|
Berke Negri posted:Considering the staggering amount of routine civilian casualties on both sides in Syria I don't think there is some simple recipe if American bombs lead to civilian casualties that alone will lead to Syrians going, "wait what? This isn't what I wanted!!" I think that telling the populace you are trying to keep from further radicalizing that they should be used to it by now isn't going to have much of an effect. Although Israel for instance is continuously subjugating the Palestinians do you not think there is a spike in the anger after forays such as Protective Edge? Jarmak posted:Ya man getting killed in large numbers was part of their master plan all along. They have people on the ground with the offer of joining them or death. Much easier to foster a secure position with soldiers on location inspiring fear and communicating these demands. Then you have America (the saviors) dropping bombs and killing civilians without any sort of contact with most citizens. American bombs killing civilians certainly makes the group opposing the west more appealing to these people. Maybe the F-22s can drop pamphlets that say sorry or woops or something like that to try and remedy any backlash.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2026 00:37 |
|
|
flashman posted:Maybe the F-22s can drop pamphlets that say sorry or woops or something like that to try and remedy any backlash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Ya man getting killed in large numbers was part of their master plan all along. I'm sure Raytheon is developing an entire line of network-centric weapons systems that behead and crucify in the hopes of profiting from this very conundrum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
flashman posted:I think that telling the populace you are trying to keep from further radicalizing that they should be used to it by now isn't going to have much of an effect. Although Israel for instance is continuously subjugating the Palestinians do you not think there is a spike in the anger after forays such as Protective Edge? "I'm" not telling them to get used to it, I'm saying they are used to it as Assad has already been bombing and gassing them for years and ISIS has spent the past year+ turning eastern Syria into a crucifixion outlet. It's worth stressing that Assad is practically one tan suit away from being as bad as ISIS in terms of atrocities. Also Israel/Palestine is a completely different situation and not really analogous to Syria, let alone in the specifics of US Air involvement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:"I'm" not telling them to get used to it, I'm saying they are used to it as Assad has already been bombing and gassing them for years and ISIS has spent the past year+ turning eastern Syria into a crucifixion outlet. It's worth stressing that Assad is practically one tan suit away from being as bad as ISIS in terms of atrocities. So because they have been bombed before being killed by American bombs isn't going to foster more anti-american sentiment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
ISIS is also there handing out bread and money while the US isn't (at least not visibly)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
flashman posted:So because they have been bombed before being killed by American bombs isn't going to foster more anti-american sentiment? Think it depends on who you are asking. "Death to America" radical Salafist opposition groups obviously are not going to be happy at all, while moderates and less radical jihadis willing to play ball are probably trying to cautiously gauge on what line of US acceptance they fall behind. I'm guessing today's targets give a first rough draft of who the US deems in the opposition to not be acceptable and will not be receiving support from the Grand Coalition of Alright Lets Go. The Regime seems to be heavily pushing that US is working with them now, for two reasons A) it creates further disunity among all opposition groups and B)the regime desperately needs the legitimacy that US can bring for internal and foreign consumption of being the last stand against the REAL bad guys. US game plan seems to be bombing the opposition it wishes to make unattractive. A lot of ISIS growing so rapidly was due to a sense of invincibility and conquest; this is attractive to a militia or fighter to sign up with. Much of ISIS isn't made up of people who really want a caliphate, it's getting paid and room and board while being confident of rolling over your enemies. If it now means US planes and drones are above you blowing up you and your convoy, that is suddenly a lot less enticing. At the same time US is supporting, arming, and funding opposition groups it is okay with, making these groups more attractive. If the other guys have tomahawk missiles and better pay then fighting for ISIS doesn't seem that great, plus you can't even smoke around them while US backed groups get free cartons of cigarettes as gratitude from the great people of North Carolina. The end goal, to the best I can assess, is to marginalize political groups we don't like, bolster ones we do, to either overthrow Assad or reach some political agreement to get him to step down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
