Apologies, @2mufc0 wasn't the personal form...meant as their, following on from the form used in the first sentence. I had no intention of drawing an association between you and ISIS.
Last edited:
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Apologies, @2mufc0 wasn't the personal form...meant as their, following on from the form used in the first sentence. I had no intention of drawing an association between you and ISIS.
Nope. It's fairly hypocritical after all the clamour about Russian air raids recently, although their resumption is to be expected under Trump.. The US wrote the book on bombing the "wrong" target when they blew up the Chinese embassy in the former Yugoslavia and have little excuse for this sort of thing, especially in Syria.
Thanks for the clarification, I just realised this and misinterpreted what you were saying.
Basically if you are going to bomb something chances are good along the way you will hit the "wrong" target. Even before aerial bombing things like that happened. Take The Dogger Bank Incident as a prime example.
It's a side effect of the air supremacy doctrine that Pres. Clinton favoured and made popular. When you have a full martial complement in a theatre of war I think mistakes like that are less likely.
I think the best way to look at this is the following: We know that war kills and maims people. The ends have to justify the means. From a consequentialist points of view it is about benefits and costs. The problem is, that we simply don’t really value the life of somebody in the Middle East like we would value the life of a westerner. The consequence is that we are pretty much in favor of every military intervention that promises any gains: “Throw a bomb at a residential building because some random dude from a terrorists list is living there? Worth it. The innocent family that gets killed as well? Well…they are collateral damage….nothing we can do about it; we had to kill this terrorist.”
We’d NEVER do anything like that in our own society. When these lunatics milita guys occupied this wild-life building somewhere in the USA to protest against something (I forgot the circumstances), we didn’t just bomb them, despite them breaking the law. The standoff lasted weeks.
Participating in the military operation to re-conquer Mosul from ISIS is imo justified even if it does some horrific harm. There is sadly little alternatives that promise better outcomes (I can’t judge the validity of single operations in the context of this operation; some might not be justifiable). Yet the crucial point is, that there are clear goals and a positive endgame (Iraqi government is able to win back authority about a major city from a terrorist organization) and this justifies imo the military operation (I accept, that you can have a different view on this). It is plausible to see that we’d act in similar way when western citizens would be harmed.
Yet this strategy just to have fairly random air-strikes against fairly unimportant people, who are on some random kill-list is evil, because there is just no way that the caused harm (killing innocents) outweighs the gains (some random “terrorist dies). There might be single incidence, when accepting the death of innocents is okay (e.g killing some high level figure like BinLaden), but we just stopped attributing any meaningful value to the lives of these people. That some stunning level of moral confusion simply based on national identity.
We’d NEVER do anything like that in our own society. When these lunatics milita guys occupied this wild-life building somewhere in the USA to protest against something (I forgot the circumstances), we didn’t just bomb them, despite them breaking the law. The standoff lasted weeks.
Participating in the military operation to re-conquer Mosul from ISIS is imo justified even if it does some horrific harm. There is sadly little alternatives that promise better outcomes (I can’t judge the validity of single operations in the context of this operation; some might not be justifiable). Yet the crucial point is, that there are clear goals and a positive endgame (Iraqi government is able to win back authority about a major city from a terrorist organization) and this justifies imo the military operation (I accept, that you can have a different view on this). It is plausible to see that we’d act in similar way when western citizens would be harmed.
Yet this strategy just to have fairly random air-strikes against fairly unimportant people, who are on some random kill-list is evil, because there is just no way that the caused harm (killing innocents) outweighs the gains (some random “terrorist dies). There might be single incidence, when accepting the death of innocents is okay (e.g killing some high level figure like BinLaden), but we just stopped attributing any meaningful value to the lives of these people. That some stunning level of moral confusion simply based on national identity.
It's a decent summation, Pedro, but the comparison of the Malheur occupiers with terrorists fails because the guys at Malheur didn't plan to, or actually, kill anyone. So having the state kill them would have been pretty heavy handed.
Waco might be a better comparison but some of your other points might fail with that as well. The state kills who it wants when it can get away with it. Ugly, but true.
