View Full Version : ISIS burned Jordanian pilot alive. In a cage.
30 cal slut
02-03-15, 11:49
!@#$ing animals.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e0_1422982365
30 cal slut
02-03-15, 11:54
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2938199/Burned-alive-cage-ISIS-release-video-claiming-horrifying-murder-captured-Jordanian-pilot.html
BoringGuy45
02-03-15, 12:09
This is why you never surrender or allow yourself to be captured alive in the Middle East. Always die fighting against these monsters. You fight, you may die and take some with you. Surrender, you will die painfully and slowly with all your enemies alive and laughing at you.
Voodoochild
02-03-15, 12:15
Hopefully Jordan decides to go rip shit riot in Syria. But time will tell.
You racist salamiphobes!! How dare you not embrace their culture and be more accepting of their feelings.
We really need to bring back 24/7 carpet bombing.
If this doesn't make the Jordanian armed forces decide to go on an all out war to eliminate the islamic monsters, then nothing is. Might as well surrender in mass.
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 12:38
Why did I click that link....
Averageman
02-03-15, 12:42
I believe the article said they moved all of the ISIS POW's to a death row prison where all executions take place.
I hope they take there time and make it as painful and slow as possible.
Would be interesting what the Washington regime have to say about this? who will they blame? Bush? Israeli? is it terrorism or criminal act?
Exactly the reason why Chris Kyle called these people "savages"
This plague needs to be exterminated from the face of the earth.
What does it take for people to wake up? Really, at what point will the stupid (not ignorant) masses see what is going on?
It is well past time for the Muslim moderates (If they exist) to start sweeping these savages out from their doorstep and stop expecting someone else to do it for them.
This is clearly abhorrent, savage behavior and there should be no quarter given to these criminals.
our WH sadly will say
since we cant verify that the armed insurgents did this we cant comment (since they refuse to call them terrorists)
and then some little add on to try to make you think they are on your side like this is barbaric ?
did you not hear obama when he said %99 of islam is peaceful and does not like the tiny % that are like this ?
the problem is when you really dig into the numbers the moderate are the minority and are quite a tiny % and live in fear of retaliation
the masses are OK with this kinda stuff and just go along with it
It is well past time for the Muslim moderates (If they exist) to start sweeping these savages out from their doorstep and stop expecting someone else to do it for them.
This is clearly abhorrent, savage behavior and there should be no quarter given to these criminals.
30 cal slut
02-03-15, 13:50
It is well past time for the Muslim moderates (If they exist)...
75%-85% but ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYjiSaV5VoE
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-15, 13:53
I believe the article said they moved all of the ISIS POW's to a death row prison where all executions take place.
I hope they take there time and make it as painful and slow as possible.
Not even that. Outside, on their knees and a shot to the back of the head. No theatrics, no statements- they aren't worth the time. Have an Iman banish them from wherever if you want.
Really glad Obama decided "regime change" in Syria was a good thing.
JV squad boys....nothing to see here....
The_War_Wagon
02-03-15, 14:27
Religion of peace, love, & doobs, man! :rolleyes:
Exactly the reason why Chris Kyle called these people "savages"
This plague needs to be exterminated from the face of the earth.
Nah, we should just hold them in GITMO until BHO sends them back to the fight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And folks in this country got pissed because we dumped water on some enemy noncombatants.. Pussies...
What does it take for people to wake up? Really, at what point will the stupid (not ignorant) masses see what is going on?
Wellllll 9/11 was 15 years ago now so, my guess is never.
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 14:45
I know it's easy to say "Religion of peace? They all support ISIS", but let's not forget that aside from like 200 US and Western pilots, the only people actually killing these guys are other Muslims.
Voodoochild
02-03-15, 14:49
What does it take for people to wake up? Really, at what point will the stupid (not ignorant) masses see what is going on?
Hold your breath and start counting.. It won't be labeled as terrorism it will be extermisim.
Hold your breath and start counting.. It won't be labeled as terrorism it will be extermisim.
Republicans for some reason they grab out of a hat.
Rmplstlskn
02-03-15, 15:00
Animals... But they are doing what their "good book" says... The latter teachings, that is. The "islam is peaceful" point to the older, now nullified, teachings.
But it is still a ME & European problem, for now... I dare not think what would happen in USA if they brought this later version of Islam here and started killing US people on video.
Rmpl
Hold your breath and start counting.. It won't be labeled as terrorism it will be extermisim.
If even that. It most likely will not be mentioned in the news tomorrow because of the fear of offending some poor muslim.........
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 15:09
If even that. It most likely will not be mentioned in the news tomorrow because of the fear of offending some poor muslim.........
Except...
31452
Obama doubled down on his weak sauce "degrade and defeat the threat," langauge. If ISIL isn't careful, Obama will turn them over his mom jeans clad lap! :(
Not even that. Outside, on their knees and a shot to the back of the head. No theatrics, no statements- they aren't worth the time. Have an Iman banish them from wherever if you want.
Yep, quick shot to the head, then... feed the bodies to swine.
I know it's easy to say "Religion of peace? They all support ISIS", but let's not forget that aside from like 200 US and Western pilots, the only people actually killing these guys are other Muslims.
No, that can't be true. With as many folks here who are so eager to exterminate the big evil moooslims, I would imagine all are speaking from extensive first hand experience and are willing to stick their own necks out to do something.
