US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

Taco Cowboy writes The United States of America has launched airstrikes, along with some of its Arab partners such as Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar, against ISIL targets in Syria. ... Before the airstrike was officially announced to the press, a Syrian man living in Raqqa, Syria, tweeted about the bombings and the sounds of air drones all over Raqqa. ... Tomahawk missiles were launched from USS Arleigh Burke in the Red Sea. Stealth fighters such as F-22s were also involved in the strike.

Comments

I'll just let my sig do the talking

[NotDrWho]

'nuff said

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[TheCarp]

I watched that speech recently. If anyone in history could have his words called prophetic, it would be him, and those words would be that speech. For as radical and terrible as what he described was; the truth is he never dreamed the real extent of it. He had no way to see that the model he so rightly feared would be replicated and used again to create a permanent prison population..... do you think he had any idea that he was only a prophet of the tip of the iceberg?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[rmdingler]

Indeed. Once again engaging in Missile Diplomacy. Sigh!

The theory is that this sort of military action makes a point in response to ISIL's activities.

Ironically, the Sunnis and Shia in the region were better kept in check under Saddam's former regime, than they ever will be in a post-invasion government. Western policy makers seem to have a difficult time understanding this, but there is no separation of church and state for these people.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[i kan reed]

Alternatively, it was already true in Eisenhower's day. Like I don't need to be prophetic to say people need to be concerned about corporations data mining them, and using marketing so targeted and manipulative that they start to lose personal agency. It'll probably be more true in 30 years, but it's also true now.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

ON the other hand, it helps the economy.

Lots of good paying jobs in the US based on DoD. There's always gonna be bad guys, and running through inventory keeps people employed with good paying jobs restocking the shelves so to speak.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[chthon]

That is the big problem from North Africa to the Middle East: quelling sectarian unrest between all kinds of religions apparently needs a dictator.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[nblender]

So what you're saying is that every mushroom cloud has a silver lining?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[meta-monkey]

What? Bombs and guns and tanks don't contribute anything to society. They're necessary, yes, but they don't create wealth, they consume it. Every dime spent on defense and prisons is a loss to infrastructure and progress. It's just make-work.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[seven of five]

Ironically, the Sunnis and Shia in the region were better kept in check under Saddam's former regime, than they ever will be in a post-invasion government.

"Kept in check" via the same bloodthirsty violence we're seeing now, just under different management. Brilliant.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[LoRdTAW]

I disable sigs.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Ozeroc]

That would be Eisenhower's farewell address where "he famously warned the nation about the potentially corrupting influence of the "military-industrial complex"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HeckRuler]

He's falling for the common mistake that "job creation" is good for the economy, regardless of what that job is.
We could form companies that employed people to literally rob you in the street and some politicians would argue that they need a tax break "FER DA JERBS!"

The classic example is the broken window fallacy. Just as breaking windows does not produce a net gain for society, "running through inventory" does not help society, even if a few people are paid to clean up the mess afterwards.

As assuredly as a rising tide raises all boats, the drain on society that the DoD represents sinks all boats. They are a burden bringing us down and, frankly, making us non-competitive with China. We need some defense, but not this much.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[TheCarp]

This argument rings a bell for some reason, so should I take it from this we should plan to always be at war with Eurasia?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[WindBourne]

Not when you are buying it from China.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[meta-monkey]

This isn't even Keynesian. Well, actually kind of as he used WWII as an example in explaining his theory.

But damn, if we're going to have government make-work programs, have them do something constructive. Fix our roads and bridges. Build schools and hospitals. Make things that improve infrastructure, which improves our ability to trade. But you build a tank, and it just...sits there.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[hermitdev]

Loss to infrastructure? Why did the US interstate highway system get built? It was a direct result of the US Army's difficulty in moving troops and equipment cross country. There are also requirements that every so often they roads remain straight long enough to be used emergency runways. I don't buy loss to progress, either. A lot of technological progress has been pioneered through military research. That I'm able to even post this comment right now was a result of DARPA funded work.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

What? Bombs and guns and tanks don't contribute anything to society. They're necessary, yes, but they don't create wealth, they consume it

I beg to differ.

A LOT of people work for companies and contractors for the DoD needs, many if not ,most of them are good paying jobs, and working for the DoD...is one of the few remaining things that often is mandated to take place by US companies with US workers, for security requirements. Many of them require you to be a US citizen, which is a good thing.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

But damn, if we're going to have government make-work programs, have them do something constructive. Fix our roads and bridges. Build schools and hospitals. Make things that improve infrastructure, which improves our ability to trade. But you build a tank, and it just...sits there.

Well, actually, with the Federal govt, national defense is one of the few responsibilities enumerated to it by the US Constitution. Not much in there for infrastructure, most of that should likely be by the states.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[camperdave]

If you're going to link to the speech, then link to the speech.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

Not when you are buying it from China.

That's the beauty of it.

Many and much of the work for the DoD is mandated to be from US companies and often on many projects ONLY US citizens can work on things due to security reasons and requirements.

It's one of the last few industries that you can count on for US employment, and not being outsourced.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

We could form companies that employed people to literally rob you in the street and some politicians would argue that they need a tax break "FER DA JERBS!"

But that wouldn't be legal.

On the other hand, one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the US Federal Govt is for defense.

And, as I've mentioned before, due to security requirements, these jobs often are reserved ONLY for US citizens, one of the last remaining sectors of employment that cannot be outsourced.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[meta-monkey]

Then do what the government typically does: give money to the states for infrastructure projects.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[BringsApples]

do you think he had any idea that he was only a prophet of the tip of the iceberg?

He was the president of The United States. I think he was privy to all sorts of information, and that's why he said what he said. He knew that there were really smart people in places of power that seemed to care less than he did about civility, and more about growing a need to increase military spending. That was the point of his talk - to try to put into perspective what was going on behind the scenes.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[C0R1D4N]

Each Tomahawk missile costs about 1.41 million. The cost of a 16 in artillery shell is about $500. If we are going to waste money can we at least do it a little more efficiently?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[BringsApples]

ON the other hand, it helps the economy.

I guess it makes sense. The more people on the planet, the less money each person has. The less people on the planet, the more money each person has.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HeckRuler]

But that wouldn't be legal.

So? Corporations do all sorts of illegal things and still operate with a profit and still get defended by congressmen.

What if the people they robbed didn't enjoy the protection that the US constitution provides? Like illegal immigrants* or Iraqis*?

What if they taking oil reserves rather than petty cash?

*which is debateable

these jobs often are reserved ONLY for US citizens

Blackwater/Xe/Academi, or whatever they're calling themselves by the time you read this, employ a lot of people that aren't US citizens. And they get contracts from the state department and the DoD.

God, that was depressingly easy to shoot your argument full of holes. I mean, sure sure, I get your point a company whose business model was blatantly illegal should be busted up pretty quickly. And that the army provides a job to a lot of poor people in the USA. But so what? If you REALLY want some sort of welfare make-work project, there are more productive things to train the poor in rather than killing people. I'm a big fan of the Hoover dam. That was cool. The golden gate bridge looks nice and is kinda useful.

And yeah... as sad as it is... if you're a big enough company embedded deeply enough into the military industrial complex, it really doesn't matter if you operate outside of the law.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[bi$hop]

Uh...the U.S. governement is already bankrupt. I don't think anything can stop the U.S. from being at war.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Bing Tsher E]

Better yet, stop taking the money and let the states and local governments do that as needed.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

Then do what the government typically does: give money to the states for infrastructure projects.

I'm with ya on that one.

Let's cut out most all of the unconstitutional entitlements the Fed do now, let the states keep their money and power (as was the original plan for the US) and get things back in order. The federal govt shouldn't be "giving" money to the states...it is the states' money to begin with, and should stay in the states for them to help govern and cater to what their citizens want first and foremost.

Remember, you are a citizen of your state first and a THEN a citizen of the United States.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[I'm New Around Here]

One of the funny things about that: When I was in the military back in the 90s, my roommate wasn't a US citizen. He was from Latin America, and his family came to the US when he was a child.

I forget if they were from Belize or Guyana, but both countries has English as their official language. So he spoke English like "an American", no broken spanglish or heavy accent.

And to top it off, he was Muslim, with the last name of Khan.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Bing Tsher E]

Eisenhower also in the same speech warned of becoming captive to a scientific -technological elite. Funny how seldom that part is mentioned.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[almitydave]

There are also requirements that every so often they roads remain straight long enough to be used emergency runways.

Your other points are valid, but this is a common misconception.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

I'm talking more about the jobs of people that create the software, the uniforms, the munitions, the vehicles, the support infrastructure...those that make the actual weapons systems, those are all civilian companies and workers for about 99% of the work.

That is the work I'm talking about which stays at home and most often is done by US citizens, and jobs that do stay at home.

And it isn't "make work". There are always bad people in the world that we need to shoot at. The need for blowing away bad guys, unfortunately, isn't going to go away any time soon.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

When I was in the military back in the 90s

Well, THAT has changed a good bit since the 90's...which I believe is the key phrase in your anecdotal story presented here.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Bing Tsher E]

Don't most of us disable digs? It makes me nervous once in awhile, because it's been so long since I had sigs visible that I'm not sure what mine say, or if I even have one. It's not worth navigating through the mess that account config on here is to find out, though.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[fustakrakich]

But you build a tank, and it just...sits there.

Well, then you should understand the "need" for war. We also need to destabilize the area to scare off foreign investors. Empires battling for territory, natural as the sunrise, or a forest fire. The conquerors spread their DNA far and wide.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HeckRuler]

Remember, you are a citizen of your state first and a THEN a citizen of the United States.

Fuck the Governor! I'm backing my Mayor's god-given authority over man and we'll fight tooth and nail if the state troopers try and pry the hard-earned cash from our poor hungry neighbors. You've got to have community! You've got to stand up together and fight the oppressive gubernational tyrants! What do I care if some shmuck in a city way out over there has a tornado plow through his home, what's that to me? I don't know that guy. He's not my neighbor.

If those farmboys think they can get fat off of the hard-working city-man, then they have another thing coming! GOGO CITY POWER!

And pay no heed to these poor rabble-rousers that think groups of people WITHIN the city need representation. We either stand together under the mayor, or we all fall apart.

(SARCASM)

Re: I'll just let my sig do the talking

[imikem]

It worked pretty well when directed against Germany and Japan in the 1940s.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Jawnn]

"War is a racket."
(circa 1935) - Maj. General Smedley Butler, USMC, Retired.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HeckRuler]

No, I'm pretty sure there are not always "bad people we need to shoot at". Indeed, I'd be fine with just shooting at the ones that came over here. If the Department of Defense was more on the defensive, rather than trying and failing to be the world police, that'd be cool.

Ah, so the broken window fallacy is completely ignorable if there is a middle-man. While it's a complete waste to have the glazer make a new window, the money the glazer pays the coal-man to keep his furnace going, THAT'S totally legitimate commerce!

No, that's silly. It's wasted effort, wasted resources, and the broken window is a drain on society.

Some military is always needed, but we don't need THIS MUCH military. But that's a bit of an aside. My point is that claiming that the military provides a welfare service to the poor by providing them jobs is an empty argument. Likewise, claiming that military contracts produce economy is also an empty argument. If you want to piss away money employing people to create software, uniforms, vehicles, and support infrastructure in a welfare/make-work/might-as-well-toss-it-into-a-volcano sort of way, I'd rather the output of those efforts be something more useful like software, uniforms, vehicles, and support infrastructure for the healthcare system?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Lesrahpem]

Each Tomahawk missile costs about 1.41 million. The cost of a 16 in artillery shell is about $500. If we are going to waste money can we at least do it a little more efficiently?

A Tomahawk is (ideally) less likely to go off target than an artillery shell. When a Tomahawk happens to hit non-combatants it's called a malfunction. When a Tomahawk is working correctly it will always hit the correct target, no matter where that target may be, and inflict minimal collateral damage. Collateral damage is also a malfunction. Only barbarians would use cheap artillery and take responsibility for harming those inclined to be anywhere near the intended target.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[ConceptJunkie]

>> Remember, you are a citizen of your state first and a THEN a citizen of the United States.

This is how it was supposed to work. And it's the only way it can work well.

It also occurred to me that excess centralization of power is likely to be the driving force behind all the secessionist movements, such as what we saw with Scotland last week. If government were kept as local as possible, these kinds of problems wouldn't happen... or would be much less likely to happen. This is what the Founding Fathers envisioned: Several sovereign states joining together only for those things (and they were very few, although very important) were there is strength in unity. Otherwise, they were supposed to mind their own business, ensuring the success of a republic made up of very diverse populaces. However, this is no longer possible.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[ConceptJunkie]

>> The classic example is the broken window fallacy...

Hey, if it works in Ankh-Morpork it should work in the real world, right?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Lucas123]

So the quote is "The U.S. will always be at war now, until the government is bankrupt." -- Dwight Eisenhower. I've never once seen that. When did he use that in a speech?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[__aanbvm4272]

DoD jobs are good money gone bad. . We should understand these Air attacks are for getting the oil fields BACK in our glorious oil companies hands. Ever notice how the real agenda gets shoved under the rug? When the government says "destroying the terrorists source of revenue" Guess what that is? Damn idiots will argue about everything else but the truth. IF the oil companies want "their oil back" let 'em hire a bunch of veterans like Blackwater did, that are capable of kicking some jihadii ass. Oh wait maybe they are the "advisers" nevermind...

