ISIS

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.

**Iron_Captain**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
I think that Russia and Turkey going at it, even if it doesn't become a full on shooting war will effect the campaign against ISIS, people. Any thoughts?

Feth Turkey.

Yeah, I prefer chicken too.

**Prestor Jon**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
No, I am arguing that might be the price you have to pay to remove this insidious evil.

the price is to become more evil than those you fight against.

Collateral damage will never be as evil as beheading people and putting the footage on youtube or forcing civilians to remain in an area that is under attack so their accidental deaths can be used as propaganda. Its not even evil, its just an accident. Accidental deaths happen in war.

I'm sorry, bombing an area twice is not an accident. see the cases of double tapping, to not only kill the target but also kill those coming to help the victims. bombings are a deliberate attempt to kill lots of people and double taps are extremely evil.

killing 1 person is evil, killing 100 people with a bomb is 100 times more evil.

That's a ridiculous moral equivalency. Murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, robbery etc are all morally wrong. Preventing such actions from happening or continuing is good. Sometimes the people intent on committing such actions must be forcibly stopped because they can't or won't listen to reason, use of force in such situations is just and moral. Bombing Germany in WWII for instance was morally justifiable because it stopped the Nazis from conquering Europe. Forcibly stopping ISIS from committing atrocities is a justifiable and moral use of lethal force.

And knowingly murdering innocent children in bombardments is not morally wrong? Collateral damage is never accidental, it is just an euphemism for murder. When you drop that bomb on a populated area, you know it is going to kill innocents, and you accept that that is the price that must be paid.
Don't make it look any better than it is, there is nothing just or morally justifiable about it. It needs to be done to combat the evil of ISIS, but that does not change anything about the inherent evilness of bombardments.

Yes it does. The context and motivation behind the bombing completely changes morality of the action. It's not always wrong or evil to kill somebody. There are plenty of justifications for killing people that make it the moral thing to do. Is ISIS invading countries, occupying territory, committing crimes and atrocities and aiding and abetting acts of terrorism in other countries? Yes. Then opposing them and taking direct action to curtail the ability of ISIS to conduct those acitivities is morally justifiable. Then we have to decide the best way for us to attack ISIS. If the most effective and practical action we can take against ISIS is a strategic bombing campaign then we're going to bomb them. Yes, civilians are going to be killed, bombs are area of effect weapons, they will indescriminately kill/injure anyone in the blast radius. That is unfortunate but it is neccessary. Our bombs kill civilians. ISIS also kills civilians. When ISIS kills civilians they profit from it and grow stronger, when we kill civilians it's a side effect from killing ISIS targets. If we do nothing, civilians in ISIS controlled territory will continue to die and at the end of the day there will be dead civilians and a strong ISIS that kills any civilians it wants. If we bomb ISIS we degrade ISIS' ability to function, yes civilians die but the civilians that die are unfortunate bystanders and it's not a campaign of genocide. At the end of the die, civilians are dead but ISIS is degraded to a lesser state that is less capable of conquering and occupying territory and committing crimes and atrocities and supporting terrorism. Two different outcomes with different values, context and justifications.

I reject your morals. Deeds are good or evil by themselves, motivations do not change that. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.
Neither does the outcome of a deed influence the deed itself. If you can save 10 people from dying by murdering one person, that changes nothing about the fact that killing is evil.
When faced with two different evils (letting ISIS rampage about unopposed or fighting them, killing many, including innocents, in the process) one should always choose the lesser evil, but that does not change the fact that the lesser evil is still evil. It does not become good just because it is the best course of action. Bombing children is never just, it is evil by definition. To say otherwise is just sick.

To avoid continuing this tangent that is trending towards being off topic to the thread I'll say that well have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

**Psienesis**

Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Daesh is the result of the arming of radical Islamic factions over the past forty years by Western powers. To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

**Daemonhammer**

Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Nah, its because its part of their culture, so its okay.

To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

They are not even nearly as cool as Ork Freebootas

**CptJake**

Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

That is a silly comment.

The Saudis look to have executed 113 folks, all after some type of trial and conviction. You can hate the death penalty, and hate the fact they use beheading to carry it out, but DaIsh has capped more prisoners than that in a single day.

**sirlynchmob**

Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Daesh is the result of the arming of radical Islamic factions over the past forty years by Western powers. To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

yep, and not only are we ok with Saudi beheading people, the US is selling them WMDs to make it easier for them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-sale-saudi-arabia
"Sales will include 84 new F-15 fighter jets, upgrades to 70 existing Saudi F-15s, 190 helicopters and a wide array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as accessories such as night-vision goggles and radar warning systems."

