# U.S. airstrikes on Iraq.



## conorreich (Aug 8, 2014)

Obama Approves Airstrikes, Humanitarian Drops on Iraq



What does everyone think about this? 

I'm nervous. Even though Obama has said "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq...American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq." I'm still incredibly afraid we will be dragged into another war.


----------



## ZeroS1gnol (Aug 8, 2014)

I really dont think the US will be dragged into another war over this. This is just some direct aid to some people in trouble, no cause to think this is a first step into getting rid of those ISIS douchebags entirely. Even if they did, it'd be a lost cause. You topple one dirty regime or group in that area, the next one arises. I think Obama thinks the same way.

I do support the bombings by the way.


----------



## asher (Aug 8, 2014)

We've also airdropped like 8k MREs and 5,300 gallons of water, which we also should keep up - because that won't last very long.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 8, 2014)

Seriously, if even Al-qaeda thinks you're too radical (if only officially) you've got serious mental problems. I'm a bit ashamed to say, but I think that every fighter ISIS loses, the world is not necessarily getting better, but at least less bad. 

Still, what bothers me is that the USA and many European countries had no problem in the past with giving weapons to any dubious ally they could find (from Saddam to Mujahedin to Anti-Gadaffi militia etc.) but the one people in that area who seem to get shit done without religious hatred, without racism, extreme corruptness etc., and with al-Maliki constantly working to destabilize Iraq maybe the only hope for Christians, Jazidi etc. in Iraq, the Kurds, don't get much support, if any.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 8, 2014)

SD83 said:


> the Kurds



Interesting point.


----------



## asher (Aug 8, 2014)

The Kurds only get their own shit done though, and Turkey really doesn't want them trying to split off, and since Turkey is generally more West-friendly than everyone else in the area, it's hard to do much for the Kurds.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 8, 2014)

asher said:


> The Kurds only get their own shit done though



From what I read, that is still more than could be said about any of the other parties involved. Except for IS. As far as I know, the relation between Turkey and the Kurds have improved a lot in recent years... maybe there are some problems I don't know of, but I think the "topple one dirty regime, the next one arises" logic doesn't necessarily apply in that case, because, how could you be even worse than IS? People talk about a "genozide" in Gaza, but if the world let's IS have it their way, they might actually slaughter any Christians, Jazidi etc. they can get their hands on. And our politicians will sit there, sip some wine, discuss it and let it happen...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Aug 8, 2014)

If he was going to bomb them anyways, then why not do it before letting them take over half the country? 
Just another "barry come lately" moment.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 8, 2014)

SD83 said:


> From what I read, that is still more than could be said about any of the other parties involved. Except for IS. As far as I know, the relation between Turkey and the Kurds have improved a lot in recent years... maybe there are some problems I don't know of, but I think the "topple one dirty regime, the next one arises" logic doesn't necessarily apply in that case, because, how could you be even worse than IS? People talk about a "genozide" in Gaza, but if the world let's IS have it their way, they might actually slaughter any Christians, Jazidi etc. they can get their hands on. And our politicians will sit there, sip some wine, discuss it and let it happen...



Turkey might be more receptive to an independent Kurdistan with the idea that the Islamic State has their sites on region wide domination, have declared the Turks apostates and are leaving literal fields of dead bodies every where they go. The idea of a Kurdish buffer zone might be looking pretty attractive right now. The Kurds and the Yezidis are good people, and I hope we do our best to support them. They love us, and we've let them down quite a bit in the past. 

The Islamic State is getting its way right now -- and they are slaughtering Christians, Yezidis, Shi'ites and even Suunis deemed not Islamic enough. The whole platform they are standing on is Islamic domination of the world; and they are definitely crazy enough to try it. They lack an air force and navy so are constrained to the region, but they've already declared war upon us and Europe as the infidels. I would definitely be expecting IS sponsored terrorism in the west.

Vice has been doing a lot of work from Iraq which gives a pretty unbiased view of what is happening; they have recently released 2 out of a 5 part series embedded with ISIS. They have other series imbedded with the Peshmerga (Kurdish military) and other parts of Iraq and Syria, but as far as I know this is the first time the Islamic State has had a foreign news service embed with them. It's pretty terrifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsCZzpmbEcs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCAPJDAnQA#t=289


----------



## mcd (Aug 9, 2014)

I'm going to chalk this up to experience...I think every ISIS [email protected] face needs their head on a stick.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Aug 9, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> If he was going to bomb them anyways, then why not do it before letting them take over half the country?
> Just another "barry come lately" moment.



Because the Iraqi government is led by a completely incompetent Prime Minister. Withholding aid was intended to force a cabinet change or resignation from Maliki. Obama is still saying, "We'd offer you way more aid if you formed a unity government," but things got to the point where it became clear that Maliki will basically go down with the ship while ISIS takes over half the country, so it fell to us to do something. If it had been a responsible ally that was being attacked we'd have gotten involved much more quickly.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 9, 2014)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Because the Iraqi government is led by a completely incompetent Prime Minister. Withholding aid was intended to force a cabinet change or resignation from Maliki. Obama is still saying, "We'd offer you way more aid if you formed a unity government," but things got to the point where it became clear that Maliki will basically go down with the ship while ISIS takes over half the country, so it fell to us to do something. If it had been a responsible ally that was being attacked we'd have gotten involved much more quickly.



We've been clinging to a notion that a unified state of Iraq based on borders drawn near arbitrarily on the world following WWI would work without a strong dictator holding it in line -- the only reason Iraq stayed together as a country was because Saddam would silence any sort of dissension between the different tribal factions. 

Many of the same Sunnis that Obama wants Maliki to work with have left their post and joined the Sunni-led Islamic State. And since Maliki is deeply rooted with Tehran, any aid to him is by proxy assisting Iran. We have an obligation with the Pottery Barn theory that we broke it so we inherit the mess, but without boots on the ground there is no way we could coerce the different tribal factions to work together -- and by working together it would just mean fighting us. 

