Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carpet bomb ISIS and kill their families?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
    Yeah I don't see any problems here. The amazed reaction to a rather conventional military solution says more about those reacting than it does the candidates. God help us if we'd been this soft when the USSR, Nazi Germany ot Imperial Japan had existed.

    Nothing about IS is new. Sherman, von Clausewitz, Washington, Ceasar, none of them would be surprised by a threat like them and they'd all propose similar solutions. Most of them even carried them out at one point or another. As for the military going along with it. That order would be like Christmas morning in the Pentagon. Never mistake the administration's "we are the world" double speak for the attitude of anyone but the political sycophants in the military.
    Sorry ,i was too vague.
    This bunch of wankers makes me laugh simply because they are a bunch of wankers,not because of what they are proposing to solve this problem.
    Don't get me wrong ,there's the same bunch of wankers right in face.
    That rug really tied the room together

    Comment


    • #17
      I think levelling Raqqa is OK, given the security risk. Even better if someone else will do it for us though.

      I actually liked the Obama strategy of sitting back and letting the locals fight it out with air support. The weakness in the plan has been EU open door immigration and asylum policy. Arguably American immigration policy too.
      Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
        God help us if we'd been this soft when the USSR, Nazi Germany ot Imperial Japan had existed.

        Nothing about IS is new. Sherman, von Clausewitz, Washington, Ceasar, none of them would be surprised by a threat like them and they'd all propose similar solutions. Most of them even carried them out at one point or another.
        There is the small detail that at the time of all of those examples, the number of tools in the toolbox was somewhat limited. Bomber Command tried initially for precision bombing in early WWII, found that it did not have the tool for that, thus resorted to the sledgehammer and to what it could do with that. Eventually it entered the mindframe of "I have only a hammer so I see all problems as nails".
        Things have evolved since then.
        Note I'm not saying hammers are useless and/or they should never be used. Maybe sometimes they have to be used, if no other tool is suitable.
        I'm just saying the toolbox isn't so poorly equipped today - in part exactly because nobody wanted to see the likes of Berlin and Hiroshima again, after the sledgehammers' work.

        I'd like to ask you what is the relevance of Caesar or Sherman here. Sure they used draconian policies at times, but which of their enemies was to Rome what the IS is to the West today?
        Michele

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
          I think levelling Raqqa is OK, given the security risk. Even better if someone else will do it for us though.
          Looking at this from the POV of those fanatics:
          Every time the foreign, non-Muslim commitment is increased, some of them will say: "Look, the crusaders are coming, the final battle will take place here in Syria as preordained and foreseen! Come, faithful Moslems, and fight for God!"

          If OTOH it is a Muslim army that crushes the Caliphate - that will be evidence that God was not with this Caliph, i.e. that he was a false Caliph. Those Muslims who have said "the IS is not Muslim" will be proven right in their accusation of apostasy, i.e. they will be proven to be the true Muslims.

          So yes, it would be desirable if someone else than the Western countries disposes of the IS, and if that someone else is Muslim.
          Michele

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Michele View Post
            Looking at this from the POV of those fanatics:
            Every time the foreign, non-Muslim commitment is increased, some of them will say: "Look, the crusaders are coming, the final battle will take place here in Syria as preordained and foreseen! Come, faithful Moslems, and fight for God!"

            If OTOH it is a Muslim army that crushes the Caliphate - that will be evidence that God was not with this Caliph, i.e. that he was a false Caliph. Those Muslims who have said "the IS is not Muslim" will be proven right in their accusation of apostasy, i.e. they will be proven to be the true Muslims.

            So yes, it would be desirable if someone else than the Western countries disposes of the IS, and if that someone else is Muslim.
            Exactly right Michelle. It is actually happening too, with Russian help. Plus they will own the messy aftermath not us.

            Looking ahead we may need something similar in Afghan and Libya etc.
            Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
              Soft is being willing to throw away our liberties for safety. Soft is fearing every Muslim in the world.
              Not at all. Nowhere did i advocate giving up liberties for this. I'm taking about action in foreign countries, not here. The liberties of those people are their problem not ours. As far as I'm concerned if they threaten our liberties or safety them theirs are forfeit.

              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              My view is the "They bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun..."

              That is, we should be using unbridled force on ISIS. They fire from a building, any building including a mosque, and we flatten it. We spray the ruins with napalm.

              If we intend to fight ISIS as a war, then we should, like the Russians, be willing to use massive and excessive force to win.