Waco might be a better comparison but some of your other points might fail with that as well. The state kills who it wants when it can get away with it. Ugly, but true.
The comparison also fails, because the range of possible actions in our own states is different. We don’t have the capabilities to arrest someone in Somalia, Pakistan or Afghanistan. But my point is, that we need to be much more selective. Killing some random dude in the middle of nowhere can't be the justification for also endangering the lives innocents. Their lives are just as important as the lives of a European citizens and we’d never accept this amount of “collateral damage”, when the burden would fall on our own society.
++
quite significant if true.
++
quite significant if true.
We have in the past, though, but we weren't as unified in the 1940s.
A separate thread wasn't created for the 230 people killed in Mosul because in Iraq, Arabs are killing Arabs. If a foreigner goes to another country and carries out an attack and kills people, it is obviously going to be a big thing. Two Chechens from Chechnya went to the US, lived there and then carried out the Boston bombings. Furthermore, Boston is a peaceful place with no civil war. So if any attack takes place in any peaceful place in the world, it's obviously going to make news. There is a civil war going on in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia and Syria. So that's why attacks there won't make the news.
If a Brazilian goes to Iraq and carries out a bombing, it will make the news. Arabs are killing Arabs in the Middle East. They must sort it out amongst themselves. No one else can solve their problems for them. It should come from within.
@Nikhil the 230 weren't killed by arabs.
http://www.synaps.network/what-the-war-on-terror-looks-like
Very disturbing read. Sadly this perspective is probably quite accurate while our media is acting as cheerleader for this horror.
Very disturbing read. Sadly this perspective is probably quite accurate while our media is acting as cheerleader for this horror.
Last edited:
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...osuls-civilians-run-for-their-lives.html?_r=0
So where's the outrage? Oh right, it's not Aleppo with Ryrians and Russians, it's Mosul with Iraquis and Americans.
So where's the outrage? Oh right, it's not Aleppo with Ryrians and Russians, it's Mosul with Iraquis and Americans.
There's a thread about it. Mention of it in a couple of other threads and always plenty of condemnation on the Caf when the US or other western nations hit civilian targets.
FYI, I was a poster who from the start advocated against the US being involved in Libya and Syria.
Yeah, the thread that was started yesterday. The Mosul operation has been going on for months now.
Apparently there's been a chemical attack in Syria, almost 60 people have been killed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39488539
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39488539
Horrible. Whoever is responsible, I hope this doesn't spur IS on to do something similar.
I am sure they already have the idea of doing something like this, just a matter of do they have the capability.
I'm sure they do but it doesn't mean they couldn't be prompted to look into it more.
Who knows, maybe they were involved with this attack already. Of course we don't have confirmation that it really was an attack yet do we? Do they know what substance was used?
And what was the date of your post?
One has to wonder what would be Assad and the regimes motivation to do something like this.
They pretty much already got the rebels\jihadis beat, or if they don't they surely don't need chemical weapons to beat them further down the road, especially with the Russians helping out.
From a PR perspective it is a nightmare. Assad, the regime and Russia have finally got most of the world onboard meanwhile the world has turned their backs to the rebels\jihadis. Pulling a chemical stunt might weaken their support amongst other nations and people in general.
I just don't see why they would do it. It isn't a valid strategy both from millitary and PR perspectives.
They pretty much already got the rebels\jihadis beat, or if they don't they surely don't need chemical weapons to beat them further down the road, especially with the Russians helping out.
From a PR perspective it is a nightmare. Assad, the regime and Russia have finally got most of the world onboard meanwhile the world has turned their backs to the rebels\jihadis. Pulling a chemical stunt might weaken their support amongst other nations and people in general.
I just don't see why they would do it. It isn't a valid strategy both from millitary and PR perspectives.
Because they can. There's no one left to stop them at this point with the US, under Trump, no longer interested and the Russians basically running a protection racket in exchange for basing rights and domestic obfuscation back in Moscow.
Yeah it's a bit of an odd thing for them to do at this stage, and of course a horrible thing to do (no matter who did it). Though as Raoul points out, it might just be because they can as a bit of extra punishment for rebels.
As I asked in the previous post, do we have confirmation that this was a chemical attack? Do they know what substance was used?