However, Kurdistan is an area that we should be actively assisting. They are a welcoming, pro-west, and motivated group. Recognizing their sovereignty could cause contention between the US and Turkey, but as I've said before the Turks are becoming a little warmed up to the idea of having Kurdistan as a buffer between them and the Islamic State. The problem with this is that the Kurds ancestral lands also include regions of Turkey, which terrorist group like the PKK insist are Kurdish lands and stage incursions into against Turkish forces -- the Kurdish government in Irbil would have to probably accept the lands in Syria and Iraq and let the lands in Turkey go to stay on the Turks good graces.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 9, 2014)

Terrorist group. Civilian population. The problem of getting aid to the civilians without helping the terrorists.

My views on this are the same as my views on Gaza. That shouldn't be a surprise.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 10, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Terrorist group. Civilian population. The problem of getting aid to the civilians without helping the terrorists.
> 
> My views on this are the same as my views on Gaza. That shouldn't be a surprise.



Hamas doesn't have the weapons to destroy or conquer Israel. They can't even harm them, they just constantly piss them off to keep the war going because without people in Gaza suffering, no one would give Hamas any money. IS on the other hand apparently has the weapons to conquer most of Iraq and put their plans for genozide into practice. 
And, from what I understand, right now it's mostly about helping civilians outside of IS-controlled territory and making sure they don't advance further.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 10, 2014)

Hamas does have the means to harm the civilian population of Gaza, and does so regularly. That's the parallel to me.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Aug 10, 2014)

we should airstrike detroit with some water


----------



## Overtone (Aug 11, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Hamas doesn't have the weapons to destroy or conquer Israel. They can't even harm them, they just constantly piss them off to keep the war going because without people in Gaza suffering, no one would give Hamas any money. IS on the other hand apparently has the weapons to conquer most of Iraq and put their plans for genozide into practice.
> And, from what I understand, right now it's mostly about helping civilians outside of IS-controlled territory and making sure they don't advance further.



Most people have no idea how bad it is and how important it is that this stop. I still am baffled by where the hell these inhuman f*cks came from but from what I understand they have already raided the treasury and have a very frightening amount of momentum.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 11, 2014)

Mad World NewsWait Until You See How Close ISIS Got to Raising Their Flag at The White House


----------



## MikeH (Aug 11, 2014)

As someone entering the US Army, I can foresee us being deployed. This seems to be spiraling out of control, and Obama isn't reacting in the appropriate way. It seems like it's only a matter of time before an IS member blows something up and forces our hand into taking them out.


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 11, 2014)

Tyler said:


> Mad World NewsWait Until You See How Close ISIS Got to Raising Their Flag at The White House



Dear sweet Jesus.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 11, 2014)

MikeH said:


> As someone entering the US Army, I can foresee us being deployed. This seems to be spiraling out of control, and Obama isn't reacting in the appropriate way. It seems like it's only a matter of time before an IS member blows something up and forces our hand into taking them out.



Probably true but at the same time their main target seems to be Arabs not adhering to their completely fcked up view, whether it's because they are a wrong sect, the right sect but won't fight for them, or because they are Christian. I feel like they might avoid attacking the West and US because that will lead to greater repercussions than their current campaign. But with control over that much territory, with that much money, with the training and technological savvy they have, and having established their ruthlessness, it's very possible that they will amass enough strength to feel that they want to shift their focus. God help this planet right now!


----------



## Overtone (Aug 11, 2014)

Islamic State kills 500 Yazidis, burying some alive, claims human rights minister

Islamic State kills 270 in Syrian gas field 'massacre' - Telegraph

Iraq's largest Christian town abandoned as Isis advance continues | World news | theguardian.com

Islamic State's brutality so wicked that even Al Qaeda disowned them | Mail Online

The action of humans that have given themselves over to something extremely demonic...

I won't post a link, but on liveleak there is a video with ISIS slaughters 1500 in the title

And as for the US, I guess it's never too soon. 

ISIS, Islamist militants vow to blow up embassies after Obama launches airstrikes | Mail Online


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 11, 2014)

Overtone said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamic...ms-human-rights-minister-20140811-102l71.html
> 
> I won't post a link, but on liveleak there is a video with ISIS slaughters 1500 in the title



This made me cry way too hard.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 11, 2014)

Tyler said:


> Mad World NewsWait Until You See How Close ISIS Got to Raising Their Flag at The White House



While this is alarming, if they were to actually not be cowards and chose to wave their flag above their heads instead of posting a picture to Twitter of a phone screen, they would have been apprehended or dead.


----------



## Tyler (Aug 11, 2014)

MikeH said:


> While this is alarming, if they were to actually not be cowards and chose to wave their flag above their heads instead of posting a picture to Twitter of a phone screen, they would have been apprehended or dead.



I _dare_ them to come onto american soil and try to start something.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 11, 2014)

At this point, it seems like they're puffing their feathers, trying to show off for the rest of the world. That usually ends really, _really_ badly for terrorist regimes.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 11, 2014)

But for now it's another unfettered genocide. The Arab world really needs to come together and clean up its own but they just aren't ready... no unity, no good leaders, no vision, and too many people willing to justify or rationalize things they don't agree with because they feel they are not personally in danger.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 11, 2014)

Overtone said:


> But for now it's another unfettered genocide. The Arab world really needs to come together and clean up its own but they just aren't ready... no unity, no good leaders, no vision, and too many people willing to justify or rationalize things they don't agree with because they feel they are not personally in danger.



An unstable middle east benefits the major players of the region -- it allows them to charge the world ridiculous overhead for oil. In fact, a lot of the funding for these destabilizing groups like ISIS reportedly comes from Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. 

Us giving the Kurds weapons is probably the best move they can do right now, especially with al Maliki having a coup against him; he's using his detachment of Iraqi Special Forces to protect his palace instead of battling ISIS. 

I hope when this is all said and done, the Kurds can unite at least Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan and push their borders to the ocean and start selling the US oil. I'm not sure there is anything we can do to stop the Sunni and Shia factions from outright war beyond policing with troops like before (with trillions of dollars of costs and thousands of US lives along with the dead Iraqis that will be killed by other tribes), until the 2nd coming or 12th Imam comes. ie forever.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 12, 2014)

All this oil talk is almost moot. It's not as big a player in these events as you'd think. The U.S. gets most of its oil from North America, not the middle east.