              The idea that somehow the military is a super police force and that the enemy are nothing more than common criminals who need to be arrested and brought to trial is nothing short of insane. Yet, that is pretty much the Obama administration's view of how to conduct war.
              100% agree. War is the use of violence to compel you enemy to do your will. Trying to make it "clean" just prolongs the war, muddles the aftermath and ensures more people will die in the long run.

              Originally posted by Michele View Post
              I'd like to ask you what is the relevance of Caesar or Sherman here. Sure they used draconian policies at times, but which of their enemies was to Rome what the IS is to the West today?
              I primarily brought them up as a sampling of different time periods to counter the popular notion that IS is some radically new type of threat and that we don't know how to deal with it effectively by naming historical figures who would easily understand what they are and how to approach them. Sherman is more for his ideas than for any enemy he faced being like IS. That is specifically why I named Washington and Ceasar though. The British backed Iroquois and the tribes in Gaul and Germania weren't existential threats to the early US or to Rome itself but they were threats to the frontiers and to friendly tribes in both cases. They both approached the problem in similar and effective ways. Sherman did as well though the level of threat was greater than IS could ever dream of.

              Originally posted by Michele View Post
              Looking at this from the POV of those fanatics:
              Every time the foreign, non-Muslim commitment is increased, some of them will say: "Look, the crusaders are coming, the final battle will take place here in Syria as preordained and foreseen! Come, faithful Moslems, and fight for God!"

              If OTOH it is a Muslim army that crushes the Caliphate - that will be evidence that God was not with this Caliph, i.e. that he was a false Caliph. Those Muslims who have said "the IS is not Muslim" will be proven right in their accusation of apostasy, i.e. they will be proven to be the true Muslims.

              So yes, it would be desirable if someone else than the Western countries disposes of the IS, and if that someone else is Muslim.
              Totally agree here. It's high time the locals fight their own battles. We just need to be willing to do what it takes to let them fight effectively. Let's face it the Iraqi and Syrian armies aren't exactly the greatest fighting forces the world has ever seen.
              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

              Comment


              • #22
                The reason precision airstrikes cannot surgically remove ISIS from large cities like Raqaa and Mosul is because ISIS fighters/members are mixed in with the civilian population.

                If a future President Cruz or President Trump were to order the carpet bombing and total destruction of those cities without regard to massive civilian deaths, that would certainly be declared a war crime.

                If such an order were given, would the military command who were given the order be legally justified in refusing to carry out such an order?

                Philip
                "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."— Bertrand Russell

                Comment


                • #23
                  Not likely. TONS of precedent exists in favor of its legality. Otherwise you would have to declare the entire Allied bombing campaign of WWII a war crime, along with much of Korea and Vietnam. Sure the usual suspects like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the more extreme of the bleeding hearts at the UN would complain and call it a war crime but every combat action is a war crime to them.
                  "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                    Really? Who have they arrested in Syria?
                    What? Don't recall Obama's DOJ and Eric Holder's trying terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal civilian courts? He did. That guy got off with one minor felony out of over 100 charges leveled at him including dozens of murders.
                    Why? Because much of the evidence and procedure to catch him was done by the military and spy agencies like the CIA and was highly classified.
                    After doing this several times the DOJ finally figured out you can't try terrorists caught overseas in war zones like criminals.

                    Or, Obama's trying to close the POW camp at Gitmo. Same thing. He wants those held treated like any other felon in a prison. Nobody's buying that. He's released a number of them in an attempt to close that facility. They are being called "recidivists" now that they're back in the fight.

                    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...82501120120306


                    The proportion of militants released from detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay who subsequently were believed to have returned to the battlefield rose slightly over the last year, according to official figures released on Monday.

                    In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.
                    Recidivism is what criminals do when they commit new crimes after release. POW's go back to fighting for their side and cause. The men at Gitmo are POW's and Obama doesn't understand the difference.

                    He and his administration say it themselves:

                    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...civilian-court

                    The way some people are carrying on these days about the Obama administration's decision to handle would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system, you'd think the Constitution was a new document they weren't used to yet. Or that applying it was optional. Or that it hasn't been used over and over again for suspected terrorists. The Obama administration's correct decision to treat Abdulmutallab as an accused criminal is required by law, has proven successful in collecting valuable intelligence, and is standard legal procedure used even by the Bush administration.
                    The whole idea that this radical Islam and terrorism are nothing but a bunch of criminals committing crimes is asininely insane. They say they are at war. We should take them at their word and respond in kind. But instead, we (Obama's said this repeatedly too) "bring them to justice" as if they were nothing but mere criminals. They aren't, and this administration is obtusely trying to ignore that they are enemy combatants in a war.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      What? Don't recall Obama's DOJ and Eric Holder's trying terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal civilian courts? He did. That guy got off with one minor felony out of over 100 charges leveled at him including dozens of murders.
                      Why? Because much of the evidence and procedure to catch him was done by the military and spy agencies like the CIA and was highly classified.
                      After doing this several times the DOJ finally figured out you can't try terrorists caught overseas in war zones like criminals.