Once those questions are answered, that might give us an idea as to the WHO, if there even was a who.
Could this be a case of a conventional attack that caused the release of some chemicals (not weapons just chemicals) that were stored in the area, of caused some fires which included the burning of some materials that released toxins into the air that caused the deaths and illnesses?
There are also unconfirmed reports of hospitals being hit by airstrikes as the wounded were brought to them. Again I am saying UNCONFIRMED and am not pointing fingers are anyone.
"Because they can"?
Do you think Russia and Assad is some sort of cartoon villains that sit around a big table discussing what evil act they should perform for the day?
They are both too conniving to do such just because "we be evilz, this'be wot we do".
Assad is on a PR journey to his own people and the rest of the world as the only viable option in Syria, meanwhile Putin want to be considered a level head and revels in the PR victory he won in Syria.
There is simply no gain to be had.
They can because they can. If Assad was brazen enough to launch a Sarin gas attack on his own population alongside countless barrel bombs when Obama was in charge and the Russians weren't around, then you can bet he will do the same with the Russians in country and a lack of interest from Trump.
100 dead and 400 injured now.
It's not a matter of "we iz evil, we duz wat we wantz" it is more a matter of them looking at their end game and deciding what for them is the best way of getting there. They may not really care about gassing the opposition who lets face it when all is said and done they may not want as many around. I have long given up on the expectation that people will behave rationally.
Yeah, make no mistake, I don't put it beyond Assad and Putin to use chemical weapons at all. I reckon if they could get away with it they would gass half of Syria.
I just consider them both to better tacticians and more conniving though. They will surely know that this will put a dent in the PR blinder they've played lately, both in regard to the Syrian population and the opinion in the West.
<snip>
no blood or gore...so, I didn't spoiler
no blood or gore...so, I didn't spoiler
Last edited by a moderator:
What does that have to do with anything?
LOL, I don't know maybe look at what you wrote and figure it out, I am sure you are capable.
here's a hint, you decided it was important to point out a thread was only made yesterday, which was still BEFORE you decided to make mention of the events. Have you figured it out yet?
My point was about the western MSM ignoring the Mosul situation for weeks in regards to the suffering of the people on the ground while demonizing Putin and Assad over Aleppo on a daily basis.
The timing of my post is irrelevant since it doesn't change the facts.
So they were both simultaneously ignoring the situation...while criticising international leaders for it at the same time? What?
This is nonsense. I've been seeing reports on the main news bulletins from journos in Mosul for months.
But if you're so keen on people immediately pointing out failures of their own sides, where's your post on the chemical attack?
then why did you bitch about the thread being made the day before? As I originally pointed there is a ton of complaint here about US actions, and they come from people seeing media reports about it. Not my fault you ignore what does not fit your agenda.
Those bulletins were full of news on suffering of the Mosul population trapped in the city? Everyone from politicians to celebrities join in in unison praying #SaveMosul like they were doing for Aleppo? I must have missed that.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/200...ppo-raising-awareness-about-the-war-torn-city
The "chemical attacks" conveniently pop up whenever the so-called 'moderate opposition' supported by the Gulf States and the US are getting their asses kicked on the ground. Just like SwansonTache pointed out earlier, there's no gain for Assad in that. He's winning the war, why would he create a PR nightmare for hiimself? For what possible reason? The other side though looks very well funded and quite profficient in playing the victim's card and before you know it the major western media outlets are full of heartbreaking pictures of people 'dead from the gas poisoning ordered by the butcher Assad'. I've seen that BS so many times already.
Are you suggesting the chemical attacks from Assad didn't happen ? That's quite astonishing if true.
Are you slow? I'll write it one more time so you'd understand. My point was about the difference in coverage of two military operations, one in Aleppo and the other in Mosul by the western media, particularly in regards to the suffering of the city residents. Whether I posted this a month ago or yesterday and whether the thread you mentioned was started an hour ago or the day Mosul operation began doesn't matter because it doesn't change the point I'm making.
Don't know about bitching but I know a hypocrite when I see one.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/st-petersburg-metro-rocked-by-explosion.427810/page-2#post-20675218