Obama decides to bomb his terrorists

Drop a bomb or two and *poof*, Al Nusra melts away. They just melt into the population, typical problem using aerial forces against guerillas. Then you start killing more civilians and soon - everyone hates you.
The Islamist faction Jabhat al-Nusra is also being targeted by air strikes, and this has alarmed many residents of Aleppo and Idlib governorates. In areas under its control, Jabhat al-Nusra is seen as the only effective shield against ISIS’s aggressive expansionism, with a less stringent interpretation of Islamic rules, and it has recruited many young men as a result.
Click to expand...
As extreme and bloody as they've been the people still seems them as slightly less objectionable than ISIS, but like I said, neither ISIS nor Al Nusra is likely to become a vassal to the US.

Other forces including members of the Free Syrian Army are questioning why the West has taken no action against President Bashar al-Assad, the main source of violence in Syria.
Click to expand...
For the same reason the Russians took no direct military action in East Ukraine - because that would put Russia and the US pretty much at war.
 
Locals protest the US bombings. Yes, the Nusra folks want to know why Assad isn't getting bombed. I imagine that Assad needed some pretty good assurances from Russia when he agreed to Putin's plan to give up his chemical weapons (oh that evil Putin thwarting US attacks on sovereign states). Of course, they can't see why THEY are getting bombed.

I like also the media's fascination with "barrel bombs" because the morality of the bomb is not measured by the high explosives it contains but by the expense of the container the explosives are delivered in.

"Our house was destroyed. We're accustomed to the regime aircraft's destruction but this was much bigger," Mr. Omar said.
Click to expand...
And the size of the bang, I suppose.
 
Is it stupid to give an enemy what they want?

Why is ISIL so eager to lure the United States into battle? While ISIL has unrivaled access to multiple revenue streams, a vast array of arms and command tens of thousands of soldiers, the one thing it lacks is local popular legitimacy — a big problem for a group that aspires to form a caliphate. However, the expanded foreign intervention will likely help ISIL mitigate this challenge by galvanizing the public against the U.S.-led coalition, with ISIL portraying itself as the only force capable of repelling these malignant invaders. Meanwhile, the U.S. will be drawn ever deeper into a war of attrition in which its enemies, nonstate actors, have little to lose and everything to gain.
Click to expand...

However, the single most effective way to delegitimize ISIL is to portray and deal with its threat in a less hyperbolic manner. While it should not be taken lightly, ISIL is a manageable challenge that can still be contained and largely subdued by the states and local populations they occupy. The more the U.S. government responds to the so-called Islamic State as an existential threat to the world order, the more these proclamations will become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Click to expand...

So bombing will just make the problem worse, which is fantastic if you make and sell weapons and if you want to keep the people at home from noticing that you have taken all their stuff (there's a war on, don't you know- they like to say). Harper would be absolutely thrilled if some nutty jihadi tried to blow something up in Ottawa before the next election. People will vote for the craziest stuff when they are scared. The crazier the better. Maybe he can even found a sort of "Born Again" caliphate of his own.
 
How do you get folks to go along with starting an illegal war against a bunch of guys that are no immediate threat to you? Make up something scary, in other words, lie.

The U.S. government, Orr explained, is trying to keep this all a secret; they won’t even mention the group’s name in public out of security concerns! But Orr was there to reveal the truth, as his “sources confirm the Al Qaeda cell goes by the name Khorasan.” And they’re “developing fresh plots to attack U.S. aviation.”
Click to expand...
Leaking classified info like the Detroit public water system leaks water ... expect Orr to spend 30 years in the brig... or not.
The official said the group posed an “imminent” threat.
Click to expand...
All of that laid the fear-producing groundwork for President Obama to claim self-defense...
Click to expand...
Legal figleaf (but it really doesn't cover up much).
And then there were bombs and then
Literally within a matter of days, we went from “perhaps in its final stages of planning its attack” (CNN) to “plotting as ‘aspirational’” and “there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works” (NYT).
Click to expand...
As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: “You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan … had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”
Click to expand...
That's the kind of thing a Bush might come up with but a black Democrat Nobel Peace Prize Winner? Don't be daft. Presidents don't come up with this stuff, Presidents are just expected to make it fly and back it up. They aren't the ones that run the country.
 
Oh MY GOD!!! AAAHHHHH. WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE. NOW WE HAVE TO BOMB EVERYONE!!!

