And that's why bombing terrorists isn't very successful.
I think the difference is, if you point this out to Russia, they will generally shrug and say, "so? they shouldn't have placed themselves beneath our bombs"
We in the US, at least a number of us here realize that this sort of action is a surefire way to recruit fresh masses and thus we make attempts at apologies when things like that happen (I just think we haven't realized yet that no one really listens when we do so)
d-usa wrote: Russian bombing so far has killed 300+ civilians and ~100 kids.
And that's why bombing terrorists isn't very successful.
No it isnt.
Russian methods are extreme and unhelpful, and the lessons of Afghanistan have not been learned.
Putin doesnt like being embarrassed though and wants to make a point 'Soviet style'.
There is one other point, The Soviets were successful at internal control through exteeme brutality, and this brutality is third hand. Its not Assad killing these children, its Russia. The brutal message to he people when you get mass civilian casualties is that they were better off before the revolt, better off under Assad.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
d-usa wrote: Russian bombing so far has killed 300+ civilians and ~100 kids.
And that's why bombing terrorists isn't very successful.
I think the difference is, if you point this out to Russia, they will generally shrug and say, "so? they shouldn't have placed themselves beneath our bombs"
We in the US, at least a number of us here realize that this sort of action is a surefire way to recruit fresh masses and thus we make attempts at apologies when things like that happen (I just think we haven't realized yet that no one really listens when we do so)
Apologizing for collateral damage is pretty empty and useless. Bombs are area of effect weapons there's no way to avoid collateral damage when you use them. Even a "smart" bomb is still thousands of pounds of explosives, the blast area is always going to be way bigger than a single person or small group of people. Unless you're only bombing targets that are literally miles away from anyone or anything else there will be collateral deaths, injuries and destruction. If we're going to bomb ISIS, and we are, then we're already showing that we're ok with the ensuing collateral damage so apologizing for something we're deliberately doing is pretty meaningless.
I don't know if it was already mentioned here but Frontline did a really good documentary on ISIS in Afghanistan that I could not recommend more.
Everyday we are getting more information about how ISIS is not only an enemy of the US or Europe or the West in general but rather an enemy of everybody.
Its like either ISIS has become the real verison of COBRA or they are trying to unite the world against a common enemy like Watchmen. ISIS is so extreme that I can only look to fiction to try and figure out their intent.
Russia has launched a fresh wave of missile strikes. Somthing like 18 sea born strikes alone from ships. And Russain missiles are hardly small.
That's not counting any air strikes from the bombers.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
BrotherGecko wrote: I don't know if it was already mentioned here but Frontline did a really good documentary on ISIS in Afghanistan that I could not recommend more.
Everyday we are getting more information about how ISIS is not only an enemy of the US or Europe or the West in general but rather an enemy of everybody.
Its like either ISIS has become the real verison of COBRA or they are trying to unite the world against a common enemy like Watchmen. ISIS is so extreme that I can only look to fiction to try and figure out their intent.
It says enough about them that they are at war with the Taliban, Hezbollah and pretty much every other traditional terrorist group, not to mention some of the world's most extreme and opressive dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Even Al-Qaeda thinks ISIS is too extreme and brutal. Evil has standards http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards
d-usa wrote: Russian bombing so far has killed 300+ civilians and ~100 kids.
And that's why bombing terrorists isn't very successful.
No it isnt.
Russian methods are extreme and unhelpful, and the lessons of Afghanistan have not been learned.
Putin doesnt like being embarrassed though and wants to make a point 'Soviet style'.
There is one other point, The Soviets were successful at internal control through exteeme brutality, and this brutality is third hand. Its not Assad killing these children, its Russia. The brutal message to he people when you get mass civilian casualties is that they were better off before the revolt, better off under Assad.
They did help in Chechnya though. And softer Western tactics haven't proven to be any better. The only way to defeat an enemy is to defeat him so utterly that there is never any possibility of recovery. The most effective way to accomplish this is by just killing so many people that they start getting manpower problems. Once you are killing more warriors than there are new recruits (and as rates of mortality go up, new recruits will become harder to find), you have already won. As an added bonus, such destruction also destroys morale, making the civilian population more likely to revolt and their armies easier to defeat for Assad and the Kurds.
The most effective solution would be to deploy nuclear weapons or otherwise destroy all major population centers and infrastructure like in WW2, but that is probably too extreme even by the standards of the Russian armed forces.
Of course, it may be the most effective, it is also the most destructive and gets many innocent people killed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/20 18:55:32
d-usa wrote: Russian bombing so far has killed 300+ civilians and ~100 kids.
And that's why bombing terrorists isn't very successful.
No it isnt.
Russian methods are extreme and unhelpful, and the lessons of Afghanistan have not been learned.
Putin doesnt like being embarrassed though and wants to make a point 'Soviet style'.
Am I missing something? Because it really looks like you're arguing with someone who agrees with you.
I was confirming the negative. "No it isnt" is not a rebuttal of d-usa's point but a agreement to his negative point.
You cropped off the caveat at the bottom of the post that extreme brutality can work long term as a strategic ploy, but only if its completed or by a third party.
Not that I agree with it though.
They did help in Chechnya though. And softer Western tactics haven't proven to be any better. The only way to defeat an enemy is to defeat him so utterly that there is never any possibility of recovery. The most effective way to accomplish this is by just killing so many people that they start getting manpower problems. Once you are killing more warriors than there are new recruits (and as rates of mortality go up, new recruits will become harder to find), you have already won. As an added bonus, such destruction also destroys morale, making the civilian population more likely to revolt and their armies easier to defeat for Assad and the Kurds.