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[__aanbvm4272]

That would be the same as the military complex. You know Nuclear Space Biologicals etc... Question everything even authority.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Lucas123]

What speech. I can't find that anywhere. Link please.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Uberbah]

Fractions of a penny on the pork barrel dollar. Slash military spending to a reasonable size - down to the National/Coast/Air Guards - and you'd have far more money to spend on infrastructure and R&D. We could have gone to Mars long ago if NASA's budget was a trillion dollars per year.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Your.Master]

That link shows the US is deeply in debt, not that it is bankrupt or insolvent.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[TangoMargarine]

Question everything, especially authority.

Hail Eris

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Krishnoid]

Every dime spent on defense and prisons is a loss to infrastructure and progress.

Well, US prisons anyway.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[antientropic]

Of course, Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, does actually know about the broken window fallacy:

[A liquidity trap] puts us in a world of topsy-turvy, in which many of the usual rules of economics cease to hold. Thrift leads to lower investment; wage cuts reduce employment; even higher productivity can be a bad thing. And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment. Indeed, in the absence of effective policy, that’s how recovery eventually happens: as Keynes put it, a slump goes on until “the shortage of capital through use, decay and obsolescence” gets firms spending again to replace their plant and equipment.

Mind you, Keynesians don't actually propose that the government should go around smashing windows, given that there is plenty of useful infrastructure spending to be done.

Having said that, military spending apparently has a negative multiplier, so it may be a bad idea even if you're down with Keynes.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

Some military is always needed, but we don't need THIS MUCH military. But that's a bit of an aside. My point is that claiming that the military provides a welfare service to the poor by providing them jobs is an empty argument. Likewise, claiming that military contracts produce economy is also an empty argument. If you want to piss away money employing people to create software, uniforms, vehicles, and support infrastructure in a welfare/make-work/might-as-well-toss-it-into-a-volcano sort of way, I'd rather the output of those efforts be something more useful like software, uniforms, vehicles, and support infrastructure for the healthcare system?

But at least on the federal level, defense is one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt.

There is nothing in there that says for them to deal with healthcare.

That is a private business situation, or state level govt thing at most, if the states' citizens vote for that to be the way to go, which is cool with me either way.

It certainly shouldn't be a federal level thing, but the Feds have grown too big and have been overreaching for decades.

They need to be reigned back in.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

Defense spending HAS been cut back over the past years, severely.

What we need to do, is quit sending all the foreign aid out, quit funding NATO and other groups, which basically ends up being the US defending the world and allowing those countries to spend all their money on their social programs, and not defense of themselves.

Its about time the US stopped paying for the defense of Europe, and let them pay their own way for that.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

Yeah....[rolls eyes].

We're just swimming in all that Iraq oil here in the US since the war. Prices are back to 70's low prices due to the flow of all that precious crude from Iraq.

Oh wait...we've not been getting any of that oil have we?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Talderas]

Eisenhower (5 star) is an interesting President. Unfortunately, we don't have many Presidents to compare him against with there only being 44 individuals. Of those 44 only two others would have had anywhere close to a similar experience as Eisenhower. The first would be the George Washington (7-star) and the second would be Ulysses S. Grant (4 star, O-10). While there are other Presidents who have been generals, none have had such a large command over so many people and dictated the course of action like those three. Now if you want to count any president with an officer rank that's been involved in a conflict since the beginning of the 20th century you can add Harry Truman (O-6), Lyndon Johnson (O-5), Richard Nixon (O-5), Gerald Ford (O-4), John Kennedy (O-3), Jimmy Carter (O-3), Ronald Reagan (O-3), George Bush (O-2), George W. Bush (O-2).

It is a common trait among the greats that they do not like sending boys into combat. Some of the generals known to be bloody thirsty, such as Patton or Lemay, were also among those most concerned for the lives and safety for the men under their command and were strict about training their men to help them come home alive. Eisenhower was no different. Having read the speech I believe therein lies the reason for his statements and no particular conspiracy of note. Remember, he was fighting in a war that the US was brought into due to aggression and expansion by the Japanese empire that was driven by militarist and business factions. He witnessed in Europe what it can lead it and the numbers of men that had to die needlessly for it. The stress and anxiety he must have felt giving the order to launch Operation Overlord must have been intense knowing that even in retreat and withdrawal there would have been untold lives lost. He did, after all, draft a letter that he shoved in his pocket for incase the invasion had failed.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HeckRuler]

hey, great idea! I'll get my guys to talk with your guys and OH HEY how about we bring in NotDrWho and we take a look at his sig about Eisenhower! It's like we've come full fucking circle here.

We should reign back in military industrial complex.

I'm glad we can agree that this is a good thing. It's a lovely idea you had. One I fully support.

Please note that there is no department of offense, and the last invasion of the USA was by Pancho Villa. As for healthcare, I don't really care which level of government performs the tasks that need to be done. Ideally, they wouldn't be so vital or such clusterfucks that private industry would handle it without it becoming a political thing. I'm pretty sure regulatory capture and market dominance have made healthcare such a mess that it needs something like Shermans hammer to fix it. If a state could do battle with the powers that are milking healthcare industry and straighten it all out, more the power to them. Why hasn't one of the 50 done something about it yet?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Uberbah]

Defense spending HAS been cut back

Dressing up the end of the overt occupation of Iraq and reducing the occupation of Afghanistan as a cut for the benefit of the rubes does NOT make it one. The United States is still spending more than the rest of the planet combined and that's going to change any time soon.

severely

You're using that word, severely....

Then the United States wouldn't be trying it's hardest to renew a cold war with Russia at the same time it's continuing it's half dozen dirty wars throughout the ME east at the same time it's ramping up AFRICOM at the same time it's preparing for the third war on Iraq.

quit funding NATO

Then the Pentagon would lose the deflection that NATO provides. Libya isn't a war, it's a limited NATO operation with no boots on the ground!

ends up being the US warmongering the world

FTFY. Who's going to protect the world from the U.S.?

Its about time the US stopped paying for the defense of Europe, and let them pay their own way for that.

LOLz. You think the European share of of the Pentagon's ~1000 military bases around the world has anything to do with "defense"?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[hjf]

Ah hah! but that's communist!

When the government does something with its money, it's COMMUNISM. If the government builds a road, that's communism for you. If they build a hospital - a PUBLIC HOSPITAL?? DAMN COMMUNIST GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

Everything should be privatized. Absolutely everything. Schools, hospitals, roads. It's more efficient that way. And all laws should be abolished as well. In fact: there should be NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT. Any person should be able to do whatever they please with their money.

Now, if you funnel the money through the military, that's great. It's not communism if it's military.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[hjf]

But at least on the federal level, defense is one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt.

There is nothing in there that says for them to deal with healthcare.

Sure, yes. Those words, man, are written in stone. No way to change those laws.

And if it's in the constitution.. ohh wow - that's untouchable. We need a constitutional reform to change the slightest comma in the constitution.

Oh - wait. I was thinking of my country's constitution! We're talking the US constitution! The one that can be modified without a reform, simply with an ammendment.

Wow.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[sumdumass]

(SARCASM)

I would hope that was sarcasm. The states were originally independent countries joined by a confederacy and the Union or republic was created to act as a head of state facing foreign relations and a few other things outlined in the constitution. It was never intended to be this huge government can do anything organization and was never used in that way until FDR had a constitutional showdown with the supreme court and won.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[TangoMargarine]

A shell is a payload-carrying projectile which, as opposed to shot, contains an explosive or other filling,

Although I suppose the explodey bits may cost more than steel? It's not going to be solid steel, anyway.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Anonymous Coward]

Most animals need an alpha male to keep them in line...

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Noah Haders]

I double plus gree with this. CA should keep their moneys and stop giving it to wyoming and other small states through federal wealth redistribution.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Grishnakh]

"Kept in check" via the same bloodthirsty violence we're seeing now, just under different management. Brilliant.

The same? I'd like to see the numbers of people dying under Saddam's rule, compared to how many people have died under the new government which replaced him.

No doubt, Saddam was a tyrant, but he also provided regional stability. Some heads had to roll to maintain that stability, but was it as many as are dying now?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[cayenne8]

The one that can be modified without a reform, simply with an amendment.

True...but, if we want to change it, lets do the amendment thing, and not just blow it off and try to grow the Fed govt beyond its mandate just for fun.

Let's follow the rules is all I'm saying....

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[david_thornley]

And have we? In anything where serious money is involved, what people in power would like to be true trumps what the scientific elite knows to be true, every time.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[hjf]

Most people understand "follow the rules" as "laws can't be changed". That's the problem.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HornWumpus]

There are _NO KEYNESIANS_.

Keynesians run deficits to stimulate the economy and run surpluses in good times to keep the currency in balance.

There are no Keynesians, only print and spenders with a cover story.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[HornWumpus]

When where the 16 inch projectiles in inventory made? Are there any in inventory?

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[WindBourne]

Nope. It is amazing how much the DOD buys DIRECTLY, as well as indirectly, from China.
For your idea to work, the DOD needs to INSIST that all of the parts come from America, or at least the west.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[Sciath]

In large part I must concur. After all, it is Europe, Middle Eastern (including Africa) and even Asia that is positioned to be threatened by extremism than the U.S. And here's the thing, IF those other nations are not willing to directly counteract the spread of extremism with military (and other) support, then why should the U.S.? If those other nations don't feel the need to protect themselves, why should the U.S.? The world is becoming too dependent upon the U.S. for everything, even self defense. That is a symptom that the U.S. is overextending itself and the U.S. taxpayers are in large part paying for protection the rest of the world is unwilling to provide themselves. It's economic disaster in the making.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking

[__aanbvm4272]

"WE" are ... under the names of EXXON etc they just sell it over there shorting our supply here. According to Gee Dub yah were hooked on foreign oil right? Bullshit the companies are hooked on money...

F-22's don't drop bombs.

[gelfling]

So that's a waste of effort.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can. But more than likely they were used to paint targets with their "mini AWACS" onboard. Its the only reason I could see them using raptors instead of a true bomber.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[naughtynaughty]

What do they do with the bombs they carry, gently release them?

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[qwijibo]

The locking clamps disengage from the ordinance hugging configuration. Gravity is at fault for everything that happens from that point forward.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[niks42]

Bombs don't kill people, gravity kills people?

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[halivar]

It's never the fall that kills you. It's always the sudden stop at the end.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[isama]

Bombs don't kill people, explosions do.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[crimson tsunami]

Explosions don't kill people, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
It doesn't help though if an explosion/bomb/sudden stop/fall makes all your blood fall out and not reach your brain.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[NotDrWho]

Deceleration Overdose

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[CanHasDIY]

You know, that was essentially Wernher Von Braun's attitude about the rockets he was building; he's quoted as saying something to the effect of, "My job is to make the rockets go up, where they fall is London's problem."

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[u38cg]

It's not the bomb that kills you, it's the massive internal trauma from the percussive blast front.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[schlachter]

Borrowing from gun control language...

It's not F-22s that kill people. We don't need to limit our weapon production. It's people that kill.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[Bigbutt]

Concrete Poisoning

[John]

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[gelfling]

They are air superiority fighters and as such carry air to air missiles or air to ground missiles typically against radar installations. F-22's don't have external hardpoints so there's nowhere to hang bombs from and the internal bays are specifically designed around the missiles they carry.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[sumdumass]

Syria has advanced anti aircraft weapons that could pose a greater threat to bombers. The raptors could not only better avoid it if used but neutralize them making it safer for other aircraft

That is likely the biggest reason.

Although Syria would be helped by the strikes too so i'm not sure why they would use them unless its posturing.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[qwijibo]

Now I want to see wood veneer completely covering every outer surface of a fully functional F-22. That combined with a low capacity fuel tank would make it a sporting aircraft. Maybe paint the nose orange so people know it's a hobby plane, not a fighter when it's invading your airspace.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[I'm New Around Here]

That's the line I use to explain to people why I'm not afraid of heights. Specifically, I'm not worried about falling. Off a ledge, out of a high tree, over a cliff, and so on.

Most don't understand the usefulness of that outlook.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[fnj]

"... the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities including ground attack ..."

"Air to ground loadout: 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39"
"Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 U.S. gallon drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg)."
Sounds like a capacity of something like 22,000 lb of bombs to me.

Care to rethink your claim?

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[gelfling]

No, I don't but thanks for the snark. On you it's fucking cute.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[Bacon Bits]

Acute homeostatic deficiency disorder.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[Rakarra]

That's the line I use to explain to people why I'm not afraid of heights. Specifically, I'm not worried about falling. Off a ledge, out of a high tree, over a cliff, and so on.

Most don't understand the usefulness of that outlook.

I am... not so sure if it's that useful, long-term. If I'm walking on a curb that's 5 inches off the ground, I'll certainly feel much less fear than if that drop was 100 feet, and it's because the consequences of the most minor of mistakes, the most minor of mental lapses are so much more dire. The fear tells us not to get into those situations, not to do really stupid things.

Sometimes I'll hear someone say "wouldn't it be great if we never felt pain?" Like that would turn them into an unstoppable super-soldier. Too many movies and TV shows have promoted that fantasy, but the truth is that fear and pain are useful. Pain tells us something is wrong, pain guides our actions towards survival. Fear tells us to avoid situations which could kill us. Fear and pain help us survive, and the creatures that couldn't feel them didn't live.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs.

[I'm New Around Here]

If you can walk along a 5 inch curb without falling off, you can walk along a 100 foot cliff without falling off. Provided the footing and wind don't work against you.

The point is that people attach so much fear to falling, they can't operate. They can't walk straight because their mind is worried about falling.

When I am in a situation where falling means severe injury or death, I don't worry about falling. I do what I have to do, although with safety as required. I don't go dancing along the edge of a cliff, for example. But I will walk up to it and look over. Not that I've been near a cliff lately. I am in Florida at the moment.