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Daesh is the result of the arming of radical Islamic factions over the past forty years by Western powers. To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

yep, and not only are we ok with Saudi beheading people, the US is selling them WMDs to make it easier for them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-sale-saudi-arabia
"Sales will include 84 new F-15 fighter jets, upgrades to 70 existing Saudi F-15s, 190 helicopters and a wide array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as accessories such as night-vision goggles and radar warning systems."

Since when did fighter jets and helicopters become Weapons of Mass Destruction??

**CptJake**

Just out of curiosity, what on that list do you consider WMDs?

**sirlynchmob**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Daesh is the result of the arming of radical Islamic factions over the past forty years by Western powers. To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

yep, and not only are we ok with Saudi beheading people, the US is selling them WMDs to make it easier for them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-sale-saudi-arabia
"Sales will include 84 new F-15 fighter jets, upgrades to 70 existing Saudi F-15s, 190 helicopters and a wide array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as accessories such as night-vision goggles and radar warning systems."

Since when did fighter jets and helicopters become Weapons of Mass Destruction??

did you not read missiles & bombs & delivery systems?

**CptJake**

I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

**Tactical_Spam**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

Not the typical definition, but the Geneva convention definition

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

how ignorant are you that you forgot explosives. From the FBI:
WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

Bombs and missiles clearly fit your description, except we're also including for them a separate means of transporting the weapon.

and enlighten me oh ignorant one, what type of bombs are we selling to them?

**CptJake**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

Not the typical definition, but the Geneva convention definition

Which is?

The UN recognizes Nuke, Bio and Chem as WMDs (see UN SCR 1540). Not conventional missiles and bombs.

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

Not the typical definition, but the Geneva convention definition

Which is?

The UN recognizes Nuke, Bio and Chem as WMDs (see UN SCR 1540). Not conventional missiles and bombs.

according to your US law, they are WMD See A. so the US recognizes them as WMD.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I read that, and I think calling those WMDs shows how ignorant and/or hyperbolic you are.

OH really? what do you call the WMDs our allies have? is that something only terrorists have?

You really have to be trolling at this point.

The typical definition of WMD is "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon."

Nothing we are selling the Saudis comes close.

how ignorant are you that you forgot explosives. From the FBI:
WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

Bombs and missiles clearly fit your description, except we're also including for them a separate means of transporting the weapon.

and enlighten me oh ignorant one, what type of bombs are we selling to them?

Nope, you are mixing US civilian laws for law enforcement and war and weapons for war.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is telling that on the FBI's WMDD site they say:

"To report suspicious activity involving chemical, biological, or radiological material, call 855-TELL-FBI or 855-835-5324."

Again, NOTHING we sold Saudi fits the definition. You can use US domestic law all you want, that does not make your case.

**sirlynchmob**

Because you can state absolutely, they are not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?

what kind of bombs and missiles are they?

**Chute82**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because you can state absolutely, they are not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?

what kind of bombs and missiles are they?

Conventional

**sirlynchmob**

and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

**Chute82**

sirlynchmob wrote:
and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

No if you read into it its biological, chemical, and nuclear missiles they are against.... Nice try

**sirlynchmob**

and some history, doesn't this sale bother anyone? doesn't it strike a eerie similarity to the Iran Iraq war?

The US sold WMD to Suddam to help them "defend" themselves against Iran. And seeing how well that turned out, the US is now selling WMD to Saudi Arabia for the same reason. Whos royal family has ties to ISIS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chute82 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

No if you read into it its biological, chemical, and nuclear missiles they are against.... Nice try

If you say so, so where is your source for "Conventional " weapons? or is that just your opinion? any proof?

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
and some history, doesn't this sale bother anyone? doesn't it strike a eerie similarity to the Iran Iraq war?

The US sold WMD to Suddam to help them "defend" themselves against Iran. And seeing how well that turned out, the US is now selling WMD to Saudi Arabia for the same reason. Whos royal family has ties to ISIS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chute82 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

No if you read into it its biological, chemical, and nuclear missiles they are against.... Nice try

If you say so, so where is your source for "Conventional " weapons? or is that just your opinion? any proof?

You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the US is selling chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. All you've done is post a list of convential armaments, equipment and vehicles that we sold to the Saudis.

**Chute82**

read what you posted in your UN is against missle post... It's against missle used to deliver nuclear, bio, or chem weapons... I'm not going to read it for you

**Dreadclaw69**

sirlynchmob wrote:
and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

It really helps if you read the link you are submitting as evidence; http://www.hcoc.at/

http://www.hcoc.at/?tab=what_is_hcoc&page=faq

The HCoC aims to contribute to the process of strengthening existing national and international security arrangements and disarmament and non-proliferation objectives and mechanisms. Participants recognize a need to prevent and curb the proliferation of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, as well as the importance of strengthening, and gaining wider adherence to, multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms. To meet these objectives, participants try to exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing, and deployment of ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.mtcr.info/english/index.html

The Missile Technology Control Regime is an informal and voluntary association of countries which share the goals of non-proliferation of unmanned delivery systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction

So it is the delivery systems for WMDs. Your original link does not mention that this is the type of weapon being sold. Given that it these munitions are being sold with helicopters and aircraft it is likely that these are conventional munitions, and not the delivery system for WMDs.

