[Shortest Straw]

I thought Obama was going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS.

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

(02-03-2015 11:29 PM)Shortest Straw Wrote:  

I thought Obama was going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS.

But the Jordanians took action first. Admittedly, this is a relatively small and insignificant show of anger on part of Jordan but it's not like they can much else.

[JustlookingForAGoodTime]

Looks like these are the first on the Jordanian hit parade.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...pilot.html

[speakeasy]

(02-03-2015 09:37 PM)Vronsky Wrote:  

In 1982 Hafez Al-Assad order his military forces to raze down the town of Hama, base of operations for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, who were giving his Baathist regime a lot of trouble. After the siege, approximately 20,000 to 40,000 people were killed and Al-Assad was denounced everywhere in the Western world. But he had eradicated the disease of Islamism and Syria enjoyed a secular, albeit undemocratic, society up for almost 30 years until 2011 when under the guise of the Arab Spring, Islamists armies, initially backed and funded by the US and her Middle Eastern allies, started to tear the country in half. The result: 190,000 dead and more than 3 million Syrians fleeing to neighbouring countries living as refugees.

In hindsight, guys like Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein know exactly what needs to be done in order to eliminate destabilizing elements in their societies, and maintain power; go all Old Testament and smite those against you. They are not bound by rules of engagement like the Geneva Convention and since all parties come from the same culture they know exactly what needs to be done. It is terrible for groups like the Kurds in Iraq who suffered from Saddam's wrath after the Americans betrayed them in the 1990s but groups like Al Qaeda, and others of their ilk, could not even gain a toe-hold in Syria until 2011 when a power vacuum occured.

I bet you anything that Iraqis and Syrians wish a hundred-fold times to live under Assad's and Hussein's rule rather than the horrific chaos that their countries have been engulfed in.

Good points and I agree, but what's been done is done. What is the solution from here?

[MidJack]

(02-03-2015 11:37 PM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 11:29 PM)Shortest Straw Wrote:  

I thought Obama was going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS.

But the Jordanians took action first. Admittedly, this is a relatively small and insignificant show of anger on part of Jordan but it's not like they can much else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/check...ddle-east/

Quote:

December 1, 2014

An Air Force F-16 fighter jet crashed in the Middle East late Sunday, killing the pilot on board, U.S. military officials said Monday.

The plane was returning to its base shortly after taking off on a combat mission, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.

...

Recent airstrikes in Iraq and Syria have been carried out from several bases in the Persian Gulf region, including Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Ali al Salem Air Base in Kuwait and al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates. Warren declined to say which base was used to launch the F-16, saying it is Defense Department policy not to do so.

Those are US bases.

[N°6]

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

The UK and US since they started civilian fire bombing over Germany and atomic bombing over Japan in WW2 brought in the era of state-sponsored terrorism from a safe height.

Now we are in the era of drones, smashing up civilians can continue from a comfortable seat in front of a joystick in Las Vegas.

[speakeasy]

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

That's a quick death. If a 500lb bomb hits you, you are dead before you even know what happens. You wouldn't even see it coming. Like getting shot in head by a sniper.

I'm sure you'd take that over being put in a cage and lit on fire while men stand around and take pleasure in your anguish.

You guys really need to quit this moral equivocation nonsense. "We're terrorists, they're terrorists, everyone is a terrorist!"

[lskdfjldsf]

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

[MidJack]

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

The UK and US since they started civilian fire bombing over Germany and atomic bombing over Japan in WW2 brought in the era of state-sponsored terrorism from a safe height.

I'm sure every holocaust survivor agrees with your moral assessment.

[El Chinito loco]

(02-04-2015 01:15 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

You guys really need to quit this moral equivocation nonsense. "We're terrorists, they're terrorists, everyone is a terrorist!"

It's part of being brought up with Hollywood moralizing about reality and constant 24 hour news depictions of the sad muslim holding his dead boy and crying at the sky after an errant bomb. You also have non stop ivory tower academic debates, editorials, and defeatism about how the west has committed misdeeds due to colonialism and how we should all come to terms and understanding. It's cultural relativism at its worst and it's all far left bullshit.

When you have two civilizations going at each other then the more developed, motivated, and militarily superior force wins. Simple as that. Fundamentalist islam should be considered a civilization entirely separate from the rest of the world. What they want is simply not reasonable to most rational people. If you want your civilization to persist then the other one most go. This form of islam has been shown to be incompatible with the modern world.