I'm not really well learned on the history of the region and of some of the ethnic groups there, but if the boundaries that have been drawn in the area are essentially arbitrary then there's something to be said for recognizing smaller autonomous regions. Assuming the powers in the region are able to push back these extremists perhaps that will help to promote peace among whatever countries are around at the end of the violence.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 12, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> All this oil talk is almost moot. It's not as big a player in these events as you'd think. The U.S. gets most of its oil from North America, not the middle east.
> 
> I'm not really well learned on the history of the region and of some of the ethnic groups there, but if the boundaries that have been drawn in the area are essentially arbitrary then there's something to be said for recognizing smaller autonomous regions. Assuming the powers in the region are able to push back these extremists perhaps that will help to promote peace among whatever countries are around at the end of the violence.



Just because we don't get our oil from the region (China is the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil) doesn't mean the powers who control the sale of said oil to other purchasers like China don't benefit from instability driving prices up.

Still, in the strategic long run, it is better to use up someone else's oil than your own reserves. Making the Kurds and ally would be very advantageous to the US if the Kurds manage to hold on to Kirkuk -- when I was in Kirkuk in 2009, the city would glow red at night from all of the oil wells. It's one of the largest reserves in the Middle East. 

That said, right now, Iraq has dissolved into autonomous regions; the north is run by the Kurds, the west is owned by Sunni ISIS, and the south and East is owned by the Shia government (for how much longer is unclear, the news reports a coup attempt against the PM). The extremists have pretty much absorbed most of the Sunni faction and will try its hardest to expand and rule the region like it was the 12th century.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 12, 2014)

I'm also skeptical of how IS is funded and I think docbach makes some good suggestions. Another element that would cause them to support the so called IS, I believe, is keeping the Syria civil war chaotic. As soon as Al Nusra and ISIS got in, a lot of people lost sympathy for the revolution and it became more about keeping them out of the country than about the Free Syrian Army succeeding. Why is this good for the petro states? Simple... a successful revolution in Syria would pave the way for people to demand more from their rulers, and perhaps rise up themselves. A failed Syrian revolution or one that degenerates into chaos (as this has) on the other hand means nobody will dare rise up. Same goes with how Bashar's govt is still solvent after 3 years of sanctions and embargos. How exactly are they paying their staff?

Nonetheless, I am very skeptical of the idea of arming the Kurds being a solution. Isn't that the kind of meddling that got us the Mujahedine, Saddam, etc? It hasn't worked out very well so far. Also, the Turks and Iranians will flip their shit.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 13, 2014)

Overtone said:


> Nonetheless, I am very skeptical of the idea of arming the Kurds being a solution. Isn't that the kind of meddling that got us the Mujahedine, Saddam, etc? It hasn't worked out very well so far. Also, the Turks and Iranians will flip their shit.


 
Perhaps it might bite us in the back, but we've armed all the other factions except the Kurds, who are a group that actually likes the US and appreciates the things we've done for them. I wish the Peshmerga had the Abrams tanks and F-16s we gave Baghdad, with them I'm pretty sure the Kurds would have had Mosul secured by now.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 13, 2014)

Plus from all I heard (ie newspaper articles, documentaries, that kind of stuff), the Kurds are no religious fanatics (quite the opposite, apparently, Christians, Jews, Jazidi etc. are all free to practice their religion in their territory), have a working government (as far as working governments go and they were allowed to), are united by other things than a common enemy... sure, it's not all great in Iraqi Kurdistan. But they are nowhere near as bad as the Mujahedine or Saddam were by the time the USA started equipping them with weapons. From all I hear, that was already a question of supporting what appeared to be the lesser evil back then.

Last but not least: Even IF the Kurds turned out to be the next Taliban, which is highly unlikely, that might still be a good deal less worse then IS. From their own statements, it appears as if they were actually really proud if they ended up murdering more people than the Nazis.


----------



## bluediamond (Aug 13, 2014)

With the US staying out of the conflict, there seems to be some sense of 'responsibility' among muslims about ISIS. 
I've never seen such widespread condemnation, not even when al-qaeda bombed some locations in my country during the 2000s. 
People here HATE ISIS. In fact muslim organizations in my country recently convened and unanimously voted to declare ISIS as not part of Islam.
But there's some crazy conspiracy stuff going on in my country, how ISIS might be another CIA work. 
One argument is how they are able to mobilize large amounts of US military hardware taken from Iraqi army across the border into Syria, during daytime and the US do absolutely nothing about it.
Contrast that to when my country purchased some military hardware from a 3rd country that has a small piece of US technology in it, we have to seek US approval before the deal can happen. 
Or when the coalition forces left afghanistan, they destroyed huge amount of military hardware to keep it from falling into taliban's hand.


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 13, 2014)

bluediamond said:


> One argument is how they are able to mobilize large amounts of US military hardware taken from Iraqi army across the border into Syria, during daytime and the US do absolutely nothing about it.



I've been reading this a lot, but I'm just confused about it.

What would we gain by doing this? Most of the conflicts I've disagreed with gave the U.S. some gain, political or economical... What is ISIS doing for us?


----------



## bluediamond (Aug 13, 2014)

Perhaps something to do with toppling Assad's regime in Syria (an ally of russia). ISIS is also hostile toward Iran (a Shiite muslim country).


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 13, 2014)

bluediamond said:


> Perhaps something to do with toppling Assad's regime in Syria (an ally of russia). ISIS is also hostile toward Iran (a Shiite muslim country).



Okay, that makes some sense. I'm not totally buying it, but I can sort of see it.

Either way, still ....ed up.


----------



## asher (Aug 13, 2014)

Highly skeptical.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 13, 2014)

Forrest_H said:


> What is ISIS doing for us?



Well, if you're into conspiracy theories... weaken the entire region (as a strong Iraq and, even more, a strong Middle East might be unwanted), sell more weapons (both to factions involved and to people at home... "Hey, imagine they would come to the USA, wouldn't it be great if you had a machine gun at home, and if you also take this sniper rifle, you'll get a special discount on ammunition."), make everybody love you because you saved the day... if you want to believe it and don't care for common sense, proof or logic, you'll find reasons easily. There are people who believe the Grand Canyon is a few thousand years old or changing the atmosphere will not change the climate...