But yeah...this is exactly what I was going to say. ISIS has been fighting aggressors from every direction for some time now and almost all are different forms of Muslim, fighting for everything in homegrown militias or from neighboring countries. So if we are going to suggest that those who know there is a problem but do nothing about it are essentially guilty of supporting the acts of the extremes...well I guess that means all the chest beaters here are terrorists. I can still buy a ticket to Erbil for less than the ammo would cost to go shoot with a Tier 1 Shmoperator Instructor. I look forward to the arrival of the M4C crusaders because without them, who would stop the evil Milsims.
If we're going to detest an entire group of people for their abuse and horrific murder of POW/EPWs, I look forward to the same hatred for the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, North Korean, Russian, British, Mexican, Saudi, and Laotian people. Vermin, we should just put them all in death camps right guys? Yeah...
Can we please leave their religion out of this discussion. It doesn't matter if they're Muslim - Hindu - Christian or Alien. This crap has gone on for Centuries all in the name of "some" religion.
These people are, for the most part, uneducated criminals, plain and simple.
The minute you play the religion card you lose, as "we" "Christians" aren't squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination. The Catholic Church made it their job to burn heretics in the not too distant past and yes, they burned them alive as well.
No, that can't be true. With as many folks here who are so eager to exterminate the big evil moooslims, I would imagine all are speaking from extensive first hand experience and are willing to stick their own necks out to do something.
If it makes you feel better, with respect to all comments past, present and future regarding Muslims, I consider anyone (including Muslims) who actively fight against Islamic terrorism EXEMPT from my general criticisms of Muslims. They are basically in the same class as others who subscribe to hateful ideologies such as Klan members who actively fight against terrorism and do not engage in such acts themselves but simply subscribe to hate based beliefs.
Also exempt are any Muslims of the "truly peaceful", "secular" or "genuinely moderate" variety if you can find any. Sadly many who believe they fall in the above categories typically accept ideas like the validity of "jihad" and that only Islam is the "true religion" so they as a result give tacit support to Islamic terrorism even if they believe they condemn it.
Can we please leave their religion out of this discussion. It doesn't matter if they're Muslim - Hindu - Christian or Alien. This crap has gone on for Centuries all in the name of "some" religion.
These people are, for the most part, uneducated criminals, plain and simple.
The minute you play the religion card you lose, as "we" "Christians" aren't squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination. The Catholic Church made it their job to burn heretics in the not too distant past and yes, they burned them alive as well.
It's kinda hard to leave their religion out of it when the first letter of ISIS / ISIL is "Islamic."
Eurodriver
02-03-15, 18:45
Also exempt are any Muslims of the "truly peaceful", "secular" or "genuinely moderate" variety if you can find any. Sadly many who believe they fall in the above categories typically accept ideas like the validity of "jihad" and that only Islam is the "true religion" so they as a result give tacit support to Islamic terrorism even if they believe they condemn it.
I get what you're saying, and don't really know the right answer. It certainly isn't that all Muslims are peaceful. (You make a good point - there are quite a few "peaceful" Muslims in AnyTown, USA that may not ever blow someone up but still silently go "Good for you, ISIS".) However, it isn't certainly isn't that all Muslims are terrorists, either. I'm not saying this as a liberal apologist for Muslims at all. I really don't give a ****, and I stand with Israel 100% every single time. I'm just saying that the blanket "Kill all of them! With Pig soaked bullets! Man woman and child!" is not going to solve anything and in the scheme of things is actually harmful to our position. When the vast majority of ISIS fighters being killed right now are being killed at the hands of other Muslims such as Kurds, Jordanians, Iraqis, and Syrians I really don't think it is wise for us (the enemy of their enemy) to be condemning them just because their god is Allah. They do, after all, have much more in common with ISIS than they do with us.
I know you know this, and I know you're not defending any of those blanket examples, but I felt it bears commenting.
Except...
31452
Not following you on that..?????
Hopefully Jordan decides to go rip shit riot in Syria. But time will tell.
Saw something earlier that said they have plans to execute every single ISIS prisoner they have. It may or may not have brought a smile to my face.
Not all muslims are terrorists.....and only about 10% of Germans were NAZIs....Look what happened to the world with only 10% of a people that are about 1/50 in number as muslims are now.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B66Xd2oIAAAVsn1.jpg:large
https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/The+ordinary+muslim+again_b2f23a_5436422.jpg
I get what you're saying, and don't really know the right answer. It certainly isn't that all Muslims are peaceful. (You make a good point - there are quite a few "peaceful" Muslims in AnyTown, USA that may not ever blow someone up but still silently go "Good for you, ISIS".) However, it isn't certainly isn't that all Muslims are terrorists, either. I'm not saying this as a liberal apologist for Muslims at all. I really don't give a ****, and I stand with Israel 100% every single time. I'm just saying that the blanket "Kill all of them! With Pig soaked bullets! Man woman and child!" is not going to solve anything and in the scheme of things is actually harmful to our position. When the vast majority of ISIS fighters being killed right now are being killed at the hands of other Muslims such as Kurds, Jordanians, Iraqis, and Syrians I really don't think it is wise for us (the enemy of their enemy) to be condemning them just because their god is Allah. They do, after all, have much more in common with ISIS than they do with us.
I know you know this, and I know you're not defending any of those blanket examples, but I felt it bears commenting.
Somewhere in Germany in 1943 was the equivalent of a postmaster general who had to join the Nazi party in order to qualify for his position. Somewhere even in the gestapo was a guy who was actually "just a cop" and he chased bad guys and criminals. So even if neither had any hatred in their heart, and personally never took part in anything that could be remotely consider a "war crime", they were still part of a system of beliefs that designated certain people as "expendable" and was as a result a hateful ideology.