Unless someone likes living under a fundamentalist caliphate people should not take their personal liberty for granted. The unhinged brutality of burning someone alive and beheading them is part and parcel of what happens when things are left unchecked with fanaticism.

These islamicists aren't just a threat to the west but even the east and anywhere else where our current way of life is taken for granted these days.

[iknowexactly]

(02-03-2015 07:39 PM)Seamus Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 04:01 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

** On an unrelated note, I really really wish I knew how to edit video as well as they do. The technical value of the production seems very good to me. I wonder what they use.

Out of curiosity: Am I misreading, or does this mean you tracked down and watched the video of this guy being burned alive? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that

I consider pictures of torture obscene, not pictures of sex. I'm not criticizing anyone, someone has to know what's going on-- I just don't want to see the details myself.

I would respectfully request people to include "Warning Graphic Violence" or the like in any posts where they have photos of brutality.

[JustlookingForAGoodTime]

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

The UK and US since they started civilian fire bombing over Germany and atomic bombing over Japan in WW2 brought in the era of state-sponsored terrorism from a safe height.

Now we are in the era of drones, smashing up civilians can continue from a comfortable seat in front of a joystick in Las Vegas.

Bollocks.

You should know very well that Bomber Command had no choice but to resort to area bombing since it was suicidal for them to attack in daylight and they had little chance of hitting a particular industrial or military target at night. The atomic bombings? Go look for the declassified information concerning the planned American invasion of Japan. The upcoming campaign was going to be the bloodiest in human history. The Japanese should thank their lucky stars for the A bombs because the American intent verged on the genocidal. I had two coworkers years ago who fought as Marines during the war. One said his unit orders were "Take an occasional prisoner but otherwise kill every Jap you see" The other's was "Kill every Jap you see that's taller than knee high"

The Japanese correctly guessed the initial landing beaches and prepared what would have been an absolute slaughterhouse. The follow up waves would have simply massacred every Japanese in the combat area via overwhemling firepower regardless of civilian/military status simply as a matter of survival.

Those on the wrong end of Hellfires have little to complain about since you have to be an absolute fool to be in the close proximity to someone or something that is a known target.

[Vronsky]

(02-04-2015 12:12 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 09:37 PM)Vronsky Wrote:  

In 1982 Hafez Al-Assad order his military forces to raze down the town of Hama, base of operations for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, who were giving his Baathist regime a lot of trouble. After the siege, approximately 20,000 to 40,000 people were killed and Al-Assad was denounced everywhere in the Western world. But he had eradicated the disease of Islamism and Syria enjoyed a secular, albeit undemocratic, society up for almost 30 years until 2011 when under the guise of the Arab Spring, Islamists armies, initially backed and funded by the US and her Middle Eastern allies, started to tear the country in half. The result: 190,000 dead and more than 3 million Syrians fleeing to neighbouring countries living as refugees.

In hindsight, guys like Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein know exactly what needs to be done in order to eliminate destabilizing elements in their societies, and maintain power; go all Old Testament and smite those against you. They are not bound by rules of engagement like the Geneva Convention and since all parties come from the same culture they know exactly what needs to be done. It is terrible for groups like the Kurds in Iraq who suffered from Saddam's wrath after the Americans betrayed them in the 1990s but groups like Al Qaeda, and others of their ilk, could not even gain a toe-hold in Syria until 2011 when a power vacuum occured.

I bet you anything that Iraqis and Syrians wish a hundred-fold times to live under Assad's and Hussein's rule rather than the horrific chaos that their countries have been engulfed in.

Good points and I agree, but what's been done is done. What is the solution from here?

Bring back those types of autocrats into power...like it was done in Egypt with Sisi.

[WestIndianArchie]

Calmly typing away from my luxurious American manse, I can't really split hairs on what was the worse crime.