Btw, nice to hear that there apparently is a strong anti-ISIS solidarity amongst muslims, that is something I have never read about in any newspaper, heard in any news on the radio or TV or anywhere. With some people still believing that every single muslim, deep in his heart, wants all women to wear burkas, prohibit alcohol, football, music, dancing etc., that is something that should be mentioned way more often so that people get a different picture.

EDIT: If it was about toppling Assad's regime, that did totally backfire. If it wasn't for ISIS and al-Nusra, the rebells might have probably gotten international support or at least have the general public on their side. As it is, Assad suddenly seems not that bad...


----------



## Xaios (Aug 13, 2014)

SD83 said:


> EDIT: If it was about toppling Assad's regime, that did totally backfire. If it wasn't for ISIS and al-Nusra, the rebells might have probably gotten international support or at least have the general public on their side. As it is, Assad suddenly seems not that bad...



Given the sheer number of people that had already perished prior to ISIS tearing the middle east a new one, the fact that Assad comes out of this looking "not that bad" by comparison means that ISIS is _really ....ing scary_.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 13, 2014)

SD83 said:


> EDIT: If it was about toppling Assad's regime, that did totally backfire. If it wasn't for ISIS and al-Nusra, the rebells might have probably gotten international support or at least have the general public on their side. As it is, Assad suddenly seems not that bad...



I'm more in this camp when it comes to Syria. The emergence of those groups was very much correlated with the amount of acceptance of the Assad regime. I can't tell exactly you how many times I heard "I was with the Syrian revolution, but now I'm afraid that if Bashar doesn't win it's going to turn into the next Iraq" etc.., but it was a lot!


----------



## Explorer (Aug 14, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Btw, nice to hear that there apparently is a strong anti-ISIS solidarity amongst muslims, that is something I have never read about in any newspaper, heard in any news on the radio or TV or anywhere. With some people still believing that every single muslim, deep in his heart, wants all women to wear burkas, prohibit alcohol, football, music, dancing etc., that is something that should be mentioned way more often so that people get a different picture.



I've read about it quite a bit. There are many prominent Muslim scholars who have come out against IS on the varied mainstream news websites I browse. 

It's very admirable, and something I wish more folks of faith would do when extremists start in with claiming that they represent the true faith.


----------



## asher (Aug 14, 2014)

I think people realize that these guys are actually crazy enough/have the balls to be a significant destabilizing factor in the region, enough to threaten everyone else's status quo, so they're actually going to react.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 14, 2014)

I was hanging with a Lebanese friend yesterday and he told me something positive along those lines. Usually the Lebanese are very aloof about things, but apparently after the battle where some Lebanese army soldiers were killed and others kidnapped, people are really gung ho about getting IS and similar groups the heck out of there, and there's a lot of rallying around the army. Up until now the army was always seen as a huge joke over there, so to hear that they're getting support actually means a lot. 

Kahwagi: Some missing troops feared dead | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR


----------



## MikeH (Aug 14, 2014)

Yeah, I see a fair bit more involvement of Middle Eastern countries in this conflict, which is really good. Nice to see them trying to take the initiative instead of the US thinking they need to be there immediately. I can see us being deployed, but I don't think it will be only our conflict at that point.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Aug 15, 2014)

US Airstrikes Complicated by Changing ISIS Tactics -- News from Antiwar.com

"The US has plenty of experience unsuccessfully fighting insurgencies, and must be well aware of how little value aerial attacks are against it. That the administration bothered to go down this trail at all once again suggests that the long-term assumption is to escalate the war into a ground invasion."


----------



## Randy (Aug 15, 2014)

I don't think aerial attacks will make ISIS disappear but the fact is, the implements that make them a military as opposed to a ghost-like terrorist organization are the LARGE implements of war that they acquired when they took over police and military sites in Iraq, and those implements can be destroyed via aerial attack, and destroying those implements makes a difference.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Aug 16, 2014)

It's worth considering that those implements are there because we left them there, and as one article so astutely put it, "The U.S. bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America's total failure in Iraq." 

The US bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America


----------



## Watty (Aug 16, 2014)

The VICE coverage of the IS is interesting...in a really morbid way. I don't know if what they're saying is based completely on posturing and not a true belief, but if the latter, pretty much every Islamic apologist is going to have a harder time defending the faith with these sorts of folks roaming the region.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 16, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> US Airstrikes Complicated by Changing ISIS Tactics -- News from Antiwar.com
> 
> "The US has plenty of experience unsuccessfully fighting insurgencies, and must be well aware of how little value aerial attacks are against it. That the administration bothered to go down this trail at all once again suggests that the long-term assumption is to escalate the war into a ground invasion."



Air strikes aren't just about destroying and killing pockets of enemy forces, its about destroying/weakening moral....


----------



## DocBach (Aug 17, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> It's worth considering that those implements are there because we left them there, and as one article so astutely put it, "The U.S. bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America's total failure in Iraq."
> 
> The US bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America


 
We didn't necessarily just leave them there; they were sold to (at mass discount) to the Iraqi military. Most of them are stripped down export versions of what we use, the exception being the Humvees and MRAPs which are just armored cars. The Abrams we gave them were nowhere near as effective as our M1A2SEP/TUSK's -- it had less effective targeting systems and lacks the chobham armor. The reason why most of the pictures you see of ISIS using US military equipment is just of humvees is because most of our systems are incredibly maintenence needy, and the culture of the region is maintenence is "insha'allah;" Allah wills it to work so it will, no tune up required.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 17, 2014)

DocBach said:


> We didn't necessarily just leave them there; they were sold to (at mass discount) to the Iraqi military. Most of them are stripped down export versions of what we use, the exception being the Humvees and MRAPs which are just armored cars. The Abrams we gave them were nowhere near as effective as our M1A2SEP/TUSK's -- it had less effective targeting systems and lacks the chobham armor. The reason why most of the pictures you see of ISIS using US military equipment is just of humvees is because most of our systems are incredibly maintenence needy, and the culture of the region is maintenence is "insha'allah;" Allah wills it to work so it will, no tune up required.



Also why you will find yourself hard pressed to find them in body armor, they see it again as the will of Allah, if they get shot it was meant to be...