The horror. ISIS is bad but they are going to attack Iran to steal nuclear secrets to kill us with so now we are going to have to go attack Iran to get the nuclear secrets first in self defense!!! Oh, it's all too scary. I'm just going to hand everything over to the good generals and smart politicians to save my arse. While they're at it I hope they reduce public services while increasing the kinds of taxes that rich people don't pay so that we can afford all this freedom and security.
 
Owen Jones in today's Guardian:
They are fleeing Latifiya – a city just outside Baghdad – in their thousands. A few months ago, it had a population of 200,000, but now only 50,000 remain. This is a town of horror. According to Human Rights Watch, Islamist militias are summarily executing civilians. People are being taken out of cars, ordered to kneel on the pavement, and then shot in the head. On 11 June, 137 men were seized from the town’s Um Weilha market. Thirty bodies have so far been recovered; the fate of the others remains a mystery.

More compelling evidence of the need for western air power to pummel these barbarians, you might think. But the persecutors here are not Islamic State (Isis). They are Shia fighters under the control of the former, western-backed prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose violent sectarianism did so much to fuel the rise of Isis. They are murdering and torturing Sunni Muslims, victims whose lives have been deemed to be of no significance. As Human Rights Watch points out, “their stories are falling on deaf ears”. No white westerners were forced to recite chilling messages in professionally made videos before being murdered, so no horror is expressed by western politicians. There aren’t ever louder and more irresistible calls to “do something”; there are no parallel denunciations of opponents of western intervention as deluded peaceniks or heartless isolationists.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/isis-islamic-state-bombing
 
I'm sorry Mike. I suspect you are feeling frightened and insecure in your life right now and this massive sudden posting spree probably just makes you feel even more like you are under attack and will only solidify your belief that you have to kill a bunch of people (or get others to do it) to feel safe. Then again, you don't come by here so much any more so you are probably looking after yourself by withdrawing. I would also suggest that you withdraw from all the bad news that is making you (by design) afraid.
Back in the days I used to watch the local TV news I was under the impression that walking around the city you were in perpetual danger of stepping in a blood puddle. Turns out that going out into the world and talking to real people was much less scary even in the sketchiest parts of town. Sure, bad things happen, but that doesn't mean you are in danger.
 
 
Robert said:
Turkey under pressure:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ngly-frustrated-turkey-inaction-islamic-state
Click to expand...
And Turkey is applying pressure on the US. They want the US to attack Assad directly and are so far withholding their own involvement. They are using the Kurds as a bargaining chip and will sit by and watch them get massacred on their border. In fact, Turkey has offered to help the Kurds but have a long list of conditions which include the Kurds attacking Assad directly which so far they've avoided. There are other demands too, like disassociating with Kurds in Turkey which Turkey consider to be terrorists. So it's a mess.

But in my opinion Turkey is a huge problem here and have so far proven to be too soft on isis. Even though I agree with them that Assad should be attacked, allowing the Kurds to get overrun is callous and shows Turkey's true colors.
 
Glaucus said:
But in my opinion Turkey is a huge problem here and have so far proven to be too soft on isis. Even though I agree with them that Assad should be attacked, allowing the Kurds to get overrun is callous and shows Turkey's true colors.
Click to expand...
Turkey wouldn't mind if the US was bombing the Kurds instead of ISIS. On the other hand, that may end up being moot as the stronger ISIS gets the more Kurds are looking to just join ISIS and use it to help attack Assad AND Turkey.
If the US topples Assad under the current conditions the whole country would go to ISIS very quickly and from then Turkey would be in trouble. Even though Turkey thinks they can help ISIS now and fight them later when Assad's gone I think they will find what the US is finding. ISIS is happy to accept money and guns from anyone but they see the donors as fools rather than friends.
 
Glaucus said:
... shows Turkey's true colors.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "true colors" have you noticed the US is bombing civilian infrastructure as usual? We always say we are saving people but we always bomb the infrastructure those people depend on. Perhaps this true color is near to infra-red or ultra-violet because a lot of people find this color completely invisible and can never see it.
 
The bombing of infrastructure isn't that invisible. In fact, it's a well published part of modern US air warfare. So much so it's part of their strategy known as Warden's Five Rings, infrastructure is ring #3. So it's no secret really, that's what they do.

