ISIS strikes, any effect?

??? Who is making claims "that air attacks will doom ISIS"? I certainly haven't seen any. The attacks that are being made are pretty real from what I've heard. Why do you think they aren't real?

 

Oh yes ?

And,why were you writing in post 48:"of course one should question either the capability or honesty of anyone who thought that ISIS would be destroyed in short order ."? Unless you have seen claims that ISIS could be destroyed in short order (by air attacks,because, the only who are fighting on the ground are the Kurds).

Besides,your claim is wrong : there are possibilities to destroy ISIS in short order,by real air attacks (as in WWII),or by the use of MDW as : biological weapons,chemical weapons,a small nucleair weapon .Of course,as the individuals sitting in the Oval Room,Downing Street and the Elysée have no balls,this will only remain a dream .

 

Mass bombings like Dresden or the fire bombings of Japan would not be possible in today's world for political reasons. Not the politicians, but the publics that put those people in office. Even the ground troops that fight these turds, eyeball to eyeball and have seen firsthand their brutality wouldn't approve of attacks that killed the innocent along with those that deserved what they got. No modern politician in his right mind would authorize the methods you suggest, not just the current residents of the Oval Office and Downing Street. I'm no bleeding heart, remember, I'm the one that suggested feeding dead and wounded terrorists to pigs because of the psychological effects it would have due to their beliefs. Indiscriminate attacks would only build support for them, support that at present appears to be decreasing because of their actions.
I do not, never have, and have never personally perpetrated acts against innocent civilians. I on the other hand have seen first hand how brutality and repression keep civilians in line with governments and groups that they would not otherwise support. It's normally about the survival of themselves and their loved ones.



I still believe in honor, and there is none in the purposeful killing of innocents. Here's a picture of Marines demonstrating their belief in Honor.

 

I totally disagree:we are at war and you can't wage war without killing civilians.The only way to survive is to be more brutal than the enemy:if in 1941,Berlin was nuked (with as result the dead of German children),the world wpuld be a better world today .The Muslims have only respect for force and the willingness to use force,that's why they respect Israel and have only contempt for Obama,Cameron,Hollande,Merkel,and the rest of the gang .We are at war against criminals and in such a war,honour has no place .

In 2050,the Muslims will have taken over Europe,and they will parade with the successors of Cameron,Hollande,Merkel,etc in cages waiting to be burned .And,before 2100 the US will follow .

The last one of Cameron :his minister of Communities (ha:communities) had written a letter to the British imams asking them to do more against radicalization,of course,the imams were angry : how dared this infidel to write such a letter .

Reaction of Ali Cameron :but the letter was reasonable,sensible and moderate .Moderate ?? Did Churchill write a moderate letter to the German population during the war ?

The only letter for which the imams in Britain will have respect is an ultimatum : we demand that you will condemn publicly ISIS and all those who are collaborating with ISIS,directly or indirectly .Who is not with us is against us and will suffer the consequences .

Install fear in the mind of the Muslims,it's the only way .

 

In Braunschweig,the carnival procession has been cancelled because of Muslim threats.But,of course,there will still be ostrichs who will refuse to believe that today,the Islam is already ruling in Europe .

 

If the west had a lick of sense, they'd start talks with the Kurds and reach an agreement on boundaries for an independent Kurdistan. Give them a big chunk of Syria and all of northern Iraq. Perhaps ask them to renounce their territory in Turkey, dependent on the Turks throwing Erdogan and the other Islamists out of office.

In return, we'd pour in some real arms (tanks, choppers, heavy artillery), training, money, and back them with air power.

The Iraqis have proven useless. We owe the Syrians nothing. The Kurds are the only balanced people in the region. They love to kill Jihadis. What more could you ask for?

 

the problem remains to be seen, I think, in retrospect

 

If in november 1941,someone with the name of Hideki Tojo jr had demanded that all Thanksgiving festivities would be cancelled;or otherwise ... and the White House had dais :yes,who was ruling the US?