----------



## DocBach (Aug 17, 2014)

Or aiming, for that matter.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 17, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Also why you will find yourself hard pressed to find them in body armor, they see it again as the will of Allah, if they get shot it was meant to be...



But if they lose the war, it is not because Allah wants to show them they are at fault, but because he wants to test the strength of their belief. Or maybe it was the devils work.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 17, 2014)

https://news.vice.com/article/how-t...rga-territory-so-easily?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Looks as though our training of Iraqi forces pretty much went to shit.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 17, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Terrorist group. Civilian population. The problem of getting aid to the civilians without helping the terrorists.
> 
> My views on this are the same as my views on Gaza. That shouldn't be a surprise.



I've lost track. Who exactly is the "terrorist group" again?


----------



## Necris (Aug 17, 2014)

^ ISIS, I thought that was pretty obvious, or are you just maneuvering to come at this thread from a contrarian angle too?

The alternative is that an Islamic fundamentalist movement taking over areas by force, slaughtering both military and civilian opposition and targeting those deemed "not Islamic enough" for eradication doesn't fall within your definition of a terrorist group.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 18, 2014)

MikeH said:


> https://news.vice.com/article/how-t...rga-territory-so-easily?utm_source=vicenewsfb
> 
> Looks as though our training of Iraqi forces pretty much went to shit.


 
More or less it never was more than shit - just like the attitude on everything else, the answer for why they didn't show up to conduct a patrol or was sleeping at their checkpoints was insha'allah -- We'd get SIGACT (significant activity reports) of our battle space before rolling out and like 30 Iraqi Army soldiers a day were getting killed and you wonder holy hell how is this possible until you visit their checkpoint and see them all sleeping under trucks with their weapons 30 feet away from them.

There is a decided lack of initiative and leadership in the Iraqi Army culture as well; a lot of commanders are chickenshit cowards and split, which caused their chain of command to disintigrate. Not all of their units suffer from this and there are some pretty good soldiers (usually their special forces, which I would say is at least as good as a seasoned National Guard or maybe regular Army infantry company) The Peshmerga might not have as advanced weapons as the IA's, but one thing they do not lack is determination and willingness to fight. Latest news is they've taken back the Mosul dam with aid from our airstrikes.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 18, 2014)

dont know if this was already posted, but if you have any interest in the conflict you need to watch this vice report...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2014)

So much for the fearless, less-corrupt peshmerga angle...

How the U.S.-favored Kurds Abandoned the Yazidis when ISIS Attacked - The Daily Beast


----------



## MikeH (Aug 18, 2014)

I wouldn't necessarily call it corruptness, but they're definitely cowardice.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 18, 2014)

Watty said:


> The VICE coverage of the IS is interesting...in a really morbid way. I don't know if what they're saying is based completely on posturing and not a true belief, but if the latter, pretty much every Islamic apologist is going to have a harder time defending the faith with these sorts of folks roaming the region.



Not really. I don't know any Muslim (or "apologists" for that matter, whatever that means) who considers members of IS to be Muslim.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 18, 2014)

I was at the Doctor's office and saw a Newsweek (or whatever) from June with an IS guy in a ski mask w/ a gun on the cover. When I grew up I was pretty tuned into the news. CNN (international) was one of my most watched channels. World events did affect my mindset. I can't imagine what it's like for a kid like I was to be growing up in today's world. It must be so traumatic to see all this stuff unfolding... for the first exposure to these concepts of violence to be to such ruthless people.


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2014)

MikeH said:


> I wouldn't necessarily call it corruptness, but they're definitely cowardice.



These lines:



> For years, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), one of the two ruling parties in the Kurdistan region, has poured money into the pockets of Yazidis in Sinjar who were willing to join the party.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeH (Aug 18, 2014)

Ah, yes. I see now.  I was at work, so I just had time to skim through.


----------



## Necris (Aug 18, 2014)

Overtone said:


> Not really. * I don't know any Muslim *(*or "apologists"* for that matter, whatever that means) *who considers members of IS to be Muslim.*



That _is_ Apologetics 101; arbitrarily narrow the definition of what your religion "actually" is in such a way that you can exclude those whose actions reflect poorly on your religion from said religion and thus absolve your religion of any blame. 

See also: No True Scotsman

"A group of people claiming to be fighting for Islam are doing horrible things? They're not _true_ Muslims, therefore it is in no way the fault of _true_ Islam."


----------



## Overtone (Aug 19, 2014)

Necris said:


> That _is_ Apologetics 101; arbitrarily narrow the definition of what your religion "actually" is in such a way that you can exclude those whose actions reflect poorly on your religion from said religion and thus absolve your religion of any blame.
> 
> See also: No True Scotsman
> 
> "A group of people claiming to be fighting for Islam are doing horrible things? They're not _true_ Muslims, therefore it is in no way the fault of _true_ Islam."



Arbitrarily?

Arbitrarily?


----------



## DocBach (Aug 19, 2014)

Randy said:


> So much for the fearless, less-corrupt peshmerga angle...
> 
> How the U.S.-favored Kurds Abandoned the Yazidis when ISIS Attacked - The Daily Beast



The thing about the Yazidis is that they weren't part of Kurdistan and they definitely aren't at home with Islamic arabs. They're more or less the red headed step children of the country -- a lot of people were terrified of them as being devil worshipers because of their religion and tradition of tattooing the faces of their women... Being the easily exploited minority sadly ends up with being easily exploited. 

One thing to mention though is how hard the town of Sinjar would be to defend with the militias the PKK had there -- it looks as if the KRG had very few actual peshmerga stationed in Sinjar, for good reason -- there is only one road (we called it Route Santa Fe) that leads to the Sinjar retrans; one side of it is owned by IS and leads to their stronghold in Syria, and the other leads to a city called Tal Afar which is again besieged by IS. Sinjar more or less has been surrounded by IS since the very early stages of IS' Iraq campaign.


----------



## vilk (Aug 19, 2014)

Overtone said:


> Arbitrarily?
> 
> Arbitrarily?


Well, like, I'm assuming the guy meant arbitrarily as in you guys "don't consider them muslims" based off of some criteria you developed in and of yourselves. Whereas to the rest of people who didn't do that these people are obviously practicing Islam seeing as they do things like believe in Allah and Mohammed, maintain religious laws from holy books, worship god by kneeling on a rug 3 times a day, etc...