The thing is, at least in the case of ISIS, it makes sense. Any infrastructure ISIS controls is fair game if that infrastructure allows them to continue their growth. ISIS is far more than just a bunch of maniacal thugs, they're attempting to create a new nation of strict, extreme Islam. For their plan to work they need sustainable revenue. It's no secret that the fight against ISIS is taking more then just a military approach, ISIS is being attacked financially as well with financial dealings with the group being outlawed and their assets frozen when possible. Despite that we know that they've been selling oil and other resources and using that money to buy weapons and stopping that should be key to any campaign against them. So ya, bombing any ISIS oil facilities that they are using to fund their terror campaign should be targeted. And I'm not too concerned about the infrastructure really, the vast majority of the population isn't anywhere near ISIS right now, they're fleeing as fast as they can. The Kurdish town of Kobani was where Syrians were fleeing too, but now most people have or are crossing the border to Turkey or elsewhere. With the place being depopulated, it's infrastructure is valueless to those who abandoned it and only valuable to those who captured it. Bombing it is a no-brainer.

As for Turkey, it's complicated, but I think your analysis is well off the mark. Sure Turkey cares little for the Kurds, they've been fighting them for some time, but they have also been in serious peace negotiations lately and they've been making some good progress. However, Turkish Kurds have warned Erdogan that if Kobani falls, the peace deal will die with the Kurds in Kobani. Meaning, if Kobani falls Turkey may have it's own problems within it's own borders. Remember, it's not so much that Turkey won't intervene, it's also that Turkey is doing all it can to prevent any Kurds from helping those in Kobani. No resupplies and no re-enforcements which is probably the real reason Turkish military units are in the area - to stop the Kurds, not so much ISIS. Erdogan is trying to pressure them and using Syria as part of his negotiations with the PKK. Erdogan doesn't want a Kurdish nation to take hold anywhere and thus he has a great incentive to do nothing. But still, not all of Turkey thinks like Erdogan and there have been protests and I heard today even shootings involving Turkish Kurds and Turkish police. There are protests in Turkey in support of Turkish intervention so it's hard to say how things will pan out.

And as for the Kurds joining ISIS? That's funny, I hope you meant that as a joke. Even if the Kurds would consider it after the recent murders they suffered at ISIS hands, ISIS would never even consider allowing the Kurds on their side. The two groups both wish to create a new state, one based on ethnicity and the other on religion. You seem to think that the old proverb of the enemy of my enemy is my friend holds up in the middle east. The fact is the Kurdish peshmerga are the only ones that could stand up to ISIS and even then only with some kind of air support. The hope is that Kobani can be reconnected with other Kurdish areas along Northern Iraq but for now ISIS and Turkey stand in the way.

As for attacking Assad, again you're wrong. In a recent interview with an FSA officer who opposed the ISIS air campaign, he stated that getting rid of Assad would be more productive in eliminating ISIS. He argued that ISIS is tolerated and funded only because they are fighting against Assad. If Assad were to be taken care of ISIS would no longer have that pull - it's recruitment and revenues would shrink. The only places ISIS has been tolerated are Sunni strongholds and even then ISIS is on it's best behavior because it seems the only thing they fear right now is a Sunni backlash. In all other areas they have resorted to mass killings and raping and the general depopulation of entire areas. That same FSA officer said that with Al Nusra, they can smoke and curse in front of them and they do nothing. They can agree to disagree and even discuss their differences. But with ISIS, if they think you're different they cut off you head. ISIS can't survive without at least some popular support and with Assad gone the Sunnis will have no reason to tolerate them.
 
And I'm not too concerned about the infrastructure really,
Click to expand...

You've made that pretty clear.

the vast majority of the population isn't anywhere near ISIS right now,
Click to expand...

And you've also made clear that you're not too concerned about those that are.

With the place being depopulated, it's infrastructure is valueless to those who abandoned it and only valuable to those who captured it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Who cares about the aftermath as long as the people you want to see dead get killed?

Bombing it is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

Depending on your definition of "no-brainer," I'd go along with that.

In a recent interview with an FSA officer who opposed the ISIS air campaign, he stated that getting rid of Assad would be more productive in eliminating ISIS. He argued that ISIS is tolerated and funded only because they are fighting against Assad. If Assad were to be taken care of ISIS would no longer have that pull
Click to expand...

Strikes me as ridiculously simplistic wishful thinking.
But then, the idea that bombing cities is somehow the answer is even more simplistic, yet we have plenty onboard the bomb-the-bastards bandwagon.
 
More Pressure on Turkey:
The defence secretary has called on Turkey to join the international fight against Islamic State.

In a range of broadcast interviews, Michael Fallon appealed for more allies from the Middle East to come forward, arguing the US and UK could not be the “saviours” of Iraq and Syria alone.
Click to expand...