And conflating the civilian definition of WMD and the military definition of WMD is disingenuous at best.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The US sold WMD to Suddam to help them "defend" themselves against Iran. And seeing how well that turned out, the US is now selling WMD to Saudi Arabia for the same reason. Whos royal family has ties to ISIS.

Without using the civilian definition, precisely what WMDs are the US selling to Saudi Arabia?

**BaronIveagh**

CptJake wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

That is a silly comment.

The Saudis look to have executed 113 folks, all after some type of trial and conviction. You can hate the death penalty, and hate the fact they use beheading to carry it out, but DaIsh has capped more prisoners than that in a single day.

I'd hate to see what he'd make of things in the old days when the British and US recruited cannibal tribesmen to fight against the Axis powers...

But then, I suppose we all like to eat a little Japanese every now and then....

**Psienesis**

Prestor Jon wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
and some history, doesn't this sale bother anyone? doesn't it strike a eerie similarity to the Iran Iraq war?

The US sold WMD to Suddam to help them "defend" themselves against Iran. And seeing how well that turned out, the US is now selling WMD to Saudi Arabia for the same reason. Whos royal family has ties to ISIS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chute82 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
and according to the UN, missiles count as WMD's

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/Issues/

No if you read into it its biological, chemical, and nuclear missiles they are against.... Nice try

If you say so, so where is your source for "Conventional " weapons? or is that just your opinion? any proof?

You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that the US is selling chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. All you've done is post a list of convential armaments, equipment and vehicles that we sold to the Saudis.

We've been selling, or outright giving, bio-chem weapons to various parties in the ME for forty years. Why would our largest ally in the region be any different?

And on the beheadings point:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-arabia-beheads-nearly-twice-as-many-people-as-isis-so-far-this-year/208894/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/saudi-arabia-2015-beheadings-20-years-151110052520862.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executions-amnesty-international-beheadings-death-sentences-rate-under-king-salman-10470456.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/isis-beheadings-saudi-punishments-difference-clear-n296876
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/crime-and-punishment-islamic-state-vs-saudi-arabia-1588245666
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_beheading_incidents

Note that the largest report of ISIL beheadings (December 2014) is an unconfirmed report of them beheading their own soldiers for charges of desertion.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Saudi Arabia beheaded twice as many people this year than ISIS did. Where's the outrage there? I'll answer my own question: They're an allied nation, so it's ok.

Daesh is the result of the arming of radical Islamic factions over the past forty years by Western powers. To put a 40K analogy on it, we cut a deal with Ork Freebootas, with predictable results.

yep, and not only are we ok with Saudi beheading people, the US is selling them WMDs to make it easier for them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-sale-saudi-arabia
"Sales will include 84 new F-15 fighter jets, upgrades to 70 existing Saudi F-15s, 190 helicopters and a wide array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as accessories such as night-vision goggles and radar warning systems."

Since when did fighter jets and helicopters become Weapons of Mass Destruction??

did you not read missiles & bombs & delivery systems?

Those are not WMD s.. WMD s are nuclear, biological or chemical. Not conventional weapons.

**Kilkrazy**

BaronIveagh wrote:
I think that Russia and Turkey going at it, even if it doesn't become a full on shooting war will effect the campaign against ISIS, people. Any thoughts?

We don't really have a campaign against ISIS/ISIL/IS at the moment. What we have is relatively undirected sporadic bombing, plus some sniping, plus support in training and weapons to various irregular militia forces.

The Russia/Turkey situation will make all that more difficult in Syria, but presumably not Iraq.

What we need is a well organised campaign on the ground, with diplomatic support, practical support from Arab/Islamic nations, a clamp-down on the sources of funding of ISIL, and social campaigns to reduce radicalisation in western and Islamic nations.

The fact that all of this is very difficult to work on is why our leaders at the moment are just talking about upping the semi-random bombing.

The bombing by itself probably does more harm than good. It reinforces the idea that the west is working against Islam and is cowardly. It inevitably causes civilian casualties that increase resentment and radicalisation. We occasionally pick off a noted person, like Jihadi John, which makes for a good headline, but we can't do significant damage to command and control organisation and materiel just by bombing.

**LethalShade**

Kilkrazy wrote:
we can't do significant damage to command and control organisation and materiel just by bombing.

Depends on what we're using, but we don't want Raqqa to be consumed by a firestom.