It's like watching a really shit soccer player and going "he's not an athlete". That's an arbitrary thing to say, because the fact alone that he's playing soccer makes him an athlete. You might judge him to not be an athlete because he's shit at the game, but people who play sports are by definition athletes. And you might judge IS to not be muslim because they do bad things, but as far as I'm concerned if you worship allah and mohammed as gods then you're a muslim.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 19, 2014)

vilk said:


> but as far as I'm concerned if you worship allah and mohammed as gods then you're a muslim.



Are you saying that you contend that people are incapable of hiding behind an accepted protocol in order to promote their specific agenda?

Or just that those who legitimately worship Mohammad as a god are Muslims? (And for the record, Muslims don't worship Mohammad as a god.; Mohammad is considered a prophet, much like Jesus, Abraham, Moses, etc.).


----------



## Necris (Aug 19, 2014)

To answer Overtone, yes, arbitrarily. Your friends have committed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
IS could claim "No true Muslim would find our actions to be un-Islamic" just as your friends claim no true Muslim would commit the atrocities that IS currently are; their logic would be no more or less sound.



tedtan said:


> Are you saying that you contend that people are incapable of hiding behind an accepted protocol in order to promote their specific agenda?



When the "protocol" in question is a religion how do you _personally_ differentiate between someone "hiding behind a protocol to promote an agenda" and a religious extremist? Do you even believe religious extremism exists?

Are you arguing that the majority of IS, or any other religious terrorist group for that matter, are in fact _not_ of their professed religion and/or never were? That certainly seems like a stretch to me, but if that is your conclusion feel free to lead me down the path that's lead you to it.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 19, 2014)

It's more complex than that. It's actually very convoluted because it involves apostasy and a lot of the fighting is against Muslims who are not recognizing their caliph. That indicates that by definition the members of IS, and the Muslims they want to kill, have different religions. Muslims don't wage Jihad against Muslims. But IS is killing Muslims who do not recognize their belief system, and calling them perpetrators of apostasy, or in the colloquialism of our time, "infidels." So how can they be the same religion?

But much more importantly, the massacres IS are committing go against the core belief system of Islam in their merciless and indiscriminate nature.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 19, 2014)

DocBach said:


> The thing about the Yazidis is that they weren't part of Kurdistan and they definitely aren't at home with Islamic arabs. ...



... and despite the claims by the U.S. Christian Right, they're not Christians. They're Zoroastrians. More lies, fabrications, willful ignorance, etc. to make a political point.


----------



## DocBach (Aug 20, 2014)

ElRay said:


> ... and despite the claims by the U.S. Christian Right, they're not Christians. They're Zoroastrians. More lies, fabrications, willful ignorance, etc. to make a political point.


 
They aren't even Zoroastrians, they're specifically Yezedi, which takes elements of pretty much all of the other religions in the region to include the above mentioned; pretty much everyone else considers them devil worshippers as they believe Satan was never banished to hell and instead is actually appreciated by God for his willingness to question God. Sort of like how the Kurds have autonomy from Iraq, Sinjar was only considered part of Kurdistan by geography alone and are not historically considered Kurdish people. 

If the religious right wants to use the slaughter of Christians they should follow ASR Santa Fe east about 100 miles to Mosul, which use to have the largest population of Christians in Iraq, where anicent biblical sites are being blown up and Christians have been slaughtered or displaced.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 20, 2014)

Necris said:


> When the "protocol" in question is a religion how do you _personally_ differentiate between someone "hiding behind a protocol to promote an agenda" and a religious extremist? Do you even believe religious extremism exists?
> 
> Are you arguing that the majority of IS, or any other religious terrorist group for that matter, are in fact _not_ of their professed religion and/or never were? That certainly seems like a stretch to me, but if that is your conclusion feel free to lead me down the path that's lead you to it.



In addition to what overtone stated above about IS actively acting against the teachings of Islam, which calls into question their faith, or at least with what religion they do actually identify with, I'll add that the acts commited by IS are the acts of individuals seeking power, money, land, to satisfy their nationalistic or tribalistic leanings, etc. So while I'm not saying that there is no religious component to their beliefs and actions, I am suggesting that it appears that religion is the flag they wave in public because it is an emotionally charged issue and one that is easy to get people to rally behind. One that can get the men to "fight for Allah" instead of fighting for the next greedy, self important dictator to take over the area. Since people are a lot less likely to rally behind the latter, it appears that religion is more of a rallying cry and a form of cover and concealment for the leaders of the movement than the sole motivator as most are making it out to be.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 20, 2014)

While it may just be a rally cry, it's a pretty damn good one. I don't think anything short of martyrdom could do as good of a job at rallying people to their cause. 

I think that's why the Abrahamic religions have done so well for so long too (popularity wise). They combine religious fanaticism with martyrdom quite well.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 20, 2014)

ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley, posts video - CNN.com

If we don't blast these mother f_u_ckers off the face of the earth now...


----------



## SD83 (Aug 21, 2014)

MikeH said:


> ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley, posts video - CNN.com
> 
> If we don't blast these mother f_u_ckers off the face of the earth now...



I couldn't agree more. When I heard this the other day on the news, I thought that would happen in a matter of hours. And the German goverment is still debating if it is a good idea to send weapons to the Kurds. Armed forces? No way! Former members of the goverment call for sanctions against any nation who supports IS or does nothing to stop them. So... sanctions against ourselves? Don't get me wrong, these decisions should be considered very carefully, but we are way beyond the point where something HAS to be done. And we'd best not .... it up again as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan before.

Slightly related, as for the "Are the IS fighters real muslims?" discussion... I recently (as in: late March, before that stuff got really serious) had a discussion with a muslim friend of mine, who told me that if you kill an infidel, you are sending his soul straight to the devil, which is exactly the opposite of what Allah wants. I have yet to get myself a copy of the Quran (as it is MUCH more fun to confute some religious fanatic with his own book), we have a bunch of Salafi here who occasionally give away some for free, but I haven't seen them in months (ironically, they have a huge sign on their both which says "LIES!"... which is in fact German for "READ!", but I still wonder if they ever heard of something like the English language  ), so I can't tell if that fits their scripture, but the way he explained it, it sounded very reasonable.


