US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

I'll just let my sig do the talking by NotDrWho · 2014-09-23 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

'nuff said

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by TheCarp · 2014-09-23 01:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by rmdingler · 2014-09-23 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-23 01:14 · Score: 2

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 by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 01:51 · Score: 2

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.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by chthon · 2014-09-23 02:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by nblender · 2014-09-23 02:34 · Score: 5, Funny

So what you're saying is that every mushroom cloud has a silver lining?
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by meta-monkey · 2014-09-23 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by Ozeroc · 2014-09-23 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by HeckRuler · 2014-09-23 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by TheCarp · 2014-09-23 03:13 · Score: 2

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?

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by meta-monkey · 2014-09-23 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by hermitdev · 2014-09-23 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 03:31 · Score: 2

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.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by camperdave · 2014-09-23 03:32 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by meta-monkey · 2014-09-23 04:04 · Score: 2

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

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by BringsApples · 2014-09-23 04:27 · Score: 2

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.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-09-23 04:55 · Score: 2

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 by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 04:57 · Score: 2

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.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-09-23 05:01 · Score: 2

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 by HeckRuler · 2014-09-23 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by ConceptJunkie · 2014-09-23 06:44 · Score: 2

>> 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.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

How? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 01:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is this tech news?

DAESH, not ISIL by Lilith's+Heart-shape · 2014-09-23 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

I write sci-fi for metalheads

Re:DAESH, not ISIL by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-23 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by Locmar · 2014-09-23 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-23 01:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by Warbothong · 2014-09-23 01:38 · Score: 2

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 by tekrat · 2014-09-23 01:51 · Score: 2

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.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by itzly · 2014-09-23 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

For every muslim, there's another muslim who will claim that the first is not a muslim.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by Oligonicella · 2014-09-23 01:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-23 02:03 · Score: 2

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!

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by Oligonicella · 2014-09-23 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by professionalfurryele · 2014-09-23 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 02:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by jedidiah · 2014-09-23 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by cowwoc2001 · 2014-09-23 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Creedo · 2014-09-23 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by Lilith's+Heart-shape · 2014-09-23 03:07 · Score: 2

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.

--
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by gtall · 2014-09-23 03:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by cellocgw · 2014-09-23 04:34 · Score: 2

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.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by xevioso · 2014-09-23 04:55 · Score: 2

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 by hey! · 2014-09-23 05:39 · Score: 2

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.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-09-23 07:30 · Score: 2

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 by TangoMargarine · 2014-09-23 08:40 · Score: 2

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?

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:DAESH, not ISIL by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-23 09:23 · Score: 2

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.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Why is this on Slashdot by damicatz · 2014-09-23 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Why is this on Slashdot by 3.5+stripes · 2014-09-23 01:07 · Score: 2

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

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:Why is this on Slashdot by Uberbah · 2014-09-23 02:09 · Score: 2

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 by Mysticalfruit · 2014-09-23 03:23 · Score: 2

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.

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.

My only question... by argStyopa · 2014-09-23 01:10 · Score: 5, Funny

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?

--
-Styopa

Re:My only question... by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-23 01:21 · Score: 2

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."

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:My only question... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by halivar · 2014-09-23 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by just_another_sean · 2014-09-23 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Re:My only question... by ScentCone · 2014-09-23 04:08 · Score: 2

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.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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. by naughtynaughty · 2014-09-23 01:12 · Score: 2

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

Re:Overkill? by PseudoCoder · 2014-09-23 01:14 · Score: 2

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.

--
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. by qwijibo · 2014-09-23 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Aggression in practice, right? by bogaboga · 2014-09-23 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by just_another_sean · 2014-09-23 01:51 · Score: 2

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...

--
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Re:Aggression in practice, right? by halivar · 2014-09-23 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by _xeno_ · 2014-09-23 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Aggression in practice, right? by ScentCone · 2014-09-23 05:24 · Score: 2

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.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Aggression in practice, right? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-09-23 07:32 · Score: 2

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? by ScentCone · 2014-09-23 09:14 · Score: 2

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.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. by niks42 · 2014-09-23 01:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bombs don't kill people, gravity kills people?

Yes they do by pastafazou · 2014-09-23 01:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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:F-22's don't drop bombs. by halivar · 2014-09-23 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Overkill? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-09-23 01:40 · Score: 2

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

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Overkill? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-09-23 01:57 · Score: 2

Napalm is quite effective against locusts.
The crops, not so much.

No, it destroys the crops very effectively too.

south park called it years ago by Cardoor · 2014-09-23 03:01 · Score: 4, Funny

everything you need to know about us foreign policy

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

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. by gelfling · 2014-09-23 03:06 · Score: 2

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.

I'm not political... by Thud457 · 2014-09-23 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. by qwijibo · 2014-09-23 03:45 · Score: 3, Funny

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:Points of interest. by phantomfive · 2014-09-23 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

When does the willfully ignorant racism stop? by Uberbah · 2014-09-23 06:51 · Score: 2

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? by cowwoc2001 · 2014-09-23 07:36 · Score: 2

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:Points of interest. by phantomfive · 2014-09-23 08:37 · Score: 2

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Slashdot Mirror

US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

80 of 478 comments (clear)