I've been up in bucket and platform lifts to install network cabling, and had to climb out onto rafter beams or on top of structures. Not being afraid of falling means I can do it safely. Being afraid of falling causes people to make all kinds of mistakes. They are too tense to work safely. They don't have situational awareness because they cannot look around.

The mentality really does boil down to that distinction. It isn't the fall that kills you. Therefore, I'm not afraid of falling. I can do the job that's needed without freezing in panic at the thought of slipping.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this tech news?

Re:How?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

are some of the highest tech things around.

Especially when lifted into the stratosphere!

Re:How?

[Oligonicella]

Was that meant to be ironic?

DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Don't grant these pigfuckers undeserved legitimacy by calling them an "Islamic State". They are neither Islamic, nor a legitimate state. They are a gang of murderers and rapists, nothing more.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, they based their state on what they divined from the Quran, right? That certainly doesn't make them Buddhist. Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries. Legitimacy is merely about how many people you can convince. It's not a thing you can measure with a multimeter or something.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Locmar]

Well, they based their state on what they divined from the Quran, right? That certainly doesn't make them Buddhist. Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries. Legitimacy is merely about how many people you can convince. It's not a thing you can measure with a multimeter or something.

That doesn't mean we're obligated to help them gain legitimacy by volunteering to use the name they want us to. Their goal is to be seen as a legitimate state representing all Muslims. They aren't and they don't. Also, "daesh" pisses them off, which should give all decent folk a twinge of slightly immature pleasure.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm not saying we should consider them legitimate or anything of the kind. But claiming that they are "not Islamic" sounds like claiming that the child molesting Irish priests weren't Catholic.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Warbothong]

Don't grant these pigfuckers undeserved legitimacy by calling them an "Islamic State". They are neither Islamic, nor a legitimate state. They are a gang of murderers and rapists, nothing more.

They are a gang of Islamic murderers and rapists. Of course that doesn't say anything about *other* Muslims, any more than Hitler being a Christian tells us about Christians or Stalin being an atheist tells us about atheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[gnasher719]

Well, they based their state on what they divined from the Quran, right? That certainly doesn't make them Buddhist. Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries. Legitimacy is merely about how many people you can convince. It's not a thing you can measure with a multimeter or something.

I don't know if you noticed, but these guys have been called "barbaric" by Al Quaeda, and by known extremist muslims in the UK. They are not muslims. They are f***ing bastards who like to kill people and found an excuse.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[tekrat]

The west was won by murderers and rapists. That's the path to legitimancy since the days of Ghegis Khan or the Vikings. Just ask General Custer.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Flavianoep]

Just because they decided to call themselves "Islamic," doesn't mean they deserve that name. There are many Muslim scholars who will not, and do not, accept that such a group be called so.

Besides, avoiding to call them "Islamic," helps to break, or at least, tone down the association between Islam and terrorism.

Finally, calling them Daesh, Un-Islamic State, QSIL, or the like, is a way to stress out that they are being attacked not for being "Islamic," but for being terrorists.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[itzly]

For every muslim, there's another muslim who will claim that the first is not a muslim.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Oligonicella]

They are Muslims, extreme and aberrant but Muslims, just as Phelps and crew are aberrant Christians (albeit not murderous). As for legitimacy, name them, make them a legitimate target and bomb them to oblivion. If you don't make them legitimate, some group of squealers will claim we're waging war against civilians.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There are many different Muslim groups for which the other Muslim groups say that the former Muslim groups aren't Muslims. If I were to listen to all of them, nobody would be a Muslim!

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's a really good argument for not giving people any more excuses than they already have. Sadly, the day when the excuses called "holy books" will only be found in museums seems very distant at the moment.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Oligonicella]

No, political persecution was invented about a couple millennia or so earlier. The Nazis needed scapegoats. The Jews were different and low in number, therefore convenient. Like political hectoring today, it had nothing to do with reality. Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIL is actually an insult, it's the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Levant is similar to "The Orient," which is insulting because that's a term used during the colonial period.

Kinda like when Bush I called Saddam "Sodom."

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Critical Facilities]

Well by that raionale, would you consider the KKK to be Christian? After all, they espouse that their beliefs are based on biblical theology.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Anonymous Coward]

What people say about themselves is not that relevant. It's what other people of the same religion say about them what's important:

99,9% of all Christians consider KKK not to be good Christians, if Christians at all.
73% of muslims in the Netherlands consider muslims that join ISIL good muslims, even heroes.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

The KKK are Christian. They aren't exactly representative of modern Christianity (or of Christianity back when the KKK was more substantial), although there was a big subset of the South who were sympathetic to them. The comparison is actually very apt. IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call them (I'd prefer Daesh as it is what the locals call them when they aren't pointing guns at them), is Islamic. It isn't representative of modern Islam, or even of Islam in the region. Thier theology is also a pretty piss poor interpretation of the source text of Islam, an argument you would be right to make, just like the KKK bastardised the Bible (note, I don't like the Quran and think it has some horrid ideas but it is pretty fucking clear that many of Daesh actions are reprehensible). But you cant ignore the fact that they appear to be sincere a fair chunk of the time when they say part of their motivation is religious.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Also, "daesh" pisses them off, which should give all decent folk a twinge of slightly immature pleasure.

Which is why I also call them "pigfuckers", since Islam is like Judaism in that both religions consider pigs "unclean" animals. :)

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I find it preferable to say that the DAESH assholes aren't real Muslims. Otherwise, it's too easy for me to fall into the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" trap.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I have never seen a suicide bomber that was anything other than Muslim. Nor have I seen any Budist or Jews or Christians or Athiest or Hindu actually attack schools full of children like what happened in Beslan. Tht was done by...Muslims.

Buildings in Russia destroyed by...Muslims.
Malls being shot up by...Muslims.
Athletes being held and killed by...Muslims.
Planes being hijacked by...Muslims
Beheadings being done by...Muslims.

The pattern indicates Islam to be a problem.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[jedidiah]

s/muslim/xian/g

This works for every ism out there. That's why the "no true scottsman" fallacy is such a fallacy. You can only ever judge something by what it produces. This includes the battle of Tours, the siege of Vienna, and ISIL.

They are "muslim enough" to take and hold half of Syria and half of Iraq without being ejected from either by the native population.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

How dare you accuse me of worshiping the demon Yahweh?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[cowwoc2001]

At what point will the political-correctness stop?

Either there is a not-so-small extremist element in Islam, or a silent majority who refuses to do anything about it.

What kind of a message are we supposed to get when tens of thousands protest in the streets when the West attacks their extremists but barely a handful Muslim protesters after each time Islamic terrorists kill innocents?

If their moderates truly outnumber their extremists 10:1 we should expect to see 10x more protesters after each terrorist attack. They have both the capability and numbers to crack down on their extremists, but they do not. Their silence is deafening.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[meta-monkey]

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[drooling-dog]

I know very little about them or where they came from, but I do know that the continued flow of hundreds of billions of dollars per year to who-knows-who depends on the inability of the US to extricate itself from this quagmire. And so now we have these public decapitations, clearly designed to inflame the public and create a political environment guaranteeing that the torrent of war money continues for years to come. And when that finally starts to slow, who doubts that some other convenient outrage will be perpetrated to start the cycle all over again?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Creedo]

Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.

Yeah, it's not like he was drawing upon a rich history of persecution against the Jews. This doesn't sound the least bit familiar to you in this context?

The penalties for Jews accused of defiling hosts were severe. Many Jews, after accusations and torture, "confessed" to abusing hosts, and the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews in the community, as happened in Beelitz in 1243, in Prague in 1389, and in many German cities, according to Ocker's writings in the Harvard Theological Review. According to William Nichol in Christian Antisemitism, "over 100 instances of the charge have been recorded, in many cases leading to massacres."

Hitler's attempt to scapegoat the Jews was primed for success by European Christian society.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You don't need Islam for that. You just need to scare the shit out of people by being the craziest, most violent motherfuckers around.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[cowwoc2001]

You're the one trying to make it about religion instead of looking for the truth. Maybe those tens of thousands protesting attacks by the West have a good reason for protesting. Maybe, just maybe, the West is just a bit meddlesome. You know, the White Man's Burden and all that bollocks?

Are you honestly trying to justify the use of terrorism against civilians, and protesters who support them?

I don't care how many terrorists and their supporters we bomb back to hell. Sitting on our hands sure as heck won't make them go away. Spain tried appeasement and they *still* got hit in the 2004 Madrid bombings.

I don't care how many terrorism supporters make noise in the street. Their opinion is worth exactly zero to me. We should do our best to limit innocent deaths and listen to the opinion of moderates, but the kind of protests we saw all across Europe (where tens of thousands of Muslim thugs prowled the streets, vandalized stores and attacked Jews/Christians) is totally unacceptable. They deserve to have all their bones broken and get deported back to the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Moderates support moderate values. They do not fly Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS flags in their protests. They do not chant deaths to the Jews and America.

Wake me up when any of these protestors support Gay and Women rights.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[andydouble07]

DAESH means roughly the same thing as ISIL. You're just using a different language.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I don't need to justify the use of terrorism against civilians. Ever hear of total war? The justification has already been made.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[gtall]

The difference is lost on me. Al Q. only cares about not killing Muslims, and even then if they are only the right kind of Muslims. The new crew are equal opportunity killers. I'm sure to their victims the difference is substantial, yes?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[gtall]

Yeah, but they need Allah to back them up so they don't all dissolve into Western-style guilt trips and require Vitamin P to live with the inner demons they've created or themselves. It is sort of the Flip in Flip Wilson, i.e., Allah made me do it.

This Allah, he's a funny guy, never says squat, can only communicate through angels and then via dreams. Doesn't bestow riches or anything on this dirtball planet. Yet legions are running around claiming anything they do is because Allah wills it. Allah at this point is indistinguishable from Satan.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Oligonicella]

Everything you blocked was done by others beforehand. It's an ancient technique. Don't lay the blame solely on Christianity. He also scapegoated the gays, Gypsy clans and Catholics if you'll recall.

Re: DAESH, not ISIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... Selection bias at its finest.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, then the Democrats pushed for equal rights, and the vast bulk of the south moved over to the Republican party. They abuse Christianity much like islamist terrorists do today. They are lying, manipulative, hateful fear mongers that prefer to stab you in the back vs. beheading.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[cellocgw]

Yet legions are running around claiming anything they do is because Allah wills it. Allah at this point is indistinguishable from Satan.

There you go again, giving Satan a bad name.

Re: DAESH, not ISIL

[xevioso]

He is correct, you know.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[xevioso]

This. FINALLY someone points out that these people are doing this because of what they BELIEVE. People are always talking about how these people are psychopaths and they just want power...and no one seems to want to point out that these people believe a book that TELLS THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

I have a secret fantasy, which is that one day, in an argument on Fox or CNN or MSNBC, some talking head will actually quote the relevant verses from the Quran that these DAESH guys use to justify their atrocities, and will ask a Muslim scholar to explain why that doesn't justify their atrocities for people who believe what the Quran says.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[xevioso]

So you don't believe them? You think they are lying when they use that exact book and verse when they order their followers to do exactly what they have been doing?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[cyberchondriac]

Well by that raionale, would you consider the KKK to be Christian? After all, they espouse that their beliefs are based on biblical theology.

Yes, actually. At least, it is in the core of their beliefs, twisted and perverted as it is. They don't represent Christianity accurately, but they are christian, technically. They wouldn't be the first such example. King Charlemagne slaughtered hundreds of pagans who wouldn't convert at Verden in 782ce. Sound familiar?

It must be noted however, the bulk of any atrocities in xtianity's name were committed hundreds of years ago, and at that, were not at all in character with the tenants of the religion; Jesus did not advocate violence or war; whereas the Koran has dozens of bloodthirsty suras, further which don't appear to be in a constrained historical context in the manner which old testament atrocities are presented, but an open-ended command to be followed herewith.
To their credit as ethical human beings, I think moderate muslims keep the peace by selectively ignoring those distasteful parts of the Koran, even though they abrogate the earlier, more peaceful verses.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[hey!]

Well, before we candebate a question like "Is ISIL Muslim?" you have to specify what you mean by the question.

The important thing is not to ask a question like that in one context and then use the answer in a different context. For example if you ask someone in a white supremacist "Aryan Nations" church "who is a true Christian?" you can't automatically attribute those same ideas to Quakers. Likewise you can't attribute the answer of a Salafist group like ISIL to the question "Who is a true Muslim?" to your sober, industrious, and peaceful Hanafi Muslim neighbors. Both groups see the other as apostates.

A historian or anthropologist would certainly consider ISIL an "Islamic movement", just as they'd consider the KKK a "Christian movement". And while your local ultra-liberal Sufi imam or Episcopalian minister would disagree strongly, nobody is actually wrong here. They're just using the words in different senses.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[halivar]

The move to the Republican party is actually fairly recent. Hell, when I moved down here about twenty years ago, the bible belt was still Dixiecrat territory. After all, that's where you get Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[fustakrakich]

They are a gang of murderers and rapists, nothing more.

All they need is a badge and a fashionable uniform, and BAM!, they're legit!

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[hey!]

Would you be happy that people associate linux with terrorism ?

Well, I started with Linux by downloading Debian 0.93 by modem onto floppies (because the copyright situation for 386BSD was unclear at the time). I think this was the first official Debian release with dpkg and it was awesome!

So I remember when Linux started to get media attention very well. What people associated Linux with was Communism. My reaction at the time was that people who did that were hysterical idiots, and history has proved me right.

As for Islam, it's not going away. It can't be "defeated", any more than Christianity or atheism can be "defeated". These things will live on no matter what kind or unkind things people say about them. Those who insist on making Islam into the boogeyman are hysterics condemning themselves to permanent worry about what's hiding under their bed.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Jawnn]

The KKK are Christian.