So I guess the question is, was a third grade teacher who was a member of the nazi party in 1943 part of the problem or not? Did it matter if she actually believed in everything espoused by the nazi party even if she contributed to it's membership?
I don't like to condemn entire groups of anyone based upon factors such as "belief" but it seems like "secular Muslim" is almost a cultural impossibility by definition. I certainly wish it were otherwise.
Jordan executed 2 isis.
Www.foxnews.com
Saw something earlier that said they have plans to execute every single ISIS prisoner they have. It may or may not have brought a smile to my face.
I just had a thing come across my fox app saying the executed two of their prisoners.
SeriousStudent
02-03-15, 22:08
My thoughts and prayers are with the murdered Jordanian pilot, and his family. I wish them comfort and strength.
I also wish for wisdom and success to King Abdulluh II. I think his armed forces are about to become even more busy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-03-15, 22:15
I just had a thing come across my fox app saying the executed two of their prisoners.
You need to go logarithmic.
Even my wife was like "When are we going to put our foot down and take out the trash?"
I do have to say that on one hand you can say that BHO is losing the middle east, but what was there really to save? If you have to be a constant gardener, what have you really done? It's not like France has to come over and set us straight all the time because they helped us in the Revolutionary war. Maybe it is BHOs secret strategy to get people over there to do the fighting, I think it is more he doesn't want to get involved in a bigger way- so he kind of backwards into a long term sustainable strategy. Hell, he took credit for the shale gas boom's effect on gas prices, he gets lucky sometimes.
MountainRaven
02-03-15, 22:22
Looks like its getting to be time to wish the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Jordanian military good hunting....
Would be interesting what the Washington regime have to say about this? who will they blame? Bush? Israeli? is it terrorism or criminal act?
I'll take Work Place Violence for $100, Alex....
In WW I and WW II, we didn't want to get involved in the war because there was no threat to the mainland. During that time, we did not deny that the rest of the world was at war and we supported our allies until we were attacked and had no choice to enter combat.
Now, we were one of the first to be attacked and it seems that we have forgotten that. We are supporting other countries efforts under the pretense that they should fight their own battles.
Make no mistake, the world is at war with these terror groups and these groups are committing crimes against humanity and we are sitting idle and these murderers are sucking it up, making the killings more and more heinous and more and more painful to the victims and as long as we sit there and do nothing, it will only get worse!
Can we please leave their religion out of this discussion. It doesn't matter if they're Muslim - Hindu - Christian or Alien. This crap has gone on for Centuries all in the name of "some" religion.
These people are, for the most part, uneducated criminals, plain and simple.
The minute you play the religion card you lose, as "we" "Christians" aren't squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination. The Catholic Church made it their job to burn heretics in the not too distant past and yes, they burned them alive as well.
A little homework would reveal that the Inquisition was heavily co-opted by secular rulers, particularly in Spain, used to strike fear into uppity people, and most of the burned had gotten crosswise with the king...Not that I'm in favor of burning anyone. Also beheadings, crucifixions and burnings seem to have gone out of fashion in Christian circles of late. Now, a serious crusade, I'd consider.
Looks like its getting to be time to wish the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Jordanian military good hunting....
Ironically I have more faith in them than in Obama and his ability to get things under control. Of course any success he will be sure and take personal credit for.
MountainRaven
02-03-15, 23:50
Ironically I have more faith in them than in Obama and his ability to get things under control. Of course any success he will be sure and take personal credit for.
Well, the Jordanian military is heavily subsidized by the US government.
Maybe we'll get to find out how well those LWRC rifles in 6.8 do....
Averageman
02-04-15, 06:31
I would think we could empty Gitmo today and simply fly them all to Jordan and let them deal with it. I'm reasonablly sure now that they have their blood up a bit it would be a problem, just drop off the Prisoners and a bit of ammo and think of the cost savings!
I would think we could empty Gitmo today and simply fly them all to Jordan and let them deal with it. I'm reasonablly sure now that they have their blood up a bit it would be a problem, just drop off the Prisoners and a bit of ammo and think of the cost savings!
If they fly them Malaysia air I'm all for it.
It would be best if Jordan could deal with it on their own. Problem is that IS leaders, by this acts actively wants to "lure" western troops to put boots there. This will allow them to increase recruitment and also gather "moderates" and even stop internal fraction or religious disputes (like Shia vs Sunni) to fight "crusaders" as common enemy. This is long term planing. Leaders know that their troops will initially got crushed, but this is sacrifice they are prepared to take in plan to move whole muslim world against our world. That is why they make sure everybody can get good view on their atrocities. Boko Haram is burning kids alive on almost daily basis, but they do not upload videos, so world is not loosing sleep over that.
Important question is if WW3 is already going and for how long West will try to fight it with one (or even both) hand tied behind the back... and if we still can afford to fight it and win.
I look forward to the arrival of the M4C crusaders because without them, who would stop the evil Milsims.
I laughed too hard at that.
"Jordan's army vowed an "earth-shaking" response “proportionate to the magnitude of the tragedy of all Jordanians.” And government spokesman Mohammad Momani said that Jordan’s response to the assassination “will be swift. Jordanians’ wrath will devastate Daesh’s ranks.”" - http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/04/jordan-hangs-2-al-qaeda-prisoners-after-isis-video-shows-jordanian-pilot-burned/
Jordan also executed two ISIS members without hours of the video coming out.