meristem posted:I meant as in this article, posted upthread. Very interesting, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
flashman posted:This guy in my opinion is missing the point. Do you believe that ISIS did not think there would be reprisals for beheading the Americans? Personally I think that he is speaking opposite the truth, and that ISIS welcomes American strikes (we can see already the civilian death toll it creates and what better grounds to breed radicals than an upset populace). If anything this latest foray into the middle east will only aid ISIS recruitment. How quickly the "legacy" of Bush has been forgotten. Its impossible to ascertain the mental state of thousands of people, even more impossible to ascertian the mindsets of people vibrating along entirely different wavelengths than you and I...but ISIS having to step lightly or at least slow down a conquest that has led them to the heights of jihadry seems like an objective that doesn't seem to rational, if such things could be termed rational.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Its impossible to ascertain the mental state of thousands of people, even more impossible to ascertian the mindsets of people vibrating along entirely different wavelengths than you and I...but ISIS having to step lightly or at least slow down a conquest that has led them to the heights of jihadry seems like an objective that doesn't seem to rational, if such things could be termed rational. It'll be just like that time that Al-Qaeda was conquered during the Afghanistan invasion and terrorism was defeated forever. I bet Bin Laden never saw that coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
I'm sure if the Taliban had the choice of giving over Bin Laden before the invasion (i.e. also Bush being amenable to it) than they would have. EDIT: Not to directly connect the two. But there is a rationality present in their actions, even if it doesn't accord with our own sense of what is logical. Also, what's with the sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:How do those guys go on massive torture/murder/cruxifiction sprees without upsetting the populace? It seems like the US can't do so much as drop a hellfire on an ISIS commander without activating the ward which causes 10 more to spring forth from the ground like golems. Probably because a lot of that torture and crucifixion is committed against unpopular minorities, and probably also because if you're unemployed and desperate, joining up with the hellfire missile isn't going to provide you an income. Also I'm not sure if "not upsetting the populace" is exactly the way I would describe a group whose actions have caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee from the territory they control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Very interesting, thanks. Debkafile, anonymous Pakistani defense officials, a pro-Gaddafi activist, Stratfor, all great sources. But does contain interesting points. Don't think it supports the West-is-behind-the-war thesis, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
In what ways if any is ISIS worse than Saddam?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Miltank posted:In what ways if any is ISIS worse than Saddam? Women can't go to school under ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:In what ways if any is ISIS worse than Saddam? Did Saddam try to wipe out any ethnic groups beside the Kurds?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Don't know if you're joking but women do go to school still in ISIS territory. The curriculum, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:In what ways if any is ISIS worse than Saddam? Marked uptick in public crucifixions and wiping out of entire chunks of cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Did Saddam try to wipe out any ethnic groups beside the Kurds?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Public crucifixions being a regular fixture of life. And death, I guess. That's one thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
I mean yea Saddam had real bloody hands too but he wasn't making a near daily ritual of trying to ethnically cleanse cities. If we must rank factions of violent nuts on some scale, I'd say ISIS has a good bit of distance between them and Saddam even if we count his sons with him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
From what I can see it looks like Saddam killed hundreds of thousands more people than ISIS and had just as ruthless if not a more ruthless torture program. e: ISIS filming their crimes and putting them on the internet seems to be the actual important factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Miltank posted:From what I can see it looks like Saddam killed hundreds of thousands more people than ISIS and had just as ruthless if not a more ruthless torture program. If we're going pure numbers he did have a good, what, couple decades on ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Saddam was nowhere near as bad as ISIS, you crazy fucks 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Are we judging based on aesthetics or ???