Why? Because they self-identify as such? I believe that their Messiah would agree with me when I call "bullshit". Their rationalization may be use religion, but their motivation is as base and worldly as that of any group of thugs. Same goes for ISIS.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rockoon]

Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries.

Of course it is, because when Israel was created so was the state of Palestine. November 29, 1947. U.N. Resolution 181, aka the Partition Resolution.

If Israel is legitimate, then so is Palestine. You can't have it both ways. The fact that the resolution caused a civil war in the region in no way obviates this fact, nor does the fact that with the help of select friends in the west Israel was armed to the level of a 1st world super-power so that it easily claimed through force all the lands of Palestine.

This is the a catch-22 of the region.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

By that standard almost every Christian who has ever existed is not Christian. You do know the Paulian cult is a complete butchering of Jesus' (assume he existed and is reasonably well represented in the surviving gospels) teachings right? Religions have lots of sects and interpretations, comes with the territory and the big label we use for religions is often very broad. Same with lots of labels.

You can define words how you like, but I would suggest rendering almost everyone who has even identified as Christian as being not Christian renders your definition impractical. If you try to come up with a more encompassing definition which doesn't go question begging (defining Christians in such a way that they are only capable of praiseworth actions for instance) you will find that like any other movement Christianity has it share of splendid saints and sickening sinners.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[kencurry]

Blazing Saddles?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Uberbah]

You do know that almost all the people fighting ISIS are Muslims themselves, right?

This. FINALLY someone points out that these people are doing this because of what they BELIEVE. People are always talking about how these people are psychopaths and they just want power...and no one seems to want to point out that these people believe a book that TELLS THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Wow. It's like America went through the Iraq invasion and decided the lesson to be learned was: suck down USG propaganda by the supertanker and be ready to demand the blood of Muslims on a moment's notice.

ISIS doesn't exist because of the Koran. ISIS exists because the U.S. and the Saudis have been busy funding and training and arming the very 'radical muslims' you are complaining about, to fight Assad in Syria. And because of a backlash to the sectarian, corrupt and violent government headed by al-Maliki.

Now, before some mouth breather starts up with the "you question the storyline? you must support the terrahrists" bullshit, the point here isn't that ISIS are nice people. The point is that if you want to complain about the armed fundamentalist muslims, start at the U.S. State Department, and stop pretending all their motivations are based on religion.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[meta-monkey]

Correct.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I think that the chapter and verse quoting is a performance. It's something they do for the benefit of their followers, since it plays to their emotions and gets them pumped up to kill and rape. Also, if you keep your strategy to yourself, instead of telling your flunkies everything, then it doesn't matter if the flunkies get captured, sent to Guantanamo Bay, and waterboarded. They've got nothing of value to say. I think the real strategy has fuck-all to do with Islam, and everything to do with earthly power. If Satan can quote Scripture to suit his purpose, why shouldn't DAESH leaders do the same with the Quran?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[shutdown -p now]

My understanding is that "Daesh" omits the "Islamic" part of the name.

Either way, it seems to piss off the mujis when they hear themselves being referred to under that name, to the point that any local heard using it in the areas controlled by them is punished. Given that they clearly hate it, I'm all for using it on that basis alone, regardless of what it means.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[d34thm0nk3y]

Buildings destroyed by...Christians.
Malls being shot up by...Christians.
Athletes being held and killed by...Christians.
Planes being hijacked by...Christians
You got me on this one. Christians do perfer hanging.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[painandgreed]

No, political persecution was invented about a couple millennia or so earlier. The Nazis needed scapegoats. The Jews were different and low in number, therefore convenient. Like political hectoring today, it had nothing to do with reality. Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.

Hitler's, the NAZI party's, and even Germany's hatred of the Jews goes back farther and is much greater than just the need of a scapegoat. There are times on the Eastern front where more men and material would have made a big difference, but in the end, Hitler ordered that more Jews be sent to the camps rather than supplies and troops to fight the Soviets. It wasn't just Hitler's usual bad tactical judgement, but a determined decision that exterminating the Jews was a greater goal than winning the war.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

Paulian cult

I don't think you can call it a "cult" anymore if it makes up 90% of the membership.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

Timothy McVeigh definitely didn't cite his religion as his reason for the bombing. He was anti-government.
The guy in the second link's reasoning was apparently "I just want to take a few pieces of shit with me... just think tho, I'm gonna be fuckin famous [sic]." No mention of religion in the article.

Don't assume that white guys in the U.S. are Christian.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

So reciprocally you don't have any objections to the U.S. just utterly annihilating Syria and Iraq, right? Hey, it's total war, right?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Uh, excuse me? I chose the State of Palestine as an example specifically because a significant number of countries recognizes it while another significant number of countries doesn't. Status of Israel has nothing to do with that example. If anything, Israel would be a worse example because it is recognized by something like 83% of the member countries of UN while State of Palestine is only recognized by 70%, thus serving as a better example of the international recognition issue.

And regarding the UN declaration...while Israel sought immediately to implement it in 1948, PLO waited until 1988 with the statehood declaration. That might explain in part why they've fallen behind in the diplomacy area. That, and the very inadvisable war in 1948 (for which, however, the attacking neighboring Arab League states are probably more to blame than Palestinians.) But again, I don't see the purpose of your "You can't have it both ways." Besides this being unrelated to my mention of Palestine, I'm not even American. Keep that for Americans.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Nor have I seen any Budist or Jews or Christians or Athiest or Hindu actually attack schools full of children like what happened in Beslan.

You want Buddhists torching schools and killing children? Here you are. All religion is fucked up, no exceptions.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rakarra]

The move to the Republican party is actually fairly recent. Hell, when I moved down here about twenty years ago, the bible belt was still Dixiecrat territory. After all, that's where you get Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, etc.

Political change can take a long time, usually for the old generation still in power to actually die off.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rakarra]

No true muslim.

Are you making the claim that most muslims and Islamic texts support terrorism, beheadings, mass executions, etc?

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

You are right, but there really isn't a good word for it. To be clear I'm using the term in a technical theological sense as in "A cult is a religious group that follows a particular theological system.". I used this term because I wanted to avoid terms like 'heresy' since they are value loaded and I'm not making a value statement or 'sect' because sects are more specific. You can substitute 'Paulian cult' for 'those follow the Paulian theology' if you like.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

A cult is a religious group that follows a particular theological system.

Umm...as opposed to a religion that doesn't consistently follow any system? I thought we just called them "crazies" or "anarchists" or something.

I don't see what distinction you're trying to make here. I'd define a cult as having a single, charismatic leader, and a proportionally small number of adherents. Wikipedia claims "deviant and novel beliefs and practices."

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rakarra]

Doesn't bestow riches or anything on this dirtball planet. Yet legions are running around claiming anything they do is because Allah wills it.

Sounds like they're really worshiping Tash.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rakarra]

If I were to listen to all of them, nobody would be a Muslim

This works for Christians too, you know! Jack Chick of the Chick Tracts fame obviously has it out for the Roman Catholics (he has explicitly claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was started by Satan himself) and that only his brand of evangelical Protestantism could bring you to Jesus. And on the other side, I attended a Catholic high school and had a religion professor tell me that all non-Catholic denominations were cults set to take your soul.

That's just what happens when you listen to the extremists.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Rakarra]

Custer was about the US Army's charge to push the American Indians of the area onto their assigned reservations. One can argue the morality of this, but since this time the courts have ordered restitution to the descendants of the Native Americans who where displaced. This payment, which represents the value of the Black Hills land at the time it was taken with interest sits unclaimed in escrow with a value approaching about a billion dollars. So, at lest in the case of Custer and the campaign he was involved in, the USA is making restitution for their actions.

Forcing someone off of their land and paying them a pittance for it is still kicking someone off of their land. It doesn't make it much less of an ignoble crime.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[styrotech]

No, but I have never seen a suicide bomber that was anything other than Muslim.

Kamikazes? Tamil Tigers? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Creedo]

Don't lay the blame solely on Christianity.

I didn't. I said that Christianity was instrumental in creating the cultural climate which enabled Hitler to scapegoat the Jews by tapping into existing prejudice. The fact that he also abused others has zero bearing on these facts.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[HornWumpus]

Hogfuckers turns it up to 11.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[HornWumpus]

You religion professor was only off by one denomination.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TranquilVoid]

Exactly. Applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is fallacious itself, as being Scottish has a strict definition of being a registered citizen in the internationally-recognised country of Scotland. Most people applying this to ISIL want self-identification as the test of Islamicism, but that makes any discussion on the role of Islam in their behaviour meaningless.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

Key word is 'particular'. The Cult of Isis has a particular theology within the Ancient Egyptian religion. Sure, the Ancient Egyptian religion had a theology, but it is more general. In the same way Christianity has the theology, but the Paulian Cult has a particular theology.

In any case, the point I was making stands even if we adopt your definition. When the Paulian cult started it had a single, charismatic leader (Paul) and a comparatively small number of followers. Paul's beliefs and practicisewere considered deviant and novel by both other Christians and Jews.

The point I was making is that by the parents reasoning the Paulian Cult (and thus all of its descendants) is not Christianity because Jesus (if he existed and is recorded reasonably accurately in the gospels) would be unlikely to endorse Paul's bizzare theology. Pretty much any of the Christian Jewish sects which sprung up after Jesus death are far more likely to be accurate renditions of Jesus' philosophy than Pauls. Given that almost all self-identified Christians are Paulian Christians this is clearly a foolhardy way to assign meaning to the word 'Christian'.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You mean the USA isn't Israel's lackey?

You mean the USA doesn't have any reptiles living on its territory? No snakes, lizards, etc?

I don't care what other nations call the USA. I'm a New Yorker, not an "American". Manhattan uber alles!

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

Sure, the Ancient Egyptian religion had a theology, but it is more general. In the same way Christianity has the theology, but the Paulian Cult has a particular theology.

Ah. You mean "more narrowly defined." I was reading it as "with a set definition at all."

Paul's beliefs and practicisewere considered deviant and novel by both other Christians

I mean, there was some argument whether to follow Paul or Apollo or etc. etc. according to Acts...but I guess I'm not familiar with that part of the history. Any good links handy?

The point I was making is that by the parents reasoning the Paulian Cult (and thus all of its descendants) is not Christianity because Jesus (if he existed and is recorded reasonably accurately in the gospels) would be unlikely to endorse Paul's bizzare theology.

I guess I'd be interested to hear what is considered "all mangled up" about Paulian dogma, considering that whole bit about Jesus saying, "Upon you I shall build this church"...oh wait; no, that was Peter. Hmm.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

There was a fair old bit of contention between James (brother of Jesus) and Paul. One book covering the topic is James Dunn's "The Canon Debate". Basic summary is that Paul and James didn't exactly see eye-to-eye, especially on things like Jewish customs. This disagreement caused friction such as the Incident at Antioch, you can read Pauls version of events in the Epistle to the Galatians 2:11-14. Basically Paul says the Jews shouldn't expect the Gentiles to conform to Jewish custom, and James and his largely Jewish followers were having none of that. Mark 7:27 and surrounding passages should be an indication of why I don't think Pauls cultural relativism was something Jesus would have been a fan of. As you point out, Peter might have been in a more representative place doctrinally. It strikes me as likely James may have taken things a bit too far as well in the other direction, doctrinally it seems Peter was somewhere between the two trying desperately to keep the early Christians together, although I think he took on a bit more of Pauls ideas that is justified.

Paulian (often more commonly rendered as Pauline if you decide to go googling) Christianity adds a whole bunch of things to Christian teachings not found in the Gospels (and contradicted by some of the gnostic Gospels). Differences include things like the shift from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom or salvation being derived from belief in Jesus regardless of requirements of Jewish Law, and heirachical established churches. Even something as basic (and problematic) as the nature of Original sin and Jesus death as atonement for human imperfection.

Paul basically viewed Jesus as a blood sacrafice, which if you confine yourself to the gospels is something that seems wholly incongruous with Jesus message. It is a massive topic but hopefully that is enough to get started.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

Paul is the one saying they shouldn't make Gentiles conform to their customs and *he's* the unreasonable cult one? Umm...okay...

The Gnostic Gospels contradict all kinds of things, which is a lot of the reason why they were excluded from canon...fairly or unfairly is kind of another argument. Either the official ones are full of crap, or the "illuminated" ones are, or somewhere in between.

Differences include things like the shift from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom

Well, if we're going to limit ourselves to the Gospels as you say...

My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.

Hell, it seems like Jesus spends half the Gospels trying to get the disciples (and others) to stop asking him when he's going to start his earthly kingdom.

Thanks for the explanations.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

Never said Paul was unreasonable, just that his teachings ran counter to those of Jesus. Jesus was a zealous and pious Jew, at that time that meant he was likely unreasonable about Jewish practices.

The Gnostic Gospels were excluded for a variety of reasons, but as long as John is in the canon the claim that it is to any major degree about quality control is just laughable. Mark (without the bit that was clearly added in at the end) seems the most reliable of the Gospels and it paints a pretty clear picture of Jesus. Most other Gospels are less reliable to some degree (often being copied from Mark or Q, or some combinations there of). It isn't that I think the Gnostic Gospels are reliable, but those consistent with Mark (and to a lesser extent Matthew and Luke) and congruent with the teachings of those most close to Jesus (his brother and the disciples, particularly Peter) are far more reliable than anything found in John and Paul's biggest supporter amoung the Gospels is John, that is why it was included in the Catholic canon.

You'll note your quote is from John, while Mark has a fair bit of similar language it is considerably de-emphasised. As I said, John doesn't count, John is written about 200 years after Jesus was born, and is basically someone trying to propagandize for Pauls perspective, and frankly doing it badly, the Jesus of John is nothing like the far more plain spoken Jesus of Mark.