It would be best if Jordan could deal with it on their own. Problem is that IS leaders, by this acts actively wants to "lure" western troops to put boots there. This will allow them to increase recruitment and also gather "moderates" and even stop internal fraction or religious disputes (like Shia vs Sunni) to fight "crusaders" as common enemy. This is long term planing. Leaders know that their troops will initially got crushed, but this is sacrifice they are prepared to take in plan to move whole muslim world against our world. That is why they make sure everybody can get good view on their atrocities. Boko Haram is burning kids alive on almost daily basis, but they do not upload videos, so world is not loosing sleep over that.
Important question is if WW3 is already going and for how long West will try to fight it with one (or even both) hand tied behind the back... and if we still can afford to fight it and win.
FAE's, MOABS and cluster munitions is all they deserve. I say give until it hurts...
It's kinda hard to leave their religion out of it when the first letter of ISIS / ISIL is "Islamic."
Anyone can call themselves anything.
-john
militarymoron
02-04-15, 10:26
Anyone can call themselves anything.
-john
you really believe that this is the case with ISIS, that they just picked a name that has nothing to do with their religious beliefs?
No, clearly they picked the name carefully to get exactly the effect we are seeing here.
Which is different than them believing the same things as other Muslims.
They want it to be us vs them, and they want us to lump in all Muslims as "them".
-john
No, clearly they picked the name carefully to get exactly the effect we are seeing here.
Which is different than them believing the same things as other Muslims.
They want it to be us vs them, and they want us to lump in all Muslims as "them".
-john
It has nothing to do with their name. It does have everything to do with their beliefs and actions. They can do the same stuff and call themselves the Christian Fellowship, the additudes you see here would be the same.
It is us vs them, wake up. It is never as simple as us not liking them because they are muslims. It is deep rooted in the culture.
That is what they want because of the writing in the koran. The existence of the west, especially America goes against the teachings in their book.
It has nothing to do with their name. It does have everything to do with their beliefs and actions. They can do the same stuff and call themselves the Christian Fellowship, the additudes you see here would be the same.
We'd lump all Christians in the enemy bucket, or we'd make the distinction they don't believe the same thing as other Christians?
That is what they want because of the writing in the koran. The existence of the west, especially America goes against the teachings in their book.
The people carrying out these acts are thugs that will take any tenuous scrap of "justification" to do whatever the hell they please. They would have just as easily found justification in the Bible if that had that been convenient.
-john
Averageman
02-04-15, 12:45
It has nothing to do with their name. It does have everything to do with their beliefs and actions. They can do the same stuff and call themselves the Christian Fellowship, the additudes you see here would be the same.
It is us vs them, wake up. It is never as simple as us not liking them because they are muslims. It is deep rooted in the culture.
That is what they want because of the writing in the koran. The existence of the west, especially America goes against the teachings in their book.
THIS !
I've spent some time as both a Soldier and a Civilian in the M.E. I always find it interesting when people here who have never been to the M.E. attempt to apologize or use politically correct jargon and apply it to the M.E. and Islam. It doesn't work, there is no comparison.
I remember walking out of the hotel I was staying at to find a young lady bleeding from the nose and crying because she happened to walk out of the door drinking a Soda during Ramadan and ran in to two guys who thought smacking her for breaking their religious laws during Ramadan was a good thing to do. You know what, nobody did anything about it, that was Okay even with the Cops.
So when you start talking and throwing terms like moderate around, look at their culture and see how they do thing back home. Live there a bit, watch some of the ways they treat foreigners, people who work for them or other sects within their own religion.
I think you might find "moderate" shouldn't even ever again cross your lips when discussing this topic.
This has turned to a VERY interesting discussion. I'll add my thoughts.
The issue with radical Muslims, or Islamic Terrorists is the fact that they do not read their religious text with any objectivity. They (radical Islamic terrorists such as ISIS) take every word at face value, they do not understand the historical nature, or take into account that society as a whole has changed.
Jews and Christians on the other hand can and do take those considerations into account. They understand that certain passages in their religious texts refer to actions that are not accepted in todays society.
For instance......care to guess what religious text this loving beautiful "law" comes from (hint, its not the Quran)
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God"
Ya that's right, The Book of Deuteronomy (13-6). That's considered a law, no wriggle room. However you usually don't see Christians (those that accept the Torah as biblical) or Jewish people stoning or beheading atheists even though their religious text orders them to do so. Why???? Because they have the ability to understand the historical significance and realize that such barbarism is not accepted in todays society.
So there you have it. You can extrude almost any message you want from religious texts, it just depends on what your motives are....and how many gullible idiots you can find to help you. Just look at those "Westboro Baptist" nuts, they interpret the Bible and Torah in their own special way (more than likely just like the radical islamics do....very literally)
.........................
It has nothing to do with their name. It does have everything to do with their beliefs and actions. They can do the same stuff and call themselves the Christian Fellowship, the additudes you see here would be the same.
It is us vs them, wake up. It is never as simple as us not liking them because they are muslims. It is deep rooted in the culture.
That is what they want because of the writing in the koran. The existence of the west, especially America goes against the teachings in their book.
What if they don't even have a Koran?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_world/amanpour-didier-francois/index.html
Based on this witness account that includes "Jihadi John" himself, religion in any form isn't high on their list. Some people in this world are simply evil, no religious indoctrination necessary. :(
This has turned to a VERY interesting discussion. I'll add my thoughts.