                      Or, Obama's trying to close the POW camp at Gitmo. Same thing. He wants those held treated like any other felon in a prison. Nobody's buying that. He's released a number of them in an attempt to close that facility. They are being called "recidivists" now that they're back in the fight.

                      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...82501120120306




                      Recidivism is what criminals do when they commit new crimes after release. POW's go back to fighting for their side and cause. The men at Gitmo are POW's and Obama doesn't understand the difference.

                      He and his administration say it themselves:

                      http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...civilian-court



                      The whole idea that this radical Islam and terrorism are nothing but a bunch of criminals committing crimes is asininely insane. They say they are at war. We should take them at their word and respond in kind. But instead, we (Obama's said this repeatedly too) "bring them to justice" as if they were nothing but mere criminals. They aren't, and this administration is obtusely trying to ignore that they are enemy combatants in a war.
                      Please. Post the names of all those tried and what they were held for.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                        Not at all. Nowhere did i advocate giving up liberties for this. I'm taking about action in foreign countries, not here. The liberties of those people are their problem not ours. As far as I'm concerned if they threaten our liberties or safety them theirs are forfeit.
                        Yes, but unfortunately we've given up many of our liberties in defense against terrorists.
                        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          What? Don't recall Obama's DOJ and Eric Holder's trying terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal civilian courts? He did. That guy got off with one minor felony out of over 100 charges leveled at him including dozens of murders.
                          Why? Because much of the evidence and procedure to catch him was done by the military and spy agencies like the CIA and was highly classified.
                          After doing this several times the DOJ finally figured out you can't try terrorists caught overseas in war zones like criminals.

                          Or, Obama's trying to close the POW camp at Gitmo. Same thing. He wants those held treated like any other felon in a prison. Nobody's buying that. He's released a number of them in an attempt to close that facility. They are being called "recidivists" now that they're back in the fight.

                          http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...82501120120306




                          Recidivism is what criminals do when they commit new crimes after release. POW's go back to fighting for their side and cause. The men at Gitmo are POW's and Obama doesn't understand the difference.

                          He and his administration say it themselves:

                          http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...civilian-court



                          The whole idea that this radical Islam and terrorism are nothing but a bunch of criminals committing crimes is asininely insane. They say they are at war. We should take them at their word and respond in kind. But instead, we (Obama's said this repeatedly too) "bring them to justice" as if they were nothing but mere criminals. They aren't, and this administration is obtusely trying to ignore that they are enemy combatants in a war.
                          I said Syria, you haven't given me a single name of a person arrested in Syria. The Obama administration has killed more high ranking terror leaders than Bush has. There will always be POW's, which is no different than any other war throughout our history. However, they are more significant here, given the intelligence they can bring.
                          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
                            Carpet bomb ISIS (Ted Cruz), kill their families (Donald Trump).

                            From tonight's debate and before.

                            Those are currently the top two Republican candidates for U.S. president. Could it come to that? Would the U.S. generals go along with it if so ordered?

                            Would not be the first time in modern history. Churchill had little problem with it.

                            Philip
                            Why wouldn't the generals go along with it? They didn't object in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Iraq gain, Afghanistan...basically everywhere we've fought since we acquired aircraft.

                            The US is fed up with terrorism. They hit Paris, they hit in California...things are going to get a good deal meaner in the coming years. Politicians who wish to continue in their current or better jobs are going to need to show that they can draw blood.

                            Its at the Prez level now, but it will spill down to Congressional races.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Why wouldn't the generals go along with it? They didn't object in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Iraq gain, Afghanistan...basically everywhere we've fought since we acquired aircraft.

                              The US is fed up with terrorism. They hit Paris, they hit in California...things are going to get a good deal meaner in the coming years. Politicians who wish to continue in their current or better jobs are going to need to show that they can draw blood.

                              Its at the Prez level now, but it will spill down to Congressional races.
                              And they're the violent savages? You're no better than they are.
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                                And they're the violent savages? You're no better than they are.
                                Where exactly did I use the term 'violent savages'?

                                Less teen angst, more reading comprehension.
                                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X