Happy to provide, thanks for your interest.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[TangoMargarine]

Ah. Interesting. I was aware that John was the outlier of the four, yes. Among the four they each have a tendency to focus on a different aspect of Jesus' life (his parables, his miracles...) so I guess it's always a question of "creative license"/interpretation (although some people would consider the thought blasphemous).

According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions". F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority".

Heh. Go figure...always look hardest at the guy who claims the loudest he knows what is going on :)

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. According to Victorinus and Irenaeus, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.

Sure would've been easier if Jesus and Mohammed had just gotten a guy to dictate to, eh.

(For reference historians think the crucifixion was April 30-33 A.D.)

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

Indeed, one correction reading your post brings up. As you point out John is thought to have been written 100 years after Jesus birth, not 200 as I said in my last post.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[jwhitener]

I'm not saying we should consider them legitimate or anything of the kind. But claiming that they are "not Islamic" sounds like claiming that the child molesting Irish priests weren't Catholic.

Those Irish priests were recognized by the leaders of the Church as members of the Church.
I don't know any prominent Muslim Clerics saying that ISIL actions are in line with Islamic teaching. (I can find the opposite though)

I am making the assumption that despite calling yourself X, the authorities of X have to agree with you for it to be true.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[jwhitener]

The KKK are Christian

If I call myself Christian, but no one in the world believes me, am I Christian? It seems to me that you need to be more specific.

Catholics have the ultimate authority: the pope. If the pope says I'm Catholic, then I'm a Catholic.
Muslims have a bunch of "popes", called Clerics. If none of top Clerics of the Sunni/Shia/etc... sects of Islam agree with me when I call myself Muslim, am I Muslim? (I assume not).

As far as I know, there are zero (big/mainstream) Clerics supporting ISIL. I wish the news wouldn't even call them Muslim or Islamic at all. Just call them crazy terrorists.

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[professionalfurryele]

That is a legitimate criticism, you are essentially proposing that we treat religious adherents in a similar way to the way we treat countries, if the relevant actors consider you X then you are X. Your definition has problems too though.

First by your definition there is evidence of Catholics (Catholic priests no less), who are atheists. If a Catholic priest loses their job often they don't have much to fall back on, and apostasized priests have kept preaching believing that the little lies they percieve themselves as telling are bringng people hope. While they might have moments of candor with those close to them their public face is one of a good Catholic priest who most other folks (including the Supreme Pontiff) would recognise as Christian.

Next you have the problem of what constitutes 'mainstream'. The early Jewish sect that sprung up after Jesus had comparatively little organisation and structure (which was far more congruent with Jesus' teachings). But a few centuries after Jesus death it had all but vanished. By your definition the religious movement which more closely matched the religion of Jesus' would not be Christian as by that point the Roman Empire had spread Paulian Christianity to much of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

A final problem, and this is more technical, is that typically definitions of descriptive nouns / adjectives like this refer to properties of the thing they describe, not properties of someone else describing the thing. A ball is considered a ball because it matches the conditions to be a ball (being sufficiently round, being sufficiently small, etc). The reason for this is that ultimately the meaning of words is derived from their usage (to convey meaning some set of people have to use a word), so it is basically tautological to imply someone can be described as 'a noun' or a 'adjective person' if the right people use the word that way as what we are asking isn't the fundamental reason words have meaning. It is like answering the question of why my toast popped out the toaster early this morning with 'the big bang'. Sure technically true, but completely irrelevant. In this instance you are arguing for specific authorities to determine the meaning of words which is a common way to circumvent this problem, but that just brings us back to the last paragraph. I'm out in cricket if the umpire says I'm out. Here the authority is not so clear. Are Southern Baptists Christians? What about Christian heresys that explicitly reject central authority like Catharism, were they Christian?

You do have a point though, I don't consider someone a Christian just because they claim to be one, I don't think it is enough to just claim you are a Christian I would say you are a Christian if you genuinely believe you are following the teachings of Jesus. Now this has some interesting consequences. For instance under this definition I don't think most of the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians. If you look at how they operate they are clearly a legal scam who likely don't believe a word they are saying. Enough members of the KKK and DAESH are Christian and Muslim respectively under this definition (which coupled with the groups making religion part of their mission statement), so I will call them Christian and Muslim.

But ultimately however we define words like 'Christian' and 'Muslim' we wont find a perfect definition. So if these are problems you can live with and you like your definition that is fine. I admire what you are trying to achieve with your definition, to make it clear to people that adherents of Islam are not fundamentally distinct from people in the West, and that extremists like this don't represent your typical Muslim. You want to avoid labelling the extremists of a particular religion by that religion because it has the odd property of putting me in the same box as Stalin, the nice lady at the soup kitchen in the same box as Raynald of Châtillon and al-Khwarizmi in the same box as Osama Bin Laden.

You are right, as far as I know DAESH ar

Re:DAESH, not ISIL

[jwhitener]

religion is playing a role in motivating DAESHes actions.

But that is where we run into trouble. Is religion just an excuse for them, or the motivating factor? If they had the exact same background (poor, uneducated, violent past and present, unstable country, no job prospects, kids bombed by foreign power, etc..) but the religion was something other than Islam, I suspect we would see the exact same violent actions.

I think a lot of people conclude that Islam is the problem, and work backwards to fill in definitions and explanations to retain that assertion. Without running an experiment where you swap out the religion for another one, keeping everything else the same, I don't think there is any good evidence to conclude that Islam motivates people to violence.

It is much more meaningful to look at the totality of the historical cultural shared experience of a region. Religion is just one facet of culture. Simplifying the explanation of that enormously complex environment to the phrase "Islam motivates violence", just leads to bigotry and racism.

It leads to stuff like store owners banning muslims

Overkill?

[B5_geek]

Doesn't this sound like using an elephant gun to try to kill a fruit fly?

Re:Overkill?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The harder you train on the training ground, the easier time you'll have on actual battlefield. I guess they're just taking their training very seriously!

Re:Overkill?

[PseudoCoder]

You mean a Junior Varsity fruitfly that's killing thousands of people pretty much every where they go? It's more like a plague of locusts.

Re:Overkill?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I don't know that dropping bombs and launching missiles would be an effective response against a plague of locusts either.

Re:Overkill?

[operagost]

Have you looked at a map to see what area they control now? They control two Iraqi cities.

Re:Overkill?

[smooth wombat]

Napalm is quite effective against locusts.

The crops, not so much.

Re:Overkill?

[Chris Mattern]

Napalm is quite effective against locusts.

The crops, not so much.

No, it destroys the crops very effectively too.

Re:Overkill?

[jedidiah]

> I don't know that dropping bombs and launching missiles would be an effective response against a plague of locusts either.

This plague of locusts captured our equipment when the Iraqi army folded like a deck of cards. If nothing else, we need to destroy that equipment and deny the enemy use of it.

Re:Overkill?

[cyberchondriac]

Well, Obama sent 5,000 troops to battle the Ebola virus in Africa, so, apparently tiny targets are the new thing.

Why is this on Slashdot

[damicatz]

Unless they bombed a data center, I fail to see the relevance.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's news for nerds and stuff that matters, no?

This matters, a lot.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[3.5 stripes]

I think they blew up Muhammed's (no, not that one) shoebox full of thumbdrives, if that counts..

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[operagost]

Pieces be upon him.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Uberbah]

Dur wut? Obama is the one who caused this by creating, funding and arming ISIS in the first place. There would have been no war in Syria for the last 3 years if the United States and it's pals Qatar and Saudi Arabia weren't sending a steady supply of guns and fighters. The Saudi Arabia that chopped off the heads of at least 8 people last month.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[DigiShaman]

Loaded with pr0n.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Mysticalfruit]

I *think* this was the first use of the F-22 in combat. It's also on Slashdot because these people are anti education, anti enlightenment, etc.

tl;dr: If war planes have a purpose it's to bomb assholes like them.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Gavagai80]

I'm okay with it being on slashdot, but it should be on politics.slashdot.org... not tech.slashdot.org.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[painandgreed]

Dur wut? Obama is the one who caused this by creating, funding and arming ISIS in the first place. There would have been no war in Syria for the last 3 years if the United States and it's pals Qatar and Saudi Arabia weren't sending a steady supply of guns and fighters. The Saudi Arabia that chopped off the heads of at least 8 people last month.

My understanding is that the US backed the Free Syrian Army (along with Turkey, France, etc) which did fight alongside ISIL for a while against the Assad government but ISIL finally turned on the FSA and has been fighting them also for the last year or two.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Uberbah]

Far more than just Free Syria. The United States has spent years arming 'radical muslims' to fight Assad, and now wants to attack these armed radicals. You wouldn't think Americans would be so eager to get punked by the USG a second time after the invasion of Iraq, but two beheading videos is all it takes.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[TangoMargarine]

China and Russia don't like other nations interfering on any countries sovereign soil which is near them so they have a vested interest in it.

FTFY. I'm sure China and Russia would get real riled up if somebody invaded Argentina or South Africa. In the same way, the U.S. would get pissed if someone invaded Mexico.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot

[Mysticalfruit]

I agree. For assholes like these who don't have any air defenses, the B-52, the A-10 and a AC-130 are perfect. If we decide we'd like to take out Assad the F-22 and the B-2 will be what's needed to eliminate the air defenses.

My only question...

[argStyopa]

Do you think I could start a business with protest signs?

I mean, since the Left was so prolific in producing "war monger" and "the president is a war criminal" signs from 2001-2007, and they don't really seem to use them anymore, I bet I could buy them cheap and sell them to the Right, who apparently need them now?

Re:My only question...

[Jason Levine]

From the glimpses I've seen of what the folks on the Right (of the Fox news variety), they are upset at Obama for not launching these strikes sooner and/or not launching a bigger offensive. So they're not "pro-peace" as much as they are "more pro-war."

Re:My only question...

[just_another_sean]

So invading a sovereign nation based on lies to the American people (and the world) is the same as bombing a terrorist group that's killed thousands of people, many whom are innocent bystanders, and invaded several sovereign nations is the same thing?

I'm not 100% convinced that our involvement in this at the moment is the right thing to do but I'm also convinced that Obama's reluctant return to the ME is in no way the same as Bush's eager "time to finish what Daddy started" invasion of Iraq.

Re:My only question...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're upset we left the area at all since that is what allowed events to play out to this point.

Re:My only question...

[halivar]

That, and the fact that he is not obtaining or even seeking to obtain congressional authority to do so, unlike his predecessor.

Re:My only question...

[Oligonicella]

You understand Saddam did exactly that, right? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, political critics... the list goes on.

Re:My only question...

[just_another_sean]

Well sure and I had no real issue with Bush Sr. going into Iraq at the invitation of neighboring Arab countries. We went in with a clear objective and when that was complete we withdrew, told Saddam what he had to do to keep us from coming back and left with the approval of the international community. And whatever anyone's feeling on Saddam was he was the recognized sovereign leader of his country, not a terrorist leader announcing the creation of a new state in other countries' territory. He was an evil man and I was not sorry to see him go but my and others' emotions toward the man are not legal justifications for war.

The second time around the initiative was predicated on lies and innuendo about terrorism and Bush's "bring Democracy to the desert" was obviously not well defined or planned, thus the situation we have now. Both democrats and republicans have plenty of blame to share when it comes to F'ing up in the ME but I stand by my statement that what Obama doing now is not really comparable to what Bush Jr. did then.

Re:My only question...

[just_another_sean]

Bush got Congressional approval, and had actual ground troops from 40 or so nations.

As mentioned, by lying to them and fabricating evidence.

Re:My only question...

[ScentCone]

told Saddam what he had to do to keep us from coming back and left with the approval of the international community

Which Saddam never did. You get that, right? He kept building/importing long range missiles. Kept shooting at the aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that were set up to keep him from continuing his ethnic slaughter in the north and south, kept starving people as he skimmed aid money to rebuild his guard and more palaces, continued to play cat and mouse with UN inspectors, never disclosed what he did with all of the VX that the UN inspectors originally saw, and so on.

He never did any of what he agreed to do when he was pushed back out of Kuwait - that conflict in effect never ended, because Saddam chose not to actually live up to the agreement that kept him alive and in limited power. Intelligence agencies from multiple countries had strong reasons to think that he was still in possession of at least some of his huge pile of chemical weapons (he was), making missiles (he was), shooting at aircraft (he was), killing rivals (he was) ... and every attempt to find and catalog his chemical weapons was rebuffed by his people on the scene. It's quite possible that he himself was being lied to about how much he still had, by people who didn't want to lose their lives (and those of their families) by telling him the truth about how much had been trucked to Syria or otherwise abandoned. Doesn't matter: complete lack of his cooperation, ongoing targeting of allied aircraft, and the continuing deaths of Kurds and other minorities at his hands were line-by-line violations of the agreement that kept the Gulf 1 invasion from rolling the rest of the way into Baghdad. Eventually that operation did happen, because he (Saddam) effectively insisted on it by never changing his Kuwait invasion period posture.

Re:My only question...

[rahvin112]

Though he didn't ask for it, congress didn't want him setting the precedent that he was commander in chief so they hurried and passed a resolution allowing it anyway.

Re:My only question...

[TangoMargarine]

Bush Senior fabricated evidence, or Bush Junior had 40 countries behind him for Iraq II? I'm confused.

Re:My only question...

[Mab_Mass]

That, and the fact that he is not obtaining or even seeking to obtain congressional authority to do so, unlike his predecessor.