The issue with radical Muslims, or Islamic Terrorists is the fact that they do not read their religious text with any objectivity. They (radical Islamic terrorists such as ISIS) take every word at face value, they do not understand the historical nature, or take into account that society as a whole has changed.
Jews and Christians on the other hand can and do take those considerations into account. They understand that certain passages in their religious texts refer to actions that are not accepted in todays society.
For instance......care to guess what religious text this loving beautiful "law" comes from (hint, its not the Quran)
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God"
Ya that's right, The Book of Deuteronomy (13-6). That's considered a law, no wriggle room. However you usually don't see Christians (those that accept the Torah as biblical) or Jewish people stoning or beheading atheists even though their religious text orders them to do so. Why???? Because they have the ability to understand the historical significance and realize that such barbarism is not accepted in todays society.
So there you have it. You can extrude almost any message you want from religious texts, it just depends on what your motives are....and how many gullible idiots you can find to help you.
Very very good points. Believe it or not there are actually more hate filled and/or violent verses in the bible than the Koran. However Christianity as a whole has evolved to the point where they focus on the more moderate parts of the bible. Honestly Islam was at that same place at one point in history. However it also became a perfect example of the dangers of religion in governing. You had people in power focus on only certain parts of the Koran. They emphasized the violent parts that furthered their own hate filled goals. After a while it becomes an out of control beast. Moderates are overshadowed because of a very vocal minority who happen to hold power. The Nazi comparison, while not 100% accurate, does have some lessons in it.
Some interesting numbers. The Death toll either directly from god or at his command in the bible is almost 3 million. Book or Mormon is 2 million. The Koran is something like 6. the number of passages promoting violence is similar. About 800 in the bible and 350 in the Koran. (I am going from memory here so my number may be off a bit) Am I saying that the bible is evil and the Koran is good because of this? No. My point is that it is how it is pushed on the people and interpreted that is the issue.
A normal Muslim is no different than a normal Christian. Same goes for their extremists usually. However in the case of modern muslim Extremists they have been whipped into a frenzy by people like OBL who use it for their own agenda.
Frankly I think it is sad that the culture that gave the world Coffee and Advanced mathematics has degenerated to they have. to me that isn't even a religious issue. It is just a sad societal one.
Very very good points. Believe it or not there are actually more hate filled and/or violent verses in the bible than the Koran. However Christianity as a whole has evolved to the point where they focus on the more moderate parts of the bible. Honestly Islam was at that same place at one point in history. However it also became a perfect example of the dangers of religion in governing. You had people in power focus on only certain parts of the Koran. They emphasized the violent parts that furthered their own hate filled goals. After a while it becomes an out of control beast. Moderates are overshadowed because of a very vocal minority who happen to hold power. The Nazi comparison, while not 100% accurate, does have some lessons in it.
Some interesting numbers. The Death toll either directly from god or at his command in the bible is almost 3 million. Book or Mormon is 2 million. The Koran is something like 6. the number of passages promoting violence is similar. About 800 in the bible and 350 in the Koran. (I am going from memory here so my number may be off a bit) Am I saying that the bible is evil and the Koran is good because of this? No. My point is that it is how it is pushed on the people and interpreted that is the issue.
A normal Muslim is no different than a normal Christian. Same goes for their extremists usually. However in the case of modern muslim Extremists they have been whipped into a frenzy by people like OBL who use it for their own agenda.
Frankly I think it is sad that the culture that gave the world Coffee and Advanced mathematics has degenerated to they have. to me that isn't even a religious issue. It is just a sad societal one.
Honest question, how much of that devolution is a result of the religion (Islam) being fully intertwined with rule of the Muslim lands? It seems that most modern Christian based societies separate faith and government, while in most modern Muslim based societies, Islam and Sharia Law dictate what is or isn't tolerated? Even in instances where a certain act (say assault) is against the law, it's ignored if the basis for the assault was religious? I can't quote specifics here, but the appearance is such.
Anyone can call themselves anything.
-john
So when the JDL engaged in acts of terrorism it had nothing to do with religion?
Saw a glimpse of the statement by the current ruler of Washington, DC, never mind what he said, but on his right, Valerie Jarrett, sat there like a clown and smiled throughout the entire thing. He was yapping about that he hadn't seen the video, blah blah blah blah, and she just sat there and smile, showing not a worry in the world, like he was talking about the Stuper Bowl or something.
What if they don't even have a Koran?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_world/amanpour-didier-francois/index.html
Based on this witness account that includes "Jihadi John" himself, religion in any form isn't high on their list. Some people in this world are simply evil, no religious indoctrination necessary. :(
That does not matter at all. It is how a person is raised. I do not carry a Bible around everyday or read one that much, but Christianity playes a large role in my daily activities because I was raised in that environment.
This has turned to a VERY interesting discussion. I'll add my thoughts.
The issue with radical Muslims, or Islamic Terrorists is the fact that they do not read their religious text with any objectivity. They (radical Islamic terrorists such as ISIS) take every word at face value, they do not understand the historical nature, or take into account that society as a whole has changed.
Jews and Christians on the other hand can and do take those considerations into account. They understand that certain passages in their religious texts refer to actions that are not accepted in todays society.