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
VICE has released the second part of their documentary on the civil war in Aleppo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SwnHL9MvmI
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Are we judging based on aesthetics or ??? That mustache of his was the real crime against humanity am I right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Overthrowing Saddam wasn't the immoral thing, it was the absolute lack of planning afterwards. Actually I take that back. We could have gone in, bombed everything, left a bunch of guns behind in the city square of Baghdad and let everyone sort everything out on their own and that probably would have turned out better than the CPA. Edit: dumb autocorrect Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:But does contain interesting points. Don't think it supports the West-is-behind-the-war thesis, though. Yeah well I don't really think that's the line the article is taking. I definitely believe that the US intentionally stoked up sectarianism in Iraq in an attempt to control the insurgency (and reduce US casualties). It kinda worked, for a while. The blame for kicking off the war, and the reasons it became so terrible, clearly lies with Assad. There was a growing level of sectarian violence in Iraq for some time, it's difficult to say if it would have blown up into full-on war without events in Syria, as with counterfactuals like what would have happened to Saddam in the Arab Spring it's such a complex question as to be pointless. But I think it's fair to say that the West helped to create the circumstances in which ISIS became the power it is now, and by doing more than just the destabilising invasion in the first place. e: Berke Negri posted:Actually I take that back. We could have gone in, bombed everything, left a bunch of guns behind in the city square of Baghdad and let everyone sort everything out on their own and that probably would have turned out better than the CPA. I kinda agree and it's seriously bumming me out. e2: with that part anyway The New Black fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
The US should have more thoroughly destroyed and rebuilt Iraq as a Western colony, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Overthrowing Saddam wasn't the immortal thing, it was the absolute lack of planning afterwards. I mean, not even Wolverine is technically immortal and that guy is hard as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm64E5R12s8 This poo poo was cold-blooded, but at least it was modern. The original video is here
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I think we need to seriously consider the risk that ISIS may be made of Morlocks
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Overthrowing Saddam wasn't the immortal thing, it was the absolute lack of planning afterwards. Only an American could argue that there's nothing inherently wrong in aggressively overthrowing governments and the real problem is that it just isn't done properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Only an American could argue that there's nothing inherently wrong in aggressively overthrowing governments and the real problem is that it just isn't done properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Only an American could argue that there's nothing inherently wrong in aggressively overthrowing governments and the real problem is that it just isn't done properly. You forgot everyone else. Specifically, Russians, Germans, Brits, French, Egyptians, Chinese.... List keeps going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Only an American could argue that there's nothing inherently wrong in aggressively overthrowing governments and the real problem is that it just isn't done properly. I was against the war from the get go and was old enough to have the first round of troops sent off to be kids I grew up with, but I don't think there was any sort of sacrosanct sovereignty to Saddam's throne of skulls. In that sense yes, Saddam getting thrown out wasn't a bad thing, but doing it unilaterally with an ill-equipped and poorly trained for the task occupation force on nothing but made up pretext was definitely not the proper way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Overthrowing Saddam wasn't the immoral thing, it was the absolute lack of planning afterwards. How are you still buying Republicans' false war rationale now in 2014 AD? Overthrowing dictators and spreading freedom had nothing whatsoever to do with why we invaded, except insofar as it was a useful narrative to sell the public on an incompetent attempt to turn Iraq back into a US puppet state. The humanitarians in charge of the war loved Saddam when he was mustard-gassing Iranians and Kurds in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Miltank posted:In what ways if any is ISIS worse than Saddam? Don't expect Daesh to ever get a Christian foreign minister like Saddam had with Tarek Aziz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2026 00:37 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How are you still buying Republicans' false war rationale now in 2014 AD? Because I didn't accept Republicans' rationale for the war?  Please reread what I said and said afterward. Further I don't think there would have been a good way to go about overthrowing him at the time or any real need to. He was contained and wasn't going to really cause any more trouble, if anything we probably should have eased sanctions at the time. But when we did invade it was really not helped we did so by the cargo cult vanguard of freedom (stock markets!) Edit: getting away from dumb Saddam chat: I'm a lot more worried what happens when America succeeds than if. I have a lot of confidence in the American Air Force to accomplish it's goals and weaken ISIS logistically and materially. And the regime seems stretched thin by this point (their response seems somewhat muted considering the United States has just invaded them) so I'm not optimistic on Assad's chances. But since this is rapidly becoming the biggest proxy war for everyone north of the Tropic of Cancer, that leaves a lot of loose strings unaccounted for. Let's say that Assad steps down/killed, what happens to the Alawites? Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:12
|
|