In a large part, that was because with all of the post 9/11 hoo-ha, there was an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" that was worded broadly enough that it has basically served as a legal foundation for pretty much indefinite military action. Specifically, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... for the text and http://www.radiolab.org/story/... for a rundown of how it's been used.

The real trouble is that the office President has too much power these days, and the military has too much influence in how the US acts.

Re:My only question...

[argStyopa]

" Saddam was he was the recognized sovereign leader of his country"

Um, didn't he take power through a military coup?

What's your statute of limitations on brutal takeovers being turned into 'recognized sovereign leader'?

uh oh

[slashmydots]

Well I'm sure they won't start hiding in neighborhoods, churches, schools, libraries, and food pantries now.

Re:uh oh

[currently_awake]

Given how they are deliberately destroying other religious groups and their shrines I doubt hiding in churches is possible. They also appear to object to education and libraries, so I doubt they'll find enough of them to hide in. So now the question is what to do after ISIS disbands. I suggest a Sunni state called North Iraq, with the Bathists as the government. Any end state with the Shiites in charge will mean purges and they've already shown they don't get along.

Re:uh oh

[slashmydots]

That's a stupid and overly-complicated solution. Nuke the entire area except Israel. The whole middle east needs to be radioactive and unsupportive of life for 200 years. That would solve the problem permanently.

Re:uh oh

[meta-monkey]

The Kurds would want their own state, too, and Turkey will not allow it. The day after a Kurdish state is inaugurated, Turkey will be rolling across the border in tanks.

Re:uh oh

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Why don't you assholes just fire up Auschwitz, Dachau, etc? You're arguing for a Final Solution to Abrahamic monotheism at this point.

Re:uh oh

[fnj]

Turkey "will not allow it"? Really? They get to decide what they will and will not allow outside their borders? How do Turkish tanks stand up to hellfire missiles? My guess is they are excellent targets and have about as much resistance to hellfire missiles as do beer cans.

If the Turks want to commit suicide, they can "roll across the border in tanks" and the US and/or others can decide whether to accommodate them.

Re:uh oh

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

As far as I'm concerned, monotheism is the real curse of the pharaoh. But making martyrs out of at least four billion people isn't going to help.

Re:uh oh

[TangoMargarine]

There's this inconvenient thing called weather that tends to mean when you nuke somebody, the radiation cloud doesn't neatly fall straight down and abide by arbitrarily-drawn straight lines on maps.

The world found out about Chernobyl because scientists in *Sweden* detected the radiation.

Re:uh oh

[badkarmadayaccount]

slashmydots for POTUS! Vote today! Peace program of the milenium! PS: I like the idea.

Re:uh oh

[slashmydots]

Actually, a smart person knows those are theoretical and most likely impossible and there has never been a working prototype of even an idea of how to build one.

Subject lines that serve as the body

[tbuddy]

Grind my gears.

Aggression in practice, right?

[bogaboga]

Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?

IS/ISIS/ISIL is the aggressor, slaughtering thousands of people for being insufficiently Islamic, etc.

Hitting their command/control and training operations, from which tens of thousands of them are directed and supplied, is DEFENSIVE, not aggressive. That they happen to be running their little shop of horrors out of towns they've captured in Syria simply means that that's where some of the defensive action has to take place.

Like this is any mystery to anybody, right? Right?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[just_another_sean]

This BBC article may help. There are a number of theories regarding international law and the legality of the U.S. led actions in Syria. Defense of neighboring states (Iraq, Jordan, etc.) and humanitarian aid being the two that make the most sense (IMHO).

the Syrian government has lost all control over the parts of Syria held by IS.

Indeed, until very recently, it has made no attempt to dislodge it, leaving this task instead to the armed opposition groups. Damascus is manifestly unable or unwilling to discharge its obligation to prevent IS operations against Iraq from its own soil. Syria cannot impose the costs of its inaction or incapacity in relation to IS on neighbouring Iraq.

Hence, under the doctrine of self-defence, the zone of operations of the campaign to defeat IS in Iraq can be extended to cover portions of Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government.

And...

Finally, it would be possible to base a claim for action on the activities of IS in Syria itself.

The Syrian government is under the obligation to secure its population from crimes against humanity committed on its territory. Clearly, it is unable to do so, having lost control over areas occupied by IS.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[halivar]

The Ukrainians weren't cutting heads off or systematically slaughtering entire towns for being the wrong religion, so no, it's not "exactly as justified." Not even close.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[halivar]

The problem is that in the areas affected, there is no "legitimate Syrian government." Syria is in civil war and these areas are completely overrun and out of Syria's control.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[_xeno_]

I can't help but feel like there are three very important words you've ignored: "under international law."

You can argue which is more justified from a humanitarian point of view, but under international law, we're invading Syria in exactly the same way Russia invaded Ukraine.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Oligonicella]

Someone who would sit back and allow that level of barbarity to continue until pleasantly asked to intervene needs get a mirror and sit for a day staring into the eyes looking back and asking why?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Uberbah]

That's convenient.

Step 1: Create an uncivil war with foreign fighters and money, trained and armed by the CIA and Saudi Arabia.

Step 2: Declare areas to be "lawless" due to the war you created, and use that as a reason to make more war with bombs.

Brilliant!

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Uberbah]

So when are you signing up to invade Saudi Arabia? They, along with the CIA, created ISIS in the first place to fight Assad. Saudi Arabia, where they chopped the heads of 8 people last month.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Uberbah]

'Humanitarian war' is a contradiction in terms. And, of course, there would be no ISIS or a war in Syria if it wasn't created, armed and funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia. So when do the airstrikes start on Langley?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[misexistentialist]

The bombings are with Assad's full enthusiastic approval, he politically engineered them himself

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[CanHasDIY]

Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?

IS/ISIS/ISIL is the aggressor, slaughtering thousands of people for being insufficiently Islamic, etc.

Hitting their command/control and training operations, from which tens of thousands of them are directed and supplied, is DEFENSIVE, not aggressive.

By that logic (or lack thereof, IMO), Europe has every right to bomb neo-Nazi targets on US soil as a "defensive" measure against far-right ideology, and the US has every right to bomb Scandinavia as a "defensive" measure against socialist ideology.

In short, by that logic (or lack thereof), all humans should kill all other humans as a "defensive" measure.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[CanHasDIY]

The Ukrainians weren't cutting heads off or systematically slaughtering entire towns for being the wrong religion, so no, it's not "exactly as justified." Not even close.

OP was speaking from a legal standpoint, not a moral one.

Honestly, I fail to see how anyone ever confuses the two.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[just_another_sean]

... ISIS or a war in Syria if it wasn't created, armed and funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia.

You keep saying this in your posts. Do you have a citation to back it up? I feel like I've been following recent events pretty closely and I've not heard anything about this...

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[eladts]

Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?

Simple. There isn't a legitimate Syrian government currently.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[GlennC]

The answer you're looking for is best stated as an old signature line.

"Bombing for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity."

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been just using artillery against cities being on the wrong political side. So no, not even close.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

By that logic (or lack thereof, IMO), Europe has every right to bomb neo-Nazi targets on US soil as a "defensive" measure against far-right ideology, and the US has every right to bomb Scandinavia as a "defensive" measure against socialist ideology.

Do find a lot of examples of neo-Nazi idiots with hundreds of millions of stolen dollars and heavy weapons rounding up thousands of people and promising to slaughter them because of their religion, or marching cops and soldiers into trenches and machine gunning them down? Are you finding lots of examples of Scandinavian socialists wagging their fingers at the camera and then lopping heads of of hundreds of people, including journalists? No? Do you see either group promising to tear down embassies and kill everyone in them, and then heading that general direction in stolen armored vehicles carrying RPGs and worse? No?

Neo-Nazis talk a lot. But they're just noisy idiots. ISIS actually do what they say, and now control large swaths of land in which they are actually in real life murdering thousands of people, and bragging about it.

If all ISIS did was post angry rants online, you'd be right. But they're an army of 30,000+ people who have completely taken over large territories, only recently held a dam that, if damaged, could seriously threaten US and European (among others) people in large numbers on the ground in key cities. Defanging these guys isn't merely an ideological exercise, it's necessary in very simple, practical terms. Something you're pretending you don't understand so you can make hollow points with people who also don't want to think it through. We have a fellow NATO member that is being swamped with refugees, and which has had air strikes and artillery lobbed at it from the the nice peaceful Syrian government that you think shouldn't have its feathers ruffled.

This doesn't mean I approve of Obama's specific strategy and tactics. This (a large air campaign involving lots of locals, too) didn't have to happen. But his utter bumbling in the wake of Syria's use of chemical

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

You might look up the definition of sovereign state [wikipedia.org]. Throwing bombs on another states territory without explicit permission is an act of aggression.

You're right! So when Syria launches missiles and artillery at our NATO ally, Turkey, and creates a huge and dangerous refugee problem that extends across multiple borders, it's something to worry about, isn't it? I doubt that Syria had "explicit permission" to strike Turkey. Worrying about the sovereignty of Syria (as it pours money and weapons into the hands of groups that call for the total destruction of another country, Israel, and has camped out in its territory a large and heavily armed and financed group - ISIS - that is attacking other countries and promises to do more) is hilarious.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

The answer you're looking for is best stated as an old signature line.

"Bombing for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity."

What a stupid, empty, non-sequitor of a hippy aphorism. If someone has a camp full of heavy weapons, out of which they are launching daily slaughter and earnest attempts at genocide (a la the Yazidis, just as an example ISIS victim group), and you use an airstrike to stop that slaughter ... the resulting end of the campaign to kill that group of people isn't good, from where you sit? You'd rather, instead of "bombing" to stop them, that we line up a huge logistical support operation and send in ground troops to get in protracted firefights to the same? And take weeks or months to set it up, by which time of course all of the Yazidis would be very thoroughly dead at the hands of ISIS?

If you really think your quoted platitude makes sense, then you'd also be against anyone using force to stop a rape in progress, right? Because that would like "Violence For Safety," right? Right?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ukranian army did kill a shitload of civilians, including many children with artillery (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29119829). Sorry to throw some color on your black and white narrative.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[CanHasDIY]

Do find a lot of examples of neo-Nazi idiots with hundreds of millions of stolen dollars and heavy weapons rounding up thousands of people and promising to slaughter them because of their religion, or marching cops and soldiers into trenches and machine gunning them down?

The "rounding up people" part might not be happening right now, but if you google phrases like "neo-nazi weapons stockpile" and "neo-nazis murder cop," you'll find plenty of examples. Don't the people of Europe have a right to use a pre-emptive strike to defend themselves against the inevitable escalation of violence from these barbaric individuals from reaching their shores*?

*In case it's not glaringly obvious, yes, I'm mocking the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" warhawks.

Neo-Nazis talk a lot. But they're just noisy idiots.

Neo-nazis kill people - Anders Breivik ring a bell?. That's not being "just noisy idiots." No, today they aren't killing people in the volumes that ISIL is, but that's today. Tomorrow could be completely different.

Actually, Breivik shows the point I'm making quite well: many would claim his style of extremism is an exclusively American export. If American neo-nazis can influence him, they can influence thousands of others, and by the "fight them there not here" mentality, that means other nations "have a duty" to bomb American neo-nazis into oblivion, sovereign borders be damned.

I'm really not sure why you mischaracterize neo-nazis as a non-violent group; ignorance is hard to believe... confluent opinions, perhaps?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Gavagai80]

The presence of ISIL in Syria is a direct result of the USA spending the last few years arming Syrian rebel jihadist groups, many of whom either resold the weapons to ISIL or simply joined ISIL as the tide of the Syrian civil war changed. So the last few years of American interference in Syria is much more like Russian actions in Ukraine. This current bombing action is just a frantic attempt to control the mess we created.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Gavagai80]

Are all non-democratic governments illegitimate now? Is there no legitimate Chinese or Russian government either?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

I'm really not sure why you mischaracterize neo-nazis as a non-violent group; ignorance is hard to believe

Who said anything about non-violent? They're violent. Just like local street thugs are violent. It's a law enforcement, not a military issue. They're not on the move with tanks and missiles. They're not taking over dams, or now running oil fields. If they were, that would rise to the level of a military issue. Do you really think that if some neo-Nazi movement in the US rose to the level of them occupying large portions of US states in the north, bordering Canada, and started killing off people with French heritage by the thousands, and the US government couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop them as they spilled across borders, that Canada wouldn't take steps to prevent that cancer from spreading? Your example of such a huge militarized operation involving tens of thousands of neo-Nazis filling mass graves in the while the US military runs away from them leaving them to expand their territory as they promise they're coming next for other countries and territories ... is a total fantasy. Because that's not happening and won't. They'd never make it past the skirmish-at-the-compound (a la Waco, TX) level, let alone occupy whole swaths of the upper midwest, slaughtering thousands of people.

On the other hand, that's exactly what IS happening with ISIS. One you can deal with as a law enforcement problem. The other is a military problem.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[tomhath]

Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?

How do you know there was not an invitation?

Syria will not publicly invite the US; nor will the US publicly agree to help the Syrian government. But behind closed doors they work things out. Same as the drone strikes in Pakistan, protested by the government but they continue.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, they even burned people alive:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014...

All sorts of crimes were done, almost none of them reported by the western media. The burning alive one was too large, and too many people recorded it, for them to outright ignore it though.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[rahvin112]

Up until ISIS invaded Iraq ISIS was ignored by Syria because they were fighting the other rebel groups. Assad made the mistake of thinking they were happy controlling Raqa (they left other areas alone including a major military base in the area) and wouldn't move outward and that fighting with the other rebel groups served his cause. He didn't realize they were biding their time, building forces and structure for the big invasion. Shortly after taking much of Iraq they dramatically expanded and seized significantly more territory and became much more threatening to the regime. In fact ISIS is probably Assad's most dangerous opponent at this point as they control almost the entire north of Syria. This was double bad for Assad because there were thousands of Iraqi Shia volunteers in Syria fighting and 90% of them left after IS threatened Baghdad and the Shia shrines.