For instance......care to guess what religious text this loving beautiful "law" comes from (hint, its not the Quran)
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God"
Ya that's right, The Book of Deuteronomy (13-6). That's considered a law, no wriggle room. However you usually don't see Christians (those that accept the Torah as biblical) or Jewish people stoning or beheading atheists even though their religious text orders them to do so. Why???? Because they have the ability to understand the historical significance and realize that such barbarism is not accepted in todays society.
So there you have it. You can extrude almost any message you want from religious texts, it just depends on what your motives are....and how many gullible idiots you can find to help you. Just look at those "Westboro Baptist" nuts, they interpret the Bible and Torah in their own special way (more than likely just like the radical islamics do....very literally)
And that is essentially the problem. Islam has not had their cultural renaissance and I don't think their culture will permit one.
Jordan's King Abdullah has vowed to destroy ISIS. While I'm hopeful, I'm not optimistic it will actually happen.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/04/jordan-hangs-2-al-qaeda-prisoners-after-isis-video-shows-jordanian-pilot-burned/
I do want to add one thing about islam; it's not a religion.
It's a theocracy, a totalitarian regime, very much like Nazism. It's political, judicial, governmental, societal control, business, and more......with religious under-pinnings.
This is an important point that must be kept in mind when discussing islam. We all know that understanding the threat is key.
And that is essentially the problem. Islam has not had their cultural renaissance and I don't think their culture will permit one.
bingo
We'd lump all Christians in the enemy bucket, or we'd make the distinction they don't believe the same thing as other Christians?
The people carrying out these acts are thugs that will take any tenuous scrap of "justification" to do whatever the hell they please. They would have just as easily found justification in the Bible if that had that been convenient.
-john
Yes we do. That is how you win. In WWII people with German names changed them because they were all suspect, Japanese were put into camps. It is called profiling. It is very far from PC but it is what you do if you want to win.
As for the Christians, we do lump them together. The but jobs that kill physicians at abortion clinics and the Westboro are part of the wackos in a Christian society. Even in a society that the majority of people are Christian those that act or speak TOO much Christianity are put into the same category are the wackos AMD shined. It is what people do in a society. The outliers, left and right, are shunned in order to bring them back to the middle ground is. That is how a civilized society works.
So if muslims can't police their own in this world society then others are going to feel that they support the extremists. Then all will be put into your bucket. That is what happened to all of the Germans when the Nazis took over. They did not take care of the problem themselves so we had to. So all Germans were then Nazis. And a great many died. Can you understand what this leads to?
Honest question, how much of that devolution is a result of the religion (Islam) being fully intertwined with rule of the Muslim lands? It seems that most modern Christian based societies separate faith and government, while in most modern Muslim based societies, Islam and Sharia Law dictate what is or isn't tolerated? Even in instances where a certain act (say assault) is against the law, it's ignored if the basis for the assault was religious? I can't quote specifics here, but the appearance is such.
I think that is a huge part of the problem. Any religion when used as a form of government will quickly turn bad.
And that is essentially the problem. Islam has not had their cultural renaissance and I don't think their culture will permit one.
Actually the sad part is that they did. They had it early on and then backslid.
Watching parts of the video, who thinks the pilot was drugged? Or maybe the editing just made it seem that way as he walks alone in front of a line of ISIS thugs and then again in the cage he just stands there kinda in a daze.
Actually the sad part is that they did. They had it early on and then backslid.
More correctly, they attempted it, never gained full control and were overwhelmed by fundamentalists. Iraq under Saddam was the closest thing we had to a modern secular arab state.
Anyone up for another crusade?
I don't think there really is a good solution to any of this. Not in the solve it without a lot of blood shed kind of way.
I say give notice how ever many days that is considered appropriate for civilians to evacuate. Then begin fire bombing just like in ww2. Be un merciful. Level any frontier areas. Ask do you surrender? If not rinse and repeat. But we all know that it just doesn't work that way anymore.
But even if that did happen, then what? Cherry picking government and democracy doesn't work unless the populace wishes, desires, and fights for it.
The reality is that as society, we lack the stomach and the balls to really fix this. And the political ties to the saudis and the like just runs too deep. Well and the fact that it's about oil. Let's not kid ourselves. If there wasn't any oil there, it would be just like Africa. Just another effed up place where everyone lives and dies by who cuts who's head off.
Or maybe just give them nukes. Let them go at it. Get it the **** over with in a hurry. Several millennia of conventional conflict hasn't solved anything in the middle east. Maybe it's time to up the game and think outside of the box...
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Albert Einstein
More correctly, they attempted it, never gained full control and were overwhelmed by fundamentalists. Iraq under Saddam was the closest thing we had to a modern secular arab state.
....and we now better understand very likely why he was the way he was.....
brickboy240
02-04-15, 16:03
They will keep doing these things...and they will get even more creative....because who the hell is going to stop them?
....Barry?
LOL
So when the JDL engaged in acts of terrorism it had nothing to do with religion?
My point was that the majority of Muslims don't have the same beliefs as these sick whackos and I'm don't see why everyone is so quick to lump 1.8 billion people in with these whackos, and as an extension, consider those 1.8 billion people our enemy, which is exactly what these whackos want.
-john
My point was that the majority of Muslims don't have the same beliefs as these sick whackos and I'm don't see why everyone is so quick to lump 1.8 billion people in with these whackos, and as an extension, consider those 1.8 billion people our enemy, which is exactly what these whackos want.
-john
Then how do YOU think that we should proceed with this clear threat?
My point was that the majority of Muslims don't have the same beliefs as these sick whackos and I'm don't see why everyone is so quick to lump 1.8 billion people in with these whackos, and as an extension, consider those 1.8 billion people our enemy, which is exactly what these whackos want.