If the day before the Super Bowl,someone named Ali had demanded that the Super Bowl (the NY Giants against the Arizona Bunglers,or the opposite) would be cancelled,and the answer of the ostrich presiding the organisation committee was yes,who would rule the US ?

 

Well this is a discussion forum and you have that right. You can't wage war without killing civilians that is true, accidents happen, collateral damage, but directly targeting innocent civilians is not necessary, nor does it help further your cause.

Brutality towards an armed enemy is one thing, brutality against innocents is another. In fact an enemy that will stand and fight in an honorable manner has less brutality directed against them than one that uses women and children as shields and spotters. You think Honor has no place in war? Well, just so happens the meme I posted came from a Marine Corps association made up primarily of Marine Corps veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been on the ground, fought and killed the the same Muslim terrorists, interacted with the civilian populace, and obviously they still believe that there are good guys and bad guys, the bad guys hurt the weak the good guys protect the weak, and that they were the good guys, the protectors of the weak and innocent. Guess if you want to wage war in the manner you suggest you need to ruck up, grab your weapon and have at it. I'll pretty much guarantee you won't have too many others at your side or following you. I have an aquaintance at work that spouts similar sentiments, I usually ask him if he's served, if he's ever killed someone or placed himself in harm's way. Of course not, he ain't got the testicular fortitude.

You're mistaken if you think the majority of Israel's neighbors respect them. Their non-nation enemies fear their combat power, their nation-state enemies don't fear them, they fear US and Western Europe intervention in the case of conflict with Israel.

It's also interesting that you assign a monolithic ideology and pattern of thought to ALL Muslim's and Israeli's. That's just not the case, anymore than all Christians or Jews, or Americans or Britons, etc. have a common mindset. Did you know that when the Israeli military decided to perpetrate Sabra and Shatila massacre in Beruit, it led to widespread protests all across Israel? In order to maintain the government Ariel Sharon was forced to step down (after his initial refusal to do so) after an investigation headed by the head of Israel's Supreme Court, and several other high ranking officers and government officials had their careers ruined.

General James Mattis, USMC(ret) who knows a thing or two about war in general and war in the middle east in particular made some of the following quotes that directly address your views:

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act."

"For the mission's sake, for our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles — "who fought for life and never lost their nerve" — carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is “No Better Friend — No Worse Enemy” than a US Marine."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."

In this case you can substitute honor for "manhood" because that was the gist of his meaning. People that hurt the weak and innocent ain't got no manhood or honor.

 

yes, big difference between direct targeting of innocents and errant bombs/bad intel/unavoidable casualties.....

 

They are receiving training, with more on the way. They are actually are receiving a disproportionately large percentage of the airstrikes, a fact the Iraqi government has protested. We, however are doing the right thing there by reinforcing success rather than failure.

 

The Israeli military did not perpetrate the killings of Sabra and Shatila,this was done by Libanese militia.

Besides, I never said that one should kill intentionally civilians,but that in war,civilians can not claim immunity .If to win,civilian casualties are necessary,one has to accept this .The alternative is to yield to emotional blackmail : everyone knew that there would be civilian casualties at Hiroshima,but,notwithstanding,Truman took the right decision.

 

We aren't doing nearly enough. They need armored vehicles and heavy artillery, and most of all some air of their own. Really though, more than anything, we need to recognize their claims of independence. It's only a recognition of reality. Iraq can't hold the north so give it back to the Kurds, and Syria needs to be broken up - give the Kurds back those parts of Syria that were once Kurdistan.

We'd forge a bond of friendship with the only sensible people in the region (other than Israel).

I just read where we gave Iraq 250 Tanks. What for? They abandoned the ones we gave them earlier as soon as ISIS showed up. The Kurds don't back down from ISIS, they kick their ass! Give them 500 tanks and 1000 pieces of artillery and whatever else they ask for. They'll use them, not abandon them.