Assad made a HUGE mistake ignoring ISIS. Assad is worried the US will strike his own forces while attacking ISIS but I seriously doubt he's gonna do much to prevent the US striking ISIS. Oh he'll yell and holler about needing his permission, and about Syria's sovereignty but he's not going to try to shoot the planes down unless they come after him. At this point attacking ISIS helps him as much as it helps the ordinary rebels. So the enemy of my enemy shifts again and he'll ignore the US attacks until ISIS is weakened enough to not be a threat to him.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[jbcksfrt]

Jesus Christ you're a moron. The US used non-violent means to encourage Russia to leave the Ukraine, and we are using violent means to prevent a group of people from decapitating more people, Americans and otherwise.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[_xeno_]

Wow you're dense.

I'm saying that what the US is doing in Syria is exactly equivalent to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Because, according to international law, it is.

The sanctions being imposed against Russia are for Russia taking literally the exact same actions the US is currently taking in Syria.

You can argue the relative morality all you want, but we're still, ultimately, invading a sovereign nation.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Uberbah]

Hitting their command/control and training operations, from which tens of thousands of them are directed and supplied, is DEFENSIVE, not aggressive.

So you want to hit Langley, Virginia?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

ISIS...

So, you don't think cutting off funding to them is better than going to war? Is this how you do it? You create a monster so you can look like hero when you make like you destroy it? Ah the sweet smell of election season... The thirst for blood never ends, makes the Aztecs look awful civilized. The gods are pleased.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

IS/ISIS/ISIL is the aggressor...

Yes, Fronkensteen's creation has come home to roost, I guess we should kill it, eh?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

So, you don't think cutting off funding to them is better than going to war?

You're right. We'll use a time machine to undo the hundreds of millions in cash they stole when they knocked over a bank (you have been paying attention, right?), and then we'll take steps to make oil no longer a commodity that places like Russia and China buy, so that we can dry up the millions a week that they're earning on the black market. Then we'll force Europeans and others to stop sending them millions of dollars in ransom money for the hostages they keep taking.

Let me guess, you were thinking about calling their bank and putting a hold on their Visa card, right? Yeah.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[GlennC]

So when are you heading over to defend the honor of the Yazidis?, since they apparently can't do it themselves?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[halivar]

If you're going to do justify a false equivalency with "the letter of the law" you're gonna need to start giving citations.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

Hundreds of millions, eh? From a single bank... Eh, sure... I guess all those weapons transfers through Benghazi and Turkey had nothing to do with any of this... You know, I don't care anymore, you all can be so easily lied into and out of anything these days, I'm just gonna sit back and have a drink. Good ol' Nixon is laughing in his grave. Happy hunting guys! Bring back a nice trophy.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

Hundreds of millions, eh? From a single bank

Says the governor. Intelligence people on our side apparently think it's anywhere from at least "millions" to close to what the local Nineveh officials estimated. Regardless, whatever they've been extracting from the central banks they've taken apparently pales compared to the revenue they get from kidnapping, extortion, and good old fashioned robbery. And, again, millions a day in oil proceeds. I know, you're still hoping you can just have their checking account locked, right?

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

Who said anything about defending their honor? We already defended them by delivering food, water, and medicine, and by running off and/or killing the ISIS guys on the ground that were preventing them (the Yazidis) from escaping the spot in which they were being starved to death. You know, bombing for peace. If a Yazidi family had a peaceful breakfast this morning, it was because of US air power.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

If kidnapping, extortion, and good old fashioned robbery were so profitable, the everybody would be doing it. If you think they can do all this damage without continued aid from the US/Europe (Saudi, especially them. You are so barking up the wrong tree), Russia, China, whoever is competing for the territory, then I'll have to assume you own several bridges and the Haney Farm...

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[cyberchondriac]

Obama considers Assad's regime as "illegitimate" , but that's just him.. but yeah, Internationally, this could potentially be interesting. Still, considering the pure evil that ISIS represents, I would think that reasonable people of the UN could bend a bit.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Oligonicella]

Only if incorrect. When you side with the inhumane, you need examine your motives.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[shutdown -p now]

Sovereignty has to be meaningfully exercised to be considered legitimate. If you claim sovereignty over some territory, but in practice there is a hostile militant group there that's on a murderous rampage for several months now, your claim is not particularly strong.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[Uberbah]

Sure thing:

• "The 9 page, extensive report has since been vindicated many times over with revelations of US, NATO, and Persian Gulf complicity in raising armies of extremists within Libya and along Syria's borders. ISIS itself, which is claimed to occupy a region stretching from northeastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq, has operated all along Turkey's border with Syria, "coincidentally" where the US CIA has conducted years of "monitoring" and arming of "moderate" groups.

   
  In fact, the US admits it has armed, funded, and equipped "moderates" to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In a March 2013 Telegraph article titled, "US and Europe in âmajor airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it was reported that a single program included 3,000 tons of weapons sent in 75 planeloads paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States. The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that the CIA assisted Arab governments and Turkey with military aid to terrorists fighting in Syria constituting hundreds of airlifts landing in both Jordan and Turkey."

And for our "allies"

• "But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISISâ(TM)s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes; often, it took advantage of poor money laundering protections in those states, according to officials, experts, and leaders of the Syrian opposition, which is fighting ISIS as well as the regime."

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

If kidnapping, extortion, and good old fashioned robbery were so profitable, the everybody would be doing it.

In places without the rule of law, everybody (with the muscle) IS doing it. That's why it's a major industry in certain parts of Africa, Central America, and the Middle East. Which of course you know, but would rather ignore.

If you think they can do all this damage without continued aid from the US/Europe (Saudi, especially them. You are so barking up the wrong tree), Russia, China, whoever is competing for the territory, then I'll have to assume you own several bridges and the Haney Farm...

This sentence is impossible to parse.

But I'll take a guess. You think that 30,000 guys armed with millions of dollars, fanatical recruits, and huge numbers of weapons abandoned by fleeing Iraqi forces, are unable to walk into village and towns and kill people? How complicated do you think this actually is? Your need for a fantasy narrative is making you invent something far to complicated, and you're now confusing yourself and writing incoherently.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

All that paper is useless

Other than the fact that they can use it to pay off more muscle, to make up for not always being able to attract enough true believer goons. Also works for buying supplies, getting people on airplanes, and other things that you can't get with ammo left in the dirt by the fleeing Iraqi army.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

They are hired killers. Nobody works for free. And there is no way to convince me that the state can't defeat them with its little finger without outside meddling. And I don't know what you mean by "complicated". I spell out basic motivations in the simplest way I know how. This is business. That is what war is.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[ScentCone]

And there is no way to convince me that the state can't defeat them with its little finger

Which state are you talking about? If a state doesn't have a coherent, functional military with the resolve to fight against these guys, then there's nothing else up their sleeves to use. Iraq wasn't ready for this. ISIS just kidnapped another 68 Iraqi soldiers to use as extortion leverage, and has killed a bunch more using suicide bombers. Recent recruits there have no stomach for fighting people like that with only what Iraq has that passes as its own air power for support. Their "little finger" isn't nearly enough to protect and hold the dam in Mosul, for example, let alone stamp this group out of existence.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[fustakrakich]

If you're so worried about ISIS, stop funding them, or at least stop trading with the people (like the Saudis) who do.

And, under the circumstances, the word is "captured", not "kidnapped".

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[CanHasDIY]

I'm really not sure why you mischaracterize neo-nazis as a non-violent group; ignorance is hard to believe

Who said anything about non-violent?

You. Your exact words were

Neo-Nazis talk a lot. But they're just noisy idiots.

Feel free to continue backpedaling wildly.

Re:Aggression in practice, right?

[CanHasDIY]

If kidnapping, extortion, and good old fashioned robbery were so profitable, the everybody would be doing it.

Presuming by "everybody" you mean parties in power, then they actually do all do it. Just look at almost any news story about government agents interacting with non-government subjects.

I'll just leave this right here:

[RavenLrD20k]

Video showing various armaments being used on an F-22. The bombs are dropped from the missile bay closer to the end of the vid. A-G was always an armament option on the plane and it was touted by Lockheed from the very beginning as a multiple role fighter/bomber.

Yes they do

[pastafazou]

The Raptor has three internal weapons bays: a large bay on the bottom of the fuselage, and two smaller bays on the sides of the fuselage, aft of the engine intakes.[140] It can carry six medium range missiles in the center bay and one short–range missile in each side bay;[141] Four of the medium range missiles can be replaced with two bomb racks that can each carry one medium-size or four smaller bombs.

Re:Yes they do

[Savage-Rabbit]

The Raptor has three internal weapons bays: a large bay on the bottom of the fuselage, and two smaller bays on the sides of the fuselage, aft of the engine intakes.[140] It can carry six medium range missiles in the center bay and one short–range missile in each side bay;[141] Four of the medium range missiles can be replaced with two bomb racks that can each carry one medium-size or four smaller bombs.

All true but the F-22 still wasted as a bomb truck. A couple of dozen of them would be of much more use stationed in Poland an Romania on a 'good will mission' along with a simlar number of Typhoons and Rafales to remind the Russians of what's going to buttfuck their air force if they make a play for Kiev. If you want to flatten ISIS in Syria take a look at what the French did in Mali. The frogs used liberal numbers of drones and Breguet Atlantic maratime patrol aircraft loaded to capacity with laser guided bombs to loiter over the battle field and zap anything that moved. Then they mopped up the immobilized islamists with ground forces. The US counterpart would be B-52s on 12 hour loiter missions with bomb bays full of JDAMs supported by drones. The Armée de l'Aire used Mirage 2Ks and F.1s in Mali, not exactly the latest and best in combat aircraft, so if fast movers are needed F-18s, F-15s and F-16s are plenty good enough to hammer ISIS. The real problem in Syria is that you can only do so much with air forces, you need ground troops. The only ground forces in the region that can be turned into something we in the West would recognize as a proper army in a short amount of time are the Kurds and you can't build their forces up without pissing off practically everybody from Iran through Iraq to Turkey (I'm pretty sure nobody gives a shit what Assad thinks except Putin) becasue they are all scared shitless of an independent Kurdistan.

Non-believers

[Neo-Rio-101]

So ISIL are threatening to kill people in western countries that it considers "disbelievers"

Now, I don't like Justin Beiber as much as the next person, but we certainly don't deserve to die because of it.

Re:Non-believers

[gnasher719]

So ISIL are threatening to kill people in western countries that it considers "disbelievers"

Forget about that believer/disbeliever nonsense. All these guys want to do is rape and kill. Sometimes they may come up with something to "justify" what they are doing, but that's just to spread confusion so they have more time to rape and kill.

Re:Non-believers

[CanHasDIY]

Exactly - Disagree, and we kill you for being an infidel; agree, and we'll kill you as a "martyr."

Being a royal douchenozzle does not require adherence to a specific ideology.

Re:Non-believers

[iggymanz]

wrong, they act from their religious viewpoint. you just don't see how dangerous a human invention that religion is

Re:Very ungeeky

[EzInKy]

Or stuff that matters. You really aren't interested in the least on how the US can get others to put "boots on the ground" when they themselves are relunctant to do?

Re:What Taco 'Boy really wants you to know is

[crimson tsunami]

Wow, 8 releases and they are still playing catch up.
They must have some pretty shitty developers then.

Poor Analogy

[pastafazou]

Considering the many thousands that have been killed by ISIS, including thousands of Iraqi soldiers, I don't think a "fruit fly" is an apt comparison. And ISIS has access to anti-air weaponry too.

Points of interest.

[Anonanonaon]

No permission:

The attacks were not carried out with the coordination and cooperation of the Syrian government. Nor were they carried out with Syrian government permission.

On the legality of this war. (No vote really needed):

The Obama administration reiterated that it was neither asking for permission nor for a new authorization to use military force. The White House asserts that it has all the authority it needs to achieve its goals under the authorizations to use military force that were approved after the 9/11 attacks and in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

U.S. funded the people they're bombing:

after a decision made by the White House and approved by Congress on September 17, 2014, to arm and train the alleged "moderate" Syrian rebels. The vote was 273-156 in favor of the $500 million plan. Of course, the bill in question was actually an amendment that was cynically attached to a bill designed to continue funding for the federal government in the short-term, ensuring maximum support from members of the House.

Sorry? They're funding who? There are no moderate Syrian rebels.

[...]there were never, nor are there any "moderates" operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria's borders as "divided" along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria's borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

ISIS Is Controlled By The U.S. And NATO:

It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

And WHO exactly trained these ISIS guys anyway?

Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in Syria to fight against Assad.

Shit. Did we also arm them..?

Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of American weapons and equipment. As Business Insider stated, "The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of 'significant quantities' of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings 'Property of US Govt.'" The article also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally.

What the hell is really going on over there?

ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase - The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria:

Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western intelligence, the fact that the death s

Re:Points of interest.

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't get all your news from one source, especially when it's a crackpot site like that one.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

You're getting deep into conspiracy there. One of your major source websites is serious about chemtrails. That's just one clue of irrationality......

Re:Points of interest.

[ScentCone]

Hilarious copypasta from comedy web site.

I also like their satire about chem trails.

Re:Points of interest.

[Uberbah]

Any excuse to dismiss the entire post so you don't have try and make an actual response to any of the actual points.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

He starts out fine, with points I don't want to refute, by pointing out that Obama claims he doesn't need permission from congress to go to war. OK, fine, that's true. Our constitutional scholar president really does believe that he doesn't need permission to go to war. I'm not going to try to refute that point because it's true.