-john
Really? The majority of Muslims when polled respond that those who insult Islam should be put to death...
My point was that the majority of Muslims don't have the same beliefs as these sick whackos and I'm don't see why everyone is so quick to lump 1.8 billion people in with these whackos, and as an extension, consider those 1.8 billion people our enemy, which is exactly what these whackos want.
-john
Because either 1.8 BILLION Muslims are so weak willed and pathetic that they can't stop this madness, or they don't consider it madness at all. Crazy? Or pathetic and pitiable creatures? Which would they prefer we think of them? :confused:
As Chris Kyle stated "savages!".
My point was that the majority of Muslims don't have the same beliefs as these sick whackos and I'm don't see why everyone is so quick to lump 1.8 billion people in with these whackos, and as an extension, consider those 1.8 billion people our enemy, which is exactly what these whackos want.
-john
Asked and answered. It is because that "majority" still believes in the validity of concepts like "Jihad" and that Islam is the "one true religion." They may not be sawing heads off or shooting people over cartoons but they hold the same core beliefs.
If the "vast majority" truly did NOT share these views Islamic terrorists would be as rare as Christian abortion clinic bombers and Jewish witch hunters. The terrorists simply wouldn't be tolerated by the rest of the Islamic population.
The reality is you have entire countries which practice Sharia and an incomprehensible number of Muslims who are devoted to radical fundamentalism such as Wahabi. These are not a "few whackos." If it was just a "few whackos" we wouldn't be having problems in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The Branch Davidians were an example of a "few whackos" and that is why they never took territory and changed borders on maps.
Well, for one, target the bad actors, not the general population.
Second, we have to really commit. Sorta-kinda-in isn't going to work. And for the long haul. This means commitment from both the government and the people. Not just drones, but boots, whatever it takes.
We need to find a way to get security in the regions. We can't do it all at once, but we can target areas and work to get the locals and others to slowly assume responsibility. We can't rush it either. We all know what happens then.
We need to work with the regions to build economic health.
-john
Unless Arab nations act alone to fix the ISIS threat, then it will remain. I don't think that the Arabs will do anything other than beat their gums and goats. The U.S. worries too much about world opinion to do it right and is unwilling to allow the collateral damage required. Too, our population would soon cease supporting the cause.
If you read about some of WW2's Pacific battles with the Japanese, you see data like this: 15,000 enemy killed and 3 captured. In my youth I talked with many veterans of the Pacific war, and if they're telling the truth, then there was a reason for these outcomes. Also we burned up entire cities with napalm resulting in horrendous numbers of civilian deaths. Unless ISIS can be fought with such ferocity, I see no hope of success. I'm not sure that I have the stomach for WW2 carpet bombing. I'm just not sure.
Outlander Systems
02-04-15, 18:22
Don't mince words. Islam is a ****ing disease. Period. Full stop.
Cut the bullshit.
Show me a a group of radical, terroristic extremist Amish.
Point me in the direction of a blood-thirsty Zen death-cult.
Other than oil, that entire area of the planet brings absolutely nothing...NOTHING to the table of civilization.
It is a biting gnat on the ass of humanity.
Don't mince words. Islam is a ****ing disease. Period. Full stop.
Cut the bullshit.
Show me a a group of radical, terroristic extremist Amish.
Point me in the direction of a blood-thirsty Zen death-cult.
Other than oil, that entire area of the planet brings absolutely nothing...NOTHING to the table of civilization.
It is a biting gnat on the ass of humanity.
Hate much?
Plenty of other Religions are involved in mass killing. Christianity, hell even Buddhist are guilty of it.
The irony is that your attitude and words are exactly what the extremist we are talking about say.
Outlander Systems
02-04-15, 18:55
Hate much?
Plenty of other Religions are involved in mass killing. Christianity, hell even Buddhist are guilty of it.
The irony is that your attitude and words are exactly what the extremist we are talking about say.
I'm not talking about "Religion".
I'm talking about the culture that feeds this type of bullshit.
And the difference here, is that, I can find Islam to be absolutely disgusting, and simultaneously not feel the need to light human beings on fire, behead anyone, or generally accept any crap pumped into my mind by some pastor.
I'm not talking about "Religion".
I'm talking about the culture that feeds this type of bullshit.
And the difference here, is that, I can find Islam to be absolutely disgusting, and simultaneously not feel the need to light human beings on fire, behead anyone, or generally accept any crap pumped into my mind by some pastor.
But you are talking about religion. You stated:
Don't mince words. Islam is a ****ing disease. Period. Full stop.
Cut the bullshit.
......
Neither the mainstream religion nor the culture is any worse than any other religion or culture we have around today. I hate all religions equally, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, etc. I refuse to blind myself to the misdeeds of one while attacking others. Are all Christians terrible because of the Ethnic cleansing of Bosnia Muslims? My friend Emina survived that event. She is a Muslim who was persecuted, attacked, and injured by god fearing Christians. So would she be justified in saying that Christianity is a disease?
Are the people who Burned this pilot alive sub human animals who need to be eradicated from the face of this earth? Hell yes. I think every member here would agree with that. Where I, and others, start taking issue is when you start lumping entire peoples into that same category. If you want to talk about the Sub Culture that fosters this, or the extremist in the religion, or even the idiot leaders of some of these countries that use this to foster their backwards beliefs than I am right there with you. But that is not what is being said by a number of people.