The Jordanian pilot who was indiscriminately bombing "enemy targets" which undoubtedly killed innocent civilians, or deliberate immolation of said man by those "enemy targets"

Here's what Bushwick Bill of the Geto Boys has to say

"You're lucky that I ain't the president
Cause I'll push the fuckin' button and get it over wit
Fuck all that waitin' and procrastinatin'
And all that goddamn negotiatin'
Flyin' back and fourth overseas
And havin' lunch and brunch with the motherfuckin' enemy
I'll aim one missle at Iraq
And blow that little piece of shit off the map
Yeah, I wouldn't give a fuck (????)
Cause I'm tired of payin' these high ass gas prices
Only the rich benefit, it'll be a cold day in hell before I enlist"



WIA

[MidJack]

(02-04-2015 02:35 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

The Jordanian pilot who was indiscriminately bombing "enemy targets" which undoubtedly killed innocent civilians...

You don't know that.

[mastauser]

(02-04-2015 01:34 AM)JustlookingForAGoodTime Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

The UK and US since they started civilian fire bombing over Germany and atomic bombing over Japan in WW2 brought in the era of state-sponsored terrorism from a safe height.

Now we are in the era of drones, smashing up civilians can continue from a comfortable seat in front of a joystick in Las Vegas.

Bollocks.

You should know very well that Bomber Command had no choice but to resort to area bombing since it was suicidal for them to attack in daylight and they had little chance of hitting a particular industrial or military target at night. The atomic bombings? Go look for the declassified information concerning the planned American invasion of Japan. The upcoming campaign was going to be the bloodiest in human history. The Japanese should thank their lucky stars for the A bombs because the American intent verged on the genocidal. I had two coworkers years ago who fought as Marines during the war. One said his unit orders were "Take an occasional prisoner but otherwise kill every Jap you see" The other's was "Kill every Jap you see that's taller than knee high"

The Japanese correctly guessed the initial landing beaches and prepared what would have been an absolute slaughterhouse. The follow up waves would have simply massacred every Japanese in the combat area via overwhemling firepower regardless of civilian/military status simply as a matter of survival.

Those on the wrong end of Hellfires have little to complain about since you have to be an absolute fool to be in the close proximity to someone or something that is a known target.

Without the Atomic Bombs thrown by you guys I wouldn't even have existed. Big part of my family was held captured in Japanese Concentration Camps, and they only got freed after the bombs. The Japanese definitely did provoke the bombs themselves, they were barbaric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Railway

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-04-2015 01:15 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

That's a quick death. If a 500lb bomb hits you, you are dead before you even know what happens. You wouldn't even see it coming. Like getting shot in head by a sniper.

I'm sure you'd take that over being put in a cage and lit on fire while men stand around and take pleasure in your anguish.

You guys really need to quit this moral equivocation nonsense. "We're terrorists, they're terrorists, everyone is a terrorist!"

That's not true at all. I'm sure plenty of people die very slow and agonizing deaths from bombings. It's not like everyone killed has a 500 lb bomb explode 3 ft from them and vaporize them.
You could be sitting in your house, hear a loud noise, and wake up in the rubble with one of your arms crushed, shrapnel wounds everywhere, and your intestines hanging out, and just lie there, trapped and suffering for hours. There are definitely numerous ways your suffering could be equal to or greater than being burned alive, which the way they did it to the pilot was awful, but was over in a minute or two.

[Sp5]

Interesting and well-informed article:

Al Arabia analysis: ISIS dares Jordan to avenge pilot's murder

Quote:

Lt. al-Kasasbeh hailed from the Barasheh tribe in southern Jordan. The Barasheh tribe is part of the backbone, if you will, of the Jordanian monarchy especially the Jordanian armed forces. As the crisis over Lt. al-Kasasbeh unfolded, tribal elders tried to negotiate with ISIS for his release in a prisoner swap noted above. But the discussions were all a folly. ISIS used the Jordanian tribes similar to how they have abused Iraqi tribes. This fact makes matters worse because the Barsasheh tribe now will want revenge, and rightfully so. What comes next is very likely what has been discussed privately: A Jordanian military operation against ISIS in Syrian territory. Clearly, Lt. al-Kasasbeh’s martyrdom status is likely to launch exactly what ISIS wants from the Hashemite Kingdom. Jordan’s military and special operation forces, who are made up of key tribes, are likely to be unleashed to track down and eliminate ISIS on Syrian territory.

Any Jordanian military operation on the ground will be fierce and well-armed, and now, more highly motivated than ever before. As I noted in a column last year, 10,000-12,000 SOF will be used hunt down Lt. al-Kasasbeh’s killers and their associates. Jordan may well be “the tip of the spear” for a ground campaign by other coalition partners. As we know, Amman’s SOF is world renowned with almost 30,000 SOF warriors augmented with enhanced training at the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Center (KASOTC). Force 71 will be used as well and their furiousness is legendary.