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Aug 22, 2014)

MikeH said:


> ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley, posts video - CNN.com
> 
> If we don't blast these mother f_u_ckers off the face of the earth now...


 
Words cannot describe the revulsion I feel at this barbaric act. If the killer in the vid is indeed British then I would expect MI5 and MI6 to have some sort of idea who he is. I was reading today that a released French hostage who was held alongside James Foley may be able to identify him. He's now probably the Worlds Most Wanted man and I expect the SAS will be going in after this guy and I don't think they'll be wanting to capture him alive either.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 22, 2014)

SD83 said:


> ironically, they have a huge sign on their both which says "LIES!"... which is in fact German for "READ!"



Seriousness of the subject matter aside, that's _really_ funny. 

Regarding the bit about killing infidels being the opposite of Allah's will, it kind of reminds me about the scene from Hamlet where he's about to kill Claudius while he's in confessional, only to realize that doing so would send Claudius to heaven because his soul was in a state of contrition. Instead he chooses to wait until Claudius reverts back to his evil ways, to ensure he goes to hell.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 2, 2014)

Another one gone. Obama better nut the f_u_ck up and do something about this. I don't know how long he thinks people are going to stand idly by while our citizens are being decapitated by our enemies.

Steven Sotloff: Video Appears to Show ISIS Execution of Second American - ABC News


----------



## Randy (Sep 2, 2014)

MikeH said:


> Another one gone. Obama better nut the f_u_ck up and do something about this. I don't know how long he thinks people are going to stand idly by while our citizens are being decapitated by our enemies.



Simplistic demand for a complex issue. 

I think the guys doing this are savages, don't get me wrong, but we're talking about _two_ people murdered. Believe me if we had another occupation of Iraq, you'll be seeing ISIS beheading American soldiers, crucifying them and hanging them from roadways and bridges just like they've been doing. If seeing a couple guys beheaded on camera puts your stomach in knots, imagine what you'll be seeing when they have thousands of westerners to torture, kill and dismember on camera. No thanks.

To me, the best thing that the West can do is ratchet up the aerial attacks, get more serious about doing what it takes to get back those who are still captive, then rope off the whole area (no travel to the region or any of the surrounding areas with weak borders) to prevent anymore westerners being paraded around as ransom bait or propaganda killings.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 3, 2014)

While I do agree, it's as if the organization is doing _nothing at all_. It's more of a "well, that's sad. Move on." type of reaction, which should not be tolerated. I understand that the potential for casualties would be very high, and that two murders is objectively less of a bad thing than hundreds (or thousands). But I think there needs to be a swift reaction to this, and it just seems as though our government is not interested. Clearly there are IS members who are living in or visiting the US, threatening action. If that were to happen, being reactive in nature as we are, that would turn into another 9/11 situation that could have been avoided had we taken swift action and destroyed the enemy before they reached even further.


----------



## Randy (Sep 3, 2014)

I don't disagree, but I still think you're taking multiple, complex issues and mixing them in with a simper solution.

The US has been using aerial attacks, which have been very effective in giving the secular government control of significant areas and bolstering their ability to fight back ISIS on the ground. The US has been using high altitude surveillance drones to triangulate information to the Iraqi forces on the ground, as well as gathering significant information from the inside via informants and the typical covert surveillance methods. The US has also been sending troops to reinforce security at American locations (such as the embassy) as well as providing training/support to the Iraqis; and it was just announced today they'd be sending an additional 350 troops.

I'd say that's all a far cry from 'doing nothing'. 

Killing of two guys, while awful, isn't a justification of a sweeping change on all fronts. The US is well aware that there are tons of people being held as captives there and, unfortunately, two of them being killed has a barely incremental effect on the overall issue. 

We can debate whether we think the American approach of refusing to pay ransoms is morally sound, or whether or not the intelligence departments are making enough progress rescuing captives; although I'd say it's hard to argue intelligently about either since we really don't know what intel they have and what they're actively doing (since it's 'top, top secret').

On the other front, you mentioned domestic terrorists. Again, that's a completely different issue. You've got home grown and you've got the potential for foreign terrorists coming here. How you handle surveillance on citizens and how you handle who's allowed and not allowed into the country will determine how effective you are at preventing something from happening. Even if there were an incident, it would take a whole lot of convincing to get me to believe killing ISIS fighters in a ground offensive would've been the thing that would've stopped it from happening.


----------



## aaaaaaaa (Sep 4, 2014)

The moment ISIS will threaten the southern Shiite part of Iraq (where most of the oil is) the US/EU might take some real actions against them..


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 4, 2014)

If people genuinely believe that there should be a fight, then signup to join that fight for the cause. Its very easy to sit in an armchair and say "you know what we should have soldiers on the ground fighting already," when its not your own life at stake


----------



## MikeH (Sep 5, 2014)

Already midway through the enlistment process for Air Force SOF.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 5, 2014)

MikeH said:


> Already midway through the enlistment process for Air Force SOF.



Good job brother! How long is the enlistment process over there?


----------



## Aaron (Sep 5, 2014)

MikeH said:


> Already midway through the enlistment process for Air Force SOF.



Your in for a good time!


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 5, 2014)

Sun Tzu said:


> Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.



Been reading a lot of The Art of War. This is my response to those beating the war drums. By all means, protect our citizens. But I've seen some people advocate boots on the ground kind of warfare, and that will come back to bite us in the ass. As Randy has said, it's a complex issue. I agree that it shouldn't be, but there is a wide gap between what should/shouldn't be and what is.

And before anyone tries calling me a coward on the issue, here's a quote from one of my childhood heroes, and also my 3rd cousin and former CINCPAC (Commander in Chief, Pacific region):



Douglas MacArthur said:


> The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.


I advocate intelligence in proceeding, because it's the people getting their ass shot off that have to live the rest of their lives dealing with the consequences. All because of the decisions of corrupt fat cats that would piss themselves if they even heard gunfire.


----------



## DocBach (Sep 5, 2014)

Any invasion of Iraq will just see ISIS slip back into insurgency mode and be another 10 years of police action through occupation. Support a strong regional ally, let them be the stabilizing factor in the region. 