Saviours indeed.

Meanwhile the softening up of the UK public for bombing Syria continues:
He also said British MPs would still not agree to bombing Isis in Syria as well as Iraq, despite warnings that the extremists could only be defeated by action in both countries.

Fallon said the UK would continue to review the situation, but that for the time being the government judged it would not get a majority, suggesting the Labour leadership and Tory backbenchers would not be supportive.
Click to expand...

We all know how this charade pans out.
Give it a few more weeks and you'll be good to go.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Speaking of "true colors" have you noticed the US is bombing civilian infrastructure as usual? We always say we are saving people but we always bomb the infrastructure those people depend on.
Click to expand...

It's stupid to bomb terrorists without using ground troops to retake the cities. Its a strategy doomed to failure, but it will delay failure after the November election. The current bombing prevents Obama from admitting he was wrong in withdrawing troops from Iraq.
 
Last edited:
FluffyMcDeath said:
Drop a bomb or two and *poof*, Al Nusra melts away. They just melt into the population, typical problem using aerial forces against guerillas.
Click to expand...

Since Obama has destroyed Al-Qaeda, Obama is now bombing the Khorosan group

the U.S. bombed sites associated with the Khorasan group, State Dept officials said. Khorasan group members were in the final stages of preparations for an attack on U.S. and Western interests, a defense official said. Khorasan was planning an attack on international airliners ...

The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist
 
The only thing likely to come out of Canada's involvement is that Harper won't have to sit at the kiddie table at NATO dinners.

Asbfar as being a world player, we don't even get to be Italy to the US Reich. That position already belongs to the UK.

(Though the Reich's 1000 yr reign sound more ambitious than a mere American Century, the goal of that century is permanent total dominance - that's the policy)
 
Um, no, Canada will never be a world power. Canada's involvement is more symbolic and supportive. Having so many nations team up against one foe adds credibility. They do need to be careful though, more cooks in the kitchen doesn't mean you get a better soufflé. And Kobani could end up being a major propaganda aid for ISIS if they do indeed take it as they can claim they did so while the biggest and baddest nations in the world were attacking them. For a group that claims god is on their side, this can really drive it home to the believers. The reality is that the attack against ISIS is only ramping up, the units they need, Apache AH64 gun ships, are still en route to the area. They will be there soon, and they will start making a big difference on the battlefield, but it probably won't be soon enough for Kobani. The Turkish military however could wipe out ISIS in a day or so. Or they could also allow fellow kurds to re-arm and re-enforce those in Kobani. I doubt we'll see either.
 
Robert said:
Indeed. Who cares about the aftermath as long as the people you want to see dead get killed?
Click to expand...
Well, the Kurds of Kobani are cheering the US airstrikes, and commanders from within Kobani are urging for more air strikes. Ultimately it's their infrastructure and to me it seems the only complaint they have is that there aren't enough strikes. That pretty much nullifies you're entire argument but I'm sure you'll continue with your anti-US nonsense which only help the terrorists.
 
Glaucus said:
The bombing of infrastructure isn't that invisible. In fact, it's a well published part of modern US air warfare. So much so it's part of their strategy known as Warden's Five Rings, infrastructure is ring #3. So it's no secret really, that's what they do.
Click to expand...

We always destroy civilian infrastructure, and it's a war crime. Attacking the territory of Syria is also illegal. You don't care at all for international law so long as you get to bomb who you want to bomb. You are the American's who didn't care that the invasion of Iraq was illegal because they were scared or Saddam because they believed their media.

When I said, last year or so that I was against bombing because we always bomb infrastructure and kill innocents (and I said that about Libya too and I said that about Iraq) I thought that your disagreement with my assessment at that time was because you didn't think that is what would happen. Now I see that your disagreement was simply that you knew it was so but you just didn't care.

We just spent the day on my street without water. It was uncomfortable but limited. I would not like to try to make a living and keep my family healthy with a permanent loss of clean water and power services like those that we regularly bring to the people we "help". I dare say you wouldn't like it either. You wouldn't want to be saved that way. You wouldn't be so sanguine if someone trying to save you dropped a bomb on your family because they missed your neighbour. You dead wife and kids wouldn't be an acceptable price or just collateral damage - but because it's other people suffering so you can feel less fear it's ok with you. Harper can kill and maim whoever and so long as you think it's bad guys that are dying and that makes you safer you are eager to support it and make excuses for it.

That is what the banality of evil is all about. People go along with evil and fool themselves into believing it's good - and pave the road to hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top