May Allah protect the Jordanians in this fight.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-04-2015 01:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

There seems to be a popular sentiment that to "win," what the USA really needs to do is to stop being a pussy (ie disregard all rules of decency and kill family members of combatants and civilians in unlimited amounts), and use overwhelming force (millions of soldiers which would require a large draft and reorganizing the economy on a war footing).

Maybe a WW2 level of effort would succeed in defeating ISIS and the Taliban. But what then? How long to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for? Years, decades, forever?
These places aren't Germany or Japan, they are completely fucked up backwaters without 1/100th of the organization, capacity, etc those countries have. You will never turn them into stable or nice places.

Also, the cost would be truly astronomical in terms of lives and money. It absolutely does not make sense to do that. Neither the ISIS or the Taliban poses any threat to the territory of the United States. They are not Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan. Neither ISIS or the Taliban has the potential for world domination. China laughs at us as we worry about crap that is none of our business. The Roman Empire did the same thing and it was one of the main factors in their downfall.

[Foolsgo1d]

(02-04-2015 01:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

But could the US and NATO live with itself? WW2 is seen as some clean war because it was just and the Vietnam war as the graveyard of American foreign policy which shamed it due to the barbarity involved.

The same guys who fought WW2 were in Vietnam as veterans in command positions were they not?

If the US and NATO did go all in, to eradicate not only ISIS but its genetic bloodline and following, the abyss would almost certainly be staring right back at us.

How would eliminating entire towns and villages full of ISIS supporters be a worthwhile cause? It is impossible to eliminate these people with such methods.

Social media and the MSM would beam it right across the world. This is no Germany or Japanese war machine you have a clear line with.

It is well documented how a fair number of our soldiers were affected and became inhuman as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a campaign would cost too many lives. There is no political or social will for it.

[berserk]

(02-04-2015 06:48 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

There seems to be a popular sentiment that to "win," what the USA really needs to do is to stop being a pussy (kill family members and civilians of combatants in unlimited amounts), and use overwhelming force (millions of soldiers which would require a large draft and reorganizing the economy on a war footing).

Maybe a WW2 level of effort would succeed in defeating ISIS and the Taliban. But what then? How long to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for? Years, decades, forever?
These places aren't Germany or Japan, they are completely fucked up backwaters without 1/100th of the organization, capacity, etc those countries have. You will never turn them into stable or nice places.

Also, the cost would be truly astronomical in terms of lives and money. It absolutely does not make sense to do that. Neither the ISIS or the Taliban poses any threat to the territory of the United States. They are not Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan. Neither ISIS or the Taliban has the potential for world domination. China laughs at us as we worry about crap that is none of our business. The Roman Empire did the same thing and it was one of the main factors in their downfall.

How do you hold Arabia?

How did the Brits or Ottomans do it? Through overwhelming sheer force, nothing else.

The west has been arrogant in assuming its values were universal, something Samuel Huntington warned against.

The best would be to prop up guys like Assad, shia muslims, who on the whole seem more civilized. The US had it right the first time. Saddam, Assad, that Egyptian dictator.

The problem was and is the infiltration of Saudi and Israeli powers in the US government. Both of them strongly disliked a strong united Arab country on their doorstep. Both Israel and Saudi are not threathened by ISIS like guerilla warriors. Look at Israel in Gaza, none of that rules of engagement bs going on there. You kill one of us, we kill 100 of you.

The fragmented middle east benefits Israel and Saudi and that's the reason it is that way.

[H1N1]

(02-04-2015 07:00 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 06:48 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

There seems to be a popular sentiment that to "win," what the USA really needs to do is to stop being a pussy (kill family members and civilians of combatants in unlimited amounts), and use overwhelming force (millions of soldiers which would require a large draft and reorganizing the economy on a war footing).

Maybe a WW2 level of effort would succeed in defeating ISIS and the Taliban. But what then? How long to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for? Years, decades, forever?
These places aren't Germany or Japan, they are completely fucked up backwaters without 1/100th of the organization, capacity, etc those countries have. You will never turn them into stable or nice places.