Either way, we will see more acts of Islamic terrorism in the continental United States, most likely in the form of Mumbai style small unit attacks on soft targets such as malls and schools and IED's on major US highways.


----------



## SD83 (Sep 6, 2014)

DocBach said:


> Any invasion of Iraq will just see ISIS slip back into insurgency mode and be another 10 years of police action through occupation. Support a strong regional ally, let them be the stabilizing factor in the region.



And make sure this times it's not some psychopaths like Saddam or the Taliban. 
What I don't understand is why it still makes such a difference where the victims are from. They murdered thousands of Iraqi & Syrians, yet they "only killed two Americans, it could be worse". That's the same mindset that got millions of people killed in Rwanda. If it was "just" a fight for land or ressources or something like that, I would be fine with that, but from what they say and do, what IS plans is nothing short of genocide. 
As for the "signup to join" part... there is no way Germany will send soldiers anywhere near Iraq. If the IS were to crucify a million people, our government might agree to send lawyers once peace is achieved to help with the aftermath. I wouldn't make it through the first two days of training anyways without disregard of orders or starting a fight with my superiors I guess...


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 6, 2014)

SD83 said:


> If it was "just" a fight for land or ressources or something like that, I would be fine with that, but from what they say and do, what IS plans is nothing short of genocide.
> As for the "signup to join" part... there is no way Germany will send soldiers anywhere near Iraq. If the IS were to crucify a million people, our government might agree to send lawyers once peace is achieved to help with the aftermath. I wouldn't make it through the first two days of training anyways without disregard of orders or starting a fight with my superiors I guess...



Its straight up, and this is no jab at germans here, the nazi' v2.0. All IS wan't to do is irradicate all that are not of their core extremist belief in the region and then push to other nations. I though after the world wars we have had and the success of coalition forces that it was understood that, while the world may bicker, we all come together to squash great evil with results! these guys are nothing compared to a conventional army who would have half a chance of putting up a good fight, these guys are just waiting to be steamrolled, idiots....

I thought Germany had a deal where you had to do a couple years national service after you were done with school? Or has that been taken away now SD83? As for Germans not sending forces, in the event coalition forces ut boots to ground, Iraq will probably be the next Afghan and I would expect to see everyone come together for one big reunion in the sand again. US thought they were done with Iraq and look at how they are slowly slipping more and more into the country, you never know.... Well that's my opinion anyway


----------



## SD83 (Sep 6, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I thought Germany had a deal where you had to do a couple years national service after you were done with school? Or has that been taken away now SD83? As for Germans not sending forces, in the event coalition forces ut boots to ground, Iraq will probably be the next Afghan and I would expect to see everyone come together for one big reunion in the sand again. US thought they were done with Iraq and look at how they are slowly slipping more and more into the country, you never know.... Well that's my opinion anyway



We had, 9 month military or civilian service (I chose the later), but that's been cut a few years ago. But honestly, I can't think of anything else than having to follow orders no matter what you think of them (if there is no time to think about it, no problem. If thinking about them leads to believing they are good orders, no problem. Anything else... big problem...).
Didn't most other nations in Afghanistan (including Germany) only go there after the main war was done? We had about 320 wounded and less than 50 dead soldiers in ten years, that sucks for everyone who is involved, victims, families and friends etc., but others definitly took way more damage and did way more (although it seems all that effort was in vain pretty much).

EDIT: Actually, I think it's even worse than the Nazis. Those might have even been good for you if you were a nice, blond aryan ubermensch (even if you could spend days listing their crimes and I'm glad they were stupid enough to lose the war, which I hope will happen to IS as well). IS is good for absolutly no one. Even as a male muslim who takes the Quran rather literal, it pretty much sucks to life in IS territory.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 6, 2014)

I really do think we have much better reason to go to Iraq _now_ than we ever did before, but we squandered what little patience we had from the international community the last time we went, so now our hands are more or less tied until more nations step up and realize something needs to be done.

I hadn't thought of comparing them to the Nazis until it was brought up here, but I think that's a good way of looking at it. ISIS is an evil group that's a danger to everyone until they're dealt with, and it would behoove the world at large to do everything they can to make them go away. Obviously just charging in without a cohesive plan on what to do and how to work together would be the wrong way to go about it, but the longer the world waits, the more difficult it's going to be to solve the problem.


----------



## asher (Sep 6, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I really do think we have much better reason to go to Iraq _now_ than we ever did before



I mean, in the sense that 1 is a hell of a lot bigger than 0, yes 

But I do agree with your first paragraph. Less so about the Nazi thing - I feel like there is no shortage of other upstart/rebel/military governments to compare them to.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 6, 2014)

Well there at least aren't any other aggressive militant groups going around killing nonbelievers and those who won't conform by the thousands showing up on the news sites I browse, but I suppose there could be more. The Nazi comparison is because of how they're ideologically driven to murder large groups of people while trying to spread out geographically, not just because they're "the Bad Guys."


----------



## Chiba666 (Sep 7, 2014)

Every night I get to listen to the UKs Tornado's going up and coming back and not to mention a few US planes that shouldn't be where they are. That is unless you look on Wikipedia or Google maps and there is one sat on the runway.

If the UK adds their firepower then I get to count them out and all back in. If the Chinooks go up and clatter past my house then it means that weve found the UK hostage and a few traiors to the UK are going to get their comeuppance via the barrel of an MP5


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 10, 2014)

Anyone else catch Obama's address to the nation on the strategy for taking on ISIL? Very great points and I think his plan is a great one. Also his promise that "If you threaten America and her interests, there will be no safe haven for you." (oaraphrased)

That proves to me that he has the stones to take on all threats, but also the intelligence and restraint to do so effectively. I'll be watching this with interest because I really don't want to see another bungled frolic in the desert.

Here's the video:


----------



## Necris (Sep 10, 2014)

Post-Metal Band Isis Mistaken for Terrorist Group

Tangentially related.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 10, 2014)

Sounds like a solid plan, which I'm surprised by. I'm just curious how efficient it will be, as it's near-impossible to destroy an organization with air power without civilian casualties as well. And with strict ROE, I doubt anyone is willing to go to those lengths.


----------