 

1)Since november 2008,the Muslims no longer fear the US,this for obvious reasons ,and,of course,there will no US/Western Europe intervention in case of a conflict with Israel

2)You haven't seen the Muslims of Antwerp and Brussels feasting the evening of 9/11.

And,something from someone who can not be accused of being a rightist bigoted fan of Fox = Bill Maher :hundrerds of millions of Muslims approved the Charlie Hebdo murders .

 

they said Sharon was complicit.....but I don't see how?

 

Well,If I am not wrong ,the attitude of Sharon was : if the Libanese militia want to kill Palestinians on Libanese territory,who am I to stop them ?

 

1)In 2007 some one said the following : "It is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the Muslim way of life" (probably to learn how to burn and decapitate people)",not the other way around " (he will be reminded of this during the election campaign).

The author ? David (better Ali) Cameron ;thus,a British intervention in the ME in case of an Arab attack on Israel,....hm.

2)How to recognize an innocent ? Someone with beard but without sword? Besides,the place of innocents is not on the battlefield .

 

Yes they did. The Lebanese Phalange militia were a surrogate of the Israeli Army. The Israeli military surrounded and cordoned off the refugee camps, then allowed the Phalange militia to pass through their lines and attack the camps. They did however manage to prevent the refugees from getting out and fired illum rounds to light the area for the Lebanese. The killing went on for three days (probably 3,500 old men, women and children murdered, raped and tortured). During the early part of the attack, the US government which at the time was in the position to intervene, (they had just pulled the Marines of the MNF out at Israel's behest) queried the Israeli government as to what was occuring and they lied and said it was attacks against stay behind terrorists. When what was actually happening began to leak out they continued to lie and stonewall until the deed was completed. It was massive protests by Israeli citizens (including a number of serving military officers) who knew what had happened that led to the investigation.

From a New York Times article-(referring to American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper) "Years later, Mr. Draper called the massacre “obscene.” And in an oral history recorded a few years before his death in 2005, he remembered telling Mr. Sharon: “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”

Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.”

When Sharon advised the Israeli cabinet that they had allowed the Lebanese militias to enter the camps--"Deputy Prime Minister David Levy worried aloud: “I know what the meaning of revenge is for them, what kind of slaughter. Then no one will believe we went in to create order there, and we will bear the blame.” That evening, word of civilian deaths began to filter out to Israeli military officials, politicians and journalists."

"Ambassador Lewis, now retired, told me that the massacre would have been hard to prevent “unless Reagan had picked up the phone and called Begin and read him the riot act even more clearly than he already did in August — that might have stopped it temporarily.” But “Sharon would have found some other way” for the militiamen to take action, Mr. Lewis added."

We can agree on that. It was a situation that was unavoidable. Also the civilians were being mobilized to resist an invasion, even if it was just to attack allied troops with sharpened bamboo spears. Truman did decide correctly. However, we at present have not reached a point where we have no other option.

Even if we publicly state we don't agree with their (Israel's) actions we still make sure the arms and ammunition never run short. Every time fighting flares up we make sure Israel is kept supplied with warmaking materials, and just adjust our aid to them to cover the costs.

 

Israel not at fault for the massacre? September 1st the IDF newspaper had a quote from a Phalangist saying "[T]he question we are putting to ourselves is — how to begin, by raping or killing?"

Israeli government and military personnel in positions of power knew the risk, Supplied the vehicles, Supplied weapons and illuminated the area, If anyone honestly believes Israel bears no guilt in the massacre you are dreaming.

Had any other nation done that they would have come under attack in one form or another from other nations be them European or the US but no not Israel, They are above the law. But thumbs up to the civilians the protested the actions.

 

Egypt now hitting IS targets in Libya.....sounds like a free for all over there!!..I wouldn't be surprised if it boiled over to a multi-nation war