Also, the cost would be truly astronomical in terms of lives and money. It absolutely does not make sense to do that. Neither the ISIS or the Taliban poses any threat to the territory of the United States. They are not Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan. Neither ISIS or the Taliban has the potential for world domination. China laughs at us as we worry about crap that is none of our business. The Roman Empire did the same thing and it was one of the main factors in their downfall.

How do you hold Arabia?

How did the Brits or Ottomans do it? Through overwhelming sheer force, nothing else.

The west has been arrogant in assuming its values were universal, something Samuel Huntington warned against.

The best would be to prop up guys like Assad, shia muslims, who on the whole seem more civilized. The US had it right the first time. Saddam, Assad, that Egyptian dictator.

The problem was and is the infiltration of Saudi and Israeli powers in the US government. Both of them strongly disliked a strong united Arab country on their doorstep. Both Israel and Saudi are not threathened by ISIS like guerilla warriors. Look at Israel in Gaza, none of that rules of engagement bs going on there. You kill one of us, we kill 100 of you.

The fragmented middle east benefits Israel and Saudi and that's the reason it is that way.

This thread is interesting, I wish I had more time to address some aspects of it.

I just caught the line about 'Saudi aren't threatened by ISIS'. I'd strongly disagree with this. Saudi haven't diminished oil production despite the global crash in oil prices. This is the clearest sign yet that they are in fact extremely threatened by ISIS. A good deal of ISIS' wealth comes from black market oil sales - the last figures I read put this in the region of several million dollars/day in revenue. Driving down/keeping suppressed oil prices by maintaining production levels does starve ISIS of critical funding, to an extent.

What is so concerning about ISIS, as another poster alluded to with his comments on the quality of the video production, is that they are actually an incredibly well organised, entrepreneurial, well funded ORGANISATION with a wealth of skills. The media portrays them as an effective terrorist cell, when in fact they already bear more similarities with a fast growing nation than they do with a rag-tag group of jihadis.

Saudi has every reason to be afraid, as the Wahabi sect that is so prevalent there is a virulent form of militant Islam, that is naturally sympathetic to ISIS. So Saudi has a strong natural support base for ISIS, a sick leader, huge natural resources, and important religious sites. The likelihood of ISIS being able to recruit sympathisers within Saudi security/border/military agencies is pretty high, meaning if they are smart, they might be able to get across the Saudi borders extremely rapidly. Although Saudi has plenty of military tech, they don't actually have a massive standing army, or particularly impressive military capabilities. Faced with a horde of highly motivated, disciplined, battle hardened ISIS fighters, many Saudi soldiers (who would be welcomed into the ISIS ranks), might prefer to join ISIS than fight.

[JustlookingForAGoodTime]

(02-04-2015 07:25 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 07:00 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 06:48 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:25 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's disappointing to see some of the posts here.

The island of Iwo Jima had more suicidal Japanese soldiers on it than all of ISIS combined. We invaded, slaughtered them, bombed their homeland with nuclear weapons, and defeated one of the largest empires on earth without a shred of mercy. An enemy with literally millions of soldiers who would slaughter an entire Chinese city and stack their severed heads up 10 feet high. We torched them with flamethrowers, ran them over with tanks, and kept no prisoners. We didn't look for "human shields", we carpet bombed every single rock the enemy was hiding under. At the same time, on the other side of the world, millions of U.S. troops were sweeping across Europe and defeating an equally powerful industrialized, technologically advanced empire.

You underestimate the capability of the U.S. based on politically-correct news coverage and modern perceptions of international law. If the rules of engagement and handcuffs were removed from our military (one of adequate size, possibly with a draft implemented) the land battle would be over within a week, and not a single blade of grass would be left standing.

Part of being a man or "masculine" is having the resolve to kill your enemy during a prolonged conflict. ISIS isn't "setting a trap so we don't invade" they're taunting us because they can rely on a softness that's grown inside us. They are human beings, they can bleed, so we can kill them - simple as that.

There seems to be a popular sentiment that to "win," what the USA really needs to do is to stop being a pussy (kill family members and civilians of combatants in unlimited amounts), and use overwhelming force (millions of soldiers which would require a large draft and reorganizing the economy on a war footing).

Maybe a WW2 level of effort would succeed in defeating ISIS and the Taliban. But what then? How long to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for? Years, decades, forever?
These places aren't Germany or Japan, they are completely fucked up backwaters without 1/100th of the organization, capacity, etc those countries have. You will never turn them into stable or nice places.