Then he starts going off the rails, with this kind of thing:

Really, this is a strike at Putin for having the audacity to prevent war escalating over the Ukraine fiasco.

The US is attacking rebels in Syria because Putin prevented war in Ukraine? How does that even make sense? If you can defend that with more than vague speculation, I would be really interested in hearing it. The GP did not.

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

the fact-pattern is there (not just one the one website anonanonaon quotes) and anonanonaon's statement does indeed make sense. the problem is that we are dealing with a lot more than just data, but also deeply ingrained mental and emotional imprinting. when the truth is painful vis-a-vis altering one's world-view, humans will go to extraordinary lengths (often unconsciously so) to keep from seeing it.

Anonanonaon - i feel you. nothing to do about it though. just learn to let it be i guess, and appreciate the times when you can have an honest conversation with others. frustrating though i know.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

and anonanonaon's statement does indeed make sense.

Lots of things make sense that aren't true. The question is whether it's true. The way to demonstrate something is true is by bringing evidence.

humans will go to extraordinary lengths (often unconsciously so) to keep from seeing it.

Strange how it's something only you can see.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

I disagree.

I know.

It is less "conspiracy theory" than it is objective analysis as it all comes from verified facts on the ground,

If you are talking about chemtrails, then once again, you're completely out there. You might as well start talking about how the moon landing was faked.

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

ok, flatlander.

Re:Points of interest.

[TangoMargarine]

It's easier than going through point-by-point and writing "this is clearly insane" for 18 different rebuttals.

Re:Points of interest.

[Uberbah]

No, you're doing it all wrong. What you need to do with facts that disagree with State Department propaganda is to lazily label them as conspriacy theories and call it a day.

Re:Points of interest.

[TangoMargarine]

Just because you don't believe crazy stuff doesn't mean you eat government propaganda with a spoon. There is a middle ground.

And please feel free to NOT use the word "sheeple." Because that's so witty and I totally haven't heard it 8000 times before.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

Serious question, do you think the moon landing was faked?

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

Sorry man, your problem is you don't know how to collect evidence. Fix that and your life will be better.

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

serious answer (despite the fact that i suspect you are trying to do the old "hey, let's discredit everything someone says based upon his believing one thing i think is wrong.. regardless of the logic presented on any of the other issues) ---- i'll start by saying that i can understand why it would have been in the interests of certain people TO fake it. the larger issue when it comes to conspiracy theories and the such is that once an individual realizes he has been lied to in -one- area in such a massive way, he tends to begin questioning all the other things that he accepted unquestioningly as fact. i don't need to know whether the moon landing was faked or not to know that there are systemic misinformation campaigns continually going on that have a direct -current- impact on all of us. could the moon-landing have been faked? probably. was it? i dont know.

let me ask you a serious question: do you believe it's possible for a a building to collapse (without any sort of controlled demolition taking place) at free-fall speed - despite being full of 'stuff' and floors' to slow down the descent?

if you aren't sure, i invite you to ask any engineer - (or prof lewin @ mit who likes to say 'physics works!!!"). if you reach the conclusion i think you will, then perhaps your experience will be open to the possiblity that the deceptions extend beyond just one buildings' demolition. i sort of apologize in advance though - the trip to seeing these things isn't fun, and tends to go through the stages of loss, which is what it is.. you lose the worldview you were brought up to identify with.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

let me ask you a serious question: do you believe it's possible for a a building to collapse (without any sort of controlled demolition taking place) at free-fall speed - despite being full of 'stuff' and floors' to slow down the descent?

Yes.

if you aren't sure, i invite you to ask any engineer -

Hey, why don't I do exactly that?

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

sadly, you are an absolute moron and a troll.. i was iniitially going to say one or the other, but whether your posts are intentionally troll-like or not, they are still troll-worthy. i was also hopeful that the delay between the time i posted and your response was due to you doing some intelligent research and maybe even some though.. unfortunately you were instead looking for propaganda to use as 'evidence' to refute my point.

the beauty of the freefall/wtc-7 argument is that it is absolutely OBVIOUS and irrefutable. they messed up there big time (well, would have messed up if not for the fact that people like you will believe whatever is fed to you). The fall is on video in real-time. the physics is easy and doesn't lie.

where exactly in the link you attach does it address the free-fall issue? answer: NOWHERE.

in other words the SINGLE question gave you, you answered with a YES referencing an article that makes NO MENTION of the issue itself... but of course, what it DOES do is expand and attempt to obfuscate with other things that would make the conversation even more unwieldy.

for anyone with half a brain that is reading this, you might want to instead check out what a bloke named David Chandler says. Chandler has a degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program from Harvey Mudd College, and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/n...

and phantom.. stop.... just... stop...

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

sadly, you are an absolute moron and a troll..

With the depth and beauty, and pure logic of this argument, how can you possibly be wrong?

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

aaaand... you ignore the actual argument... again. jackass.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

Your insults and extreme intelligence distracted me. I couldn't see an argument.

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

here is the argument from previous post which you ignored sans any insults.care to respond?

the beauty of the freefall/wtc-7 argument is that it is absolutely obvious and irrefutable. they messed up there big time. The fall is on video in real-time. the physics is easy and doesn't lie. where exactly in the link you attach does it address the free-fall issue? i found it nowhere. by my reading then, the question i gave you, which you answered with an affirmative, was done by referencing an article that makes no mention of the issue itself. do you still hold to your position, despite the fact that it contradicts the basic laws of physics? if so, on what do you base your position?


there.. i put the argument and logic up top before you read the insult. care to actually respond? no? aah.. thats right. what now?

oh, and which insult? you might ask? this one: you're an imbecile and a coward, hiding behind being 'offended' rather than admitting you're position is flat out wrong.

Re:Points of interest.

[phantomfive]

David Chandler's argument is an argument from ignorance: he says, "I don't know how a building could fall like this naturally, therefore it must have been demolition." That's a non-sequitur.

The building was on fire for several hours before collapsing. You can't make any assumptions about the internal structure of the building.

Re:Points of interest.

[Cardoor]

you are hysterical.. now that i've realized what a joke you are, im quite enjoying this. i wonder how long we can keep it going?

yet again, you don't answer the question. you also have managed to paraphrase something that wasn't said. and making reference to a building being on fire somehow magically removing dozens of floors of stuff to slow a freefall? beautiful! only a truly insane, delusional, or comedic person could come up with these rationalization. priceless. what gem will you come up with next??

btw.. lest you think i've forgotten, feel free to answer the question you still haven't answered. (which of course you cannot without deny the basic laws of of physics).

south park called it years ago

[Cardoor]

everything you need to know about us foreign policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm not political...

[Thud457]

I'm just sitting here waiting to watch the archduke drive by.

Re:I'm not political...

[phantomfive]

I'm just sitting here waiting to watch the archduke drive by.

The difference is that Russia, the US, and China don't want to go to war.

In the early 1900s, not only did the royalty want to go to war, the regular citizens did too. They thought it would be fun, or heroic, or whatever. The archduke didn't matter, they were merely looking for an excuse. When war was declared, people celebrated in the streets. People had forgotten how bad war was.

Re:I'm not political...

[narf0708]

The difference is that Russia, the US, and China don't want to go to war.

Russia doesn't want to go to war? Think you may have entirely missed the keyword "Ukraine" is recent events.

Re:I'm not political...

[phantomfive]

The difference is that Russia, the US, and China don't want to go to war against each other*

*edited for people who have trouble understanding.

100 years from now...

[tekrat]

And if ISIS is successful, in 100 years they will get to rewrite the history books to show that they were the good guys and all atrocities committed in their name was for the greater good.

Although you can gloss over paying Native Americans for the Black Hills, you cannot wipe the stain of bloodshed from that period. Say what you like about ISIS, but go back to any period in our history, and the USA was no better. We condoned slavery, murder and rape to get what we wanted, and we patted ourselves on the back for it.

Me

[NoImNotNineVolt]

too.

Glad they are ISIL today

[imikem]

I was worried that IS-IS was getting massively deprecated by the US government, after I spent time learning it.

US Bombs ISIS

[LifesABeach]

Was Linux used?

When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[Uberbah]

Either there is a not-so-small extremist element in Islam, or a silent majority who refuses to do anything about it.

First, the same sort of idiots were making this same idiot claim after the 911 attacks. Just because you can't be bothered to read about denuciations of terrorism doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

Second, you do know that the only reason ISIS exists is because Assad's enemies - chiefly the United States and Saudi Arabia - have been funding and arming the very "radicals" you are now complaining about?

Third, name one instance of "radical Islam" that isn't directly financed by western imperialists (Syria) or is a backlash to western imperialism (Iranians overthrowing the western-backed Shah).

Re:When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[cowwoc2001]

At what point do Middle-Eastern people begin to take some responsibility for their own problems? There is plenty of introspection going on in the West. There is none going on in the Middle-East. You'd have us believe that everything that is going wrong with those countries has to do with the West. I very much doubt that. I daresay a good part of their problems have to do with their own decisions.

Re:When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[Uberbah]

At what point do Middle-Eastern people begin to take some responsibility for their own problems?

I see the answer to my question is "not any time soon". The people in the Middle East would like nothing more than to be left alone, but western powers have been actively fucking with them for over a hundred years.

How, exactly, is your average shmoe living in Yemen or Saudi Arabia supposed to "take responsibility" in the face of drone attacks and western support for brutal dictatorships?

Re:When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[cowwoc2001]

At what point do Middle-Eastern people begin to take some responsibility for their own problems?

I see the answer to my question is "not any time soon". The people in the Middle East would like nothing more than to be left alone, but western powers have been actively fucking with them for over a hundred years.

How, exactly, is your average shmoe living in Yemen or Saudi Arabia supposed to "take responsibility" in the face of drone attacks and western support for brutal dictatorships?

Okay, no problem. It's all our fault. Sorry for our ignorant imperialist way. Sheesh.

Hint: There were no drone attacks in Syria nor US support for the rebels when Assad's own people tried to rebel against him and he proceeded to gas them. When we attempted to help them, you labeled us "imperialistic pigs". So you know what? Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

The Syrian rebellion is not one cohesive group. You can hardly fault us for trying to help the original group only to have some of the arms fall into the harms of an extremist group that overpowered them.

What's the alternative, Sudan? Where millions of people get raped, the world cries injustice and nothing gets done because we don't want to interfere? Please. Give me a break.

No matter what the West does or does not do someone somewhere will find a way to blame us. They just shove it and take personal responsibility for what *is* their fault. Drone attacks might not be their fault, but flocking en-mass to Islamic extremist groups is. They are doing this all over the Middle-East with or without West intervention.

Re:When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[Uberbah]

No matter what the West does or does not do someone somewhere will find a way to blame us.

How is it not the fault of the West?

The people of the Middle East didn't ask Great Britain to bring it's imperialistic dick and draw up a dozen countries out of nothing after WWII, nor install monarchs to sell oil cheaply to British Petroleum while the citizens were left to fend for themselves.

The people of the Middle East didn't ask for the Palestinians to pay the price for Nazi war crimes by seizing land for the benefit of immigrants from Europe.

The people of the Middle East didn't ask England and America to violently overthrow the democracy of Iran after it dared lay claim to the benefits of oil production, and installed the brutal Shah who ruled for decades.

The people of the Middle East didn't ask the CIA to put their stooge, Saddam Hussein, in power in Iraq, nor launch an invasion of Iran.

The people of the Middle East ask for American support for every brutal dictator in the region, whether it be Egypt or Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Hint: There were no drone attacks in Syria nor US support for the rebels when Assad's own people tried to rebel against him and he proceeded to gas them

Hint: there is no civil war in Syria, and Assad never ordered gas attacks.

Guns and fighters and money come from Assad's enemies, not Syria. And who is stupid enough to believe that Assad would order gas attacks the day weapon inspectors arrived in the country? Or why he would suddenly use them when his military was making gains against the opposition, instead of the year before when the Syrian government was losing ground?

This is as asinine as whining about what a mess indian and black communities were in 1900, and whining some more when someone mentions slavery or the Trail of Tears.

Re:When does the willfully ignorant racism stop?

[cowwoc2001]

You forget that the only reason there are Arabs in the Middle East is because they invaded and massacred everyone else en-mass. How is *that* not imperialistic?

The Arabs of the Middle-East have no more claim to the land than anyone else. They are no less imperialistic than anyone else. The people living in Egypt are not really Egyptians. The real Egyptians (copts) are actively persecuted by the ruling Arabs. The same is true is virtually all other Middle-East countries.

War is not enough

[jandersen]

We have again landed in a situation where it is necessary to fight a war; and it IS necessary, much as I hate it. But war will never win us peace - unless we can completely eradicate everybody who opposes us, we will always create new enemies for ourselves. To win a lasting peace, we must convince at least the majority of our opponents that we are their friends. In this case the people who support "Islamic State" simply because they see us as their enemies.

Islamic State and other terrorists can attract young men and women from the West, simply because we make it so easy to hate us. History is one factor in this, but it's not the biggest part - Germany have managed to move past their history, so it is not impossible. Perhaps what we need to realise is that we seem to be so incredibly satisfied with ourselves - we have rolled crusades over the Middle East, we have dictated their rules and exploited them for their resources, we regard Islam with contempt and distrust, and so on. Are we not great enough to change our ways? It may not be easy, but it is a lot easier than making people like us by insulting them; and it mostly involves thinking a little before we speak - like, stop using the word 'crusade' like it was something to be proud of. 'Crusade' is just our word for 'Jihad'.

Churchill

[NewYork]

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." --Churchill

Just BAN these books

[NewYork]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_writings