The most effective solution would be to deploy nuclear weapons or otherwise destroy all major population centers and infrastructure like in WW2, but that is probably too extreme even by the standards of the Russian armed forces.
Of course, it may be the most effective, it is also the most destructive and gets many innocent people killed.
Reprehensible though it is I can see this point of view. I am pretty sure Israel actively follows it with regard to the Palestinian problem, and is engaged in a slow burn annihilation.
It fits in with the Soviet ethos: "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Josef Stalin
But it misses the point that politics by annihilation doesn't work on a creed, you cant defeat Islam by extermination, and the survivors will become increasingly embittered.
Also Iron Captain, how was your conquest of Afghanistan going? You went in in 1980 with the whole might of the Soviet Union at its height, and the guys you are facing were taken completely by surprised and have robes and very little education.
The West wasn't much better, but in fairness we aren't trying to fully annex the place, just hunt certain scum.
Frankly Putin will mass up a huge body count and may even destroy ISIS local power base, and save Assad, but it wont kill ISIS.
The good news is that while Putin is using his sledgehammer, the western allies and their intelligence communities are using their scalpel. It was said in the press a while back that security services were having a very good success rate of deprogramming returning ISIS. This has a knock on effect on recruitment, ISIS was recruiting from the jihadist scum community in the UK, and a lot of that community is being turned into a healthier form of Islam, or so it is hoped. They wont convert them all, and there is still a threat. But if ISIS cant trust their own recruiting ground they have lost.
Still the UK are not pussy about this. SAS snipers were wrecking a heavy toll in the Kurdish zones, and the Uk employed drones and was actively hunting Emwazi to kill him, and other UK based jihadists.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/20 21:22:53
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is seen here being towed home by a tug boat after breaking down in a storm. Kuznetsov is an aircraft cruiser (heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser in Russian classification) serving as the flagship of the Russian Navy.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Heroic engine breakdown music, for when your capital ship is heroically mechanically unreliable.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Man that is why I don't join the navy. I'd be on the deck barfing up my lunch in no time flat.
I don't have sea legs.
Also I now have more fuel for the next time I want to poke fun at the hilarious badness of the Russian Navy
EDIT: Somehow this struck a cord with me about how twisted the situation in the Middle East has become;
President Assad (who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm. might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
LordofHats wrote: Man that is why I don't join the navy. I'd be on the deck barfing up my lunch in no time flat.
I don't have sea legs.
Also I now have more fuel for the next time I want to poke fun at the hilarious badness of the Russian Navy
Don't worry, they'll give you all the dramamine you need Plus if you get the right rate you'll have all the time in the world for painting your army up You might even get to go to russia and trade your levi's for a russian assault rifle.
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is seen here being towed home by a tug boat after breaking down in a storm. Kuznetsov is an aircraft cruiser (heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser in Russian classification) serving as the flagship of the Russian Navy.
That video is from 2012 though, it says so in the description.
Буксир-спасатель "Николай Чикер" в шестибалльный шторм берет на буксир ТАВКР "Адмирал Кузнецов" Ориентировочно - Февраль 2012 года, "Адмирал Кузнецов" полностью потерял ход во время учений в Бискайском заливе.
Tug-rescuer "Nikolaj Chiker" in sixth category storm takes on tow TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" About - February 2012, "Admiral Kuznetsov" completely lost speed during training in bay of Biscay.
That being said, the steam turbines of Admiral Kuznetsov are notorious for breaking down a lot and that is indeed why it is always escorted by tugs. There has been many talks of replacing the engines and modernising the ship, but so far it has only had minor refits.
But it misses the point that politics by annihilation doesn't work on a creed, you cant defeat Islam by extermination, and the survivors will become increasingly embittered.
It is not necessary to defeat islam, just the group ISIS. The survivors will be embittered, but time heals such wounds.
Orlanth wrote: Also Iron Captain, how was your conquest of Afghanistan going? You went in in 1980 with the whole might of the Soviet Union at its height, and the guys you are facing were taken completely by surprised and have robes and very little education.
The West wasn't much better, but in fairness we aren't trying to fully annex the place, just hunt certain scum.
It went pretty much exactly like your conquest of Vietnam... The Soviet Union did not achieve its goals (which was to keep the socialist Afghan government in power, not annexing the area) so they pulled out to avoid having to admit being defeated. At least we killed a huge load of extremist bastards. No thanks to you guys, though. The West supplying modern weapons was a major factor in the mujahideen being able to continue to resist. And then those nice mujahideen decided to turn against the West, and you got a taste of your own medicine. They don't call Afghanistan "the graveyard of empires" for nothing. The USSR and US should have stayed out, and much less lives and money would have been wasted. If the West had also not meddled in Iraq and Libya after that, the Middle East might even have been a much more peaceful place than it is now. Or maybe not. Hard to say.
Only way to find out is to return the region to how it was before, by defeating radical groups and bringing back strong, central dictators for stability
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/11/21 04:46:43
Sure the mujahideen got plenty of stinger missiles and used them. Still the Soviet Union had its ideology to shield against the shock of casualties which the US, Australian and Koreans did not have in Vietnam. They also had a direct land border making supply routes easier.
Still the Soviets got kicked out. While the current deployment in Afghanistan is not going anywhere, its not exactly being kicked out either.
Point is there are too many Moslems to bomb them all, and Russia's policy will make an enemy out of a multitude.
I agree that Assad should stay, and believed that from the start. But don't delude yourself into thinking things will return as they were. The hornets nest is well and truly stirred.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Plus if you get the right rate you'll have all the time in the world for painting your army up 