Also, the cost would be truly astronomical in terms of lives and money. It absolutely does not make sense to do that. Neither the ISIS or the Taliban poses any threat to the territory of the United States. They are not Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan. Neither ISIS or the Taliban has the potential for world domination. China laughs at us as we worry about crap that is none of our business. The Roman Empire did the same thing and it was one of the main factors in their downfall.

How do you hold Arabia?

How did the Brits or Ottomans do it? Through overwhelming sheer force, nothing else.

The west has been arrogant in assuming its values were universal, something Samuel Huntington warned against.

The best would be to prop up guys like Assad, shia muslims, who on the whole seem more civilized. The US had it right the first time. Saddam, Assad, that Egyptian dictator.

The problem was and is the infiltration of Saudi and Israeli powers in the US government. Both of them strongly disliked a strong united Arab country on their doorstep. Both Israel and Saudi are not threathened by ISIS like guerilla warriors. Look at Israel in Gaza, none of that rules of engagement bs going on there. You kill one of us, we kill 100 of you.

The fragmented middle east benefits Israel and Saudi and that's the reason it is that way.

This thread is interesting, I wish I had more time to address some aspects of it.

I just caught the line about 'Saudi aren't threatened by ISIS'. I'd strongly disagree with this. Saudi haven't diminished oil production despite the global crash in oil prices. This is the clearest sign yet that they are in fact extremely threatened by ISIS. A good deal of ISIS' wealth comes from black market oil sales - the last figures I read put this in the region of several million dollars/day in revenue. Driving down/keeping suppressed oil prices by maintaining production levels does starve ISIS of critical funding, to an extent.

What is so concerning about ISIS, as another poster alluded to with his comments on the quality of the video production, is that they are actually an incredibly well organised, entrepreneurial, well funded ORGANISATION with a wealth of skills. The media portrays them as an effective terrorist cell, when in fact they already bear more similarities with a fast growing nation than they do with a rag-tag group of jihadis.

Saudi has every reason to be afraid, as the Wahabi sect that is so prevalent there is a virulent form of militant Islam, that is naturally sympathetic to ISIS. So Saudi has a strong natural support base for ISIS, a sick leader, huge natural resources, and important religious sites. The likelihood of ISIS being able to recruit sympathisers within Saudi security/border/military agencies is pretty high, meaning if they are smart, they might be able to get across the Saudi borders extremely rapidly. Although Saudi has plenty of military tech, they don't actually have a massive standing army, or particularly impressive military capabilities. Faced with a horde of highly motivated, disciplined, battle hardened ISIS fighters, many Saudi soldiers (who would be welcomed into the ISIS ranks), might prefer to join ISIS than fight.

Pretty much on the spot.

The Saudi army is as close to a paper tiger you'll find in the Middle East. If ISIS massed and pressed hard, the Saudi ground troops would melt away in an even quicker fashion than the Syrians did in the initial moves of their current conflict.

[AntiTrace]

(02-04-2015 01:10 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What do you think happens when pilots bomb civilians from a safe height before flying home to tea?

The UK and US since they started civilian fire bombing over Germany and atomic bombing over Japan in WW2 brought in the era of state-sponsored terrorism from a safe height.

Now we are in the era of drones, smashing up civilians can continue from a comfortable seat in front of a joystick in Las Vegas.

Your comment is ignorant. Go read up on the rules of engagement. You obviously don't realize the channels authorization to release ordinance has to go through.

No one sitting in Las Vegas with a joytick is sipping tea, stroking a hairless cat, and laughing while releasing hellfires into schoolhouses. They are in sitting there in flight uniforms, observing targets, and releasing ordinance when the target is confirmed and when collateral damage is at the minimum.

There is no need to address the WWII stuff. That's over 60 years ago, and when criticize only the actions of the allied forces I can tell you've already made up your mind and chosen your side.

[Saga]

(02-04-2015 02:35 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

Calmly typing away from my luxurious American manse, I can't really split hairs on what was the worse crime.

The Jordanian pilot who was indiscriminately bombing "enemy targets" which undoubtedly killed innocent civilians, or deliberate immolation of said man by those "enemy targets"

Perhaps you can't but I can: the latter is worse by many orders of magnitude. Any comparison between the two borders on inconceivable, and that's ignoring the false choice you've presented.