I also see a number of people whom I respect deeply for their service making comments about everyone over there being savages. they are very, very wrong. Their own experiences were skewed. They were not there on a shopping trip. They were there to kill the people who needed killing. That means they dealt with sub standard portions of the population in bad areas. It would be like judging all Americans by going to the worst part of Detroit and fighting against gangs for a year. Than saying that all Americans are like that.
We want things to be simple. All X are bad, all Y are good. But you know as well as I do that it isn't like that.
Averageman
02-04-15, 19:24
I'm not talking about "Religion".
I'm talking about the culture that feeds this type of bullshit.
And the difference here, is that, I can find Islam to be absolutely disgusting, and simultaneously not feel the need to light human beings on fire, behead anyone, or generally accept any crap pumped into my mind by some pastor.
I would have to agree with you on some of that.
If it truely were purely the religon, then how do you explain why these guys certainly seem to be killing more of their fellow Muslims in the name of Jihad than Christians.
On the other hand those who would label Saudi's and Kuwaiti's "Moderate" might want to go there and live for a year or so and then report back to us. Moderate is a very relative term.
As of so far this year, the new King of Saudi Arabia has ordered I believe 30 + people put to death. The story I related earlier about the "Ramadan Police' certainly sealed the deal on my opinion of there moderation.
So is it moderate to cut someones head off if they insult the King, or is it moderate for a Man to slap a Woman in the face hard enough to break her nose for drinking a soda in public during Ramadan?
These are the folks we call Moderate and are helping us in our war against extreamisits.
Outlander Systems. In the interest of peace can we at least agree that ISIS needs a gift in the form of high explosives delivered at high speeds directly into their bedroom? :D
Hate much?
Plenty of other Religions are involved in mass killing. Christianity, hell even Buddhist are guilty of it.
The irony is that your attitude and words are exactly what the extremist we are talking about say.
No, they aren't. Not even remotely. There are a few sporadic pockets of backwards cultures involved in mass killings that happen to identify as Christian, etc., but you simply can't compare them to what's happening with Muslim regions in a theocratic culture. It's like comparing a swimming pool to the Pacific Ocean, so stop it.
But you are talking about religion. You stated:
Neither the mainstream religion nor the culture is any worse than any other religion or culture we have around today. I hate all religions equally, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, etc. I refuse to blind myself to the misdeeds of one while attacking others. Are all Christians terrible because of the Ethnic cleansing of Bosnia Muslims? My friend Emina survived that event. She is a Muslim who was persecuted, attacked, and injured by god fearing Christians. So would she be justified in saying that Christianity is a disease?
Are the people who Burned this pilot alive sub human animals who need to be eradicated from the face of this earth? Hell yes. I think every member here would agree with that. Where I, and others, start taking issue is when you start lumping entire peoples into that same category. If you want to talk about the Sub Culture that fosters this, or the extremist in the religion, or even the idiot leaders of some of these countries that use this to foster their backwards beliefs than I am right there with you. But that is not what is being said by a number of people.
I also see a number of people whom I respect deeply for their service making comments about everyone over there being savages. they are very, very wrong. Their own experiences were skewed. They were not there on a shopping trip. They were there to kill the people who needed killing. That means they dealt with sub standard portions of the population in bad areas. It would be like judging all Americans by going to the worst part of Detroit and fighting against gangs for a year. Than saying that all Americans are like that.
We want things to be simple. All X are bad, all Y are good. But you know as well as I do that it isn't like that.
So do you think 1.8 BILLION Muslims are so pathetically cowed by these savages that they can't fix the problem? Or do you think on some deep down level, they refuse to because they just don't disagree with it as much as they say they do? There is no Door #3 BTW. :(
[QUOTE=glocktogo;2076030]No, they aren't. Not even remotely. There are a few sporadic pockets of backwards cultures involved in mass killings that happen to identify as Christian, etc., but you simply can't compare them to what's happening with Muslim regions in a theocratic culture. It's like comparing a swimming pool to the Pacific OTE]
Well said. I agree
So when it is Christians targeting Muslims because they are muslim they just happen to identify as Christian but don't represent Christianity. But when a Muslim does it they represent all Muslims. Got it.
And of course the 100,000 or so dead in Bosnia doesnt' count right? Or the tens of thousands of people where were raped and tortured? Nah, not at all. they were Muslim so they dont' count.
Muslims speak out every day against these atrocities. Hell Muslim governments are condemning ISIS. And Jordan seems about ready to put the hammer to them. What else do you want?
Actually I know what you want. Every time something happens you want every Muslim to get on TV and disavow the actions of these extremists. Anything less is unacceptable because you know that what you demand is unattainable by any group.
Like many others you seem to be making sure that you have a reason to hate them. reality be damned.
I mean no Muslim leaders have denounced terrorism or ISIS right?
Except Here...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
And here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364
Well, for one, target the bad actors, not the general population.
Yeah...except we have NEVER done that. That is why we have a "war on terrorism" and haven't declared war on any specific country. Hell even in Iraq Bush decided to "liberate" the Iraqis from their own government.
Wanna know who randomly targets populations? Islamic terrorists. Sadly there isn't a official "Terrorist State of Islam" although that is basically what ISIS is trying to establish.
In our wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan we were so limited by ROE that guys basically had to wait until they were shot at before they could engage a target. And in more than a few cases where guys came under fire and non combatants were shot, guys who were in the middle of armed conflict were later prosecuted for hitting non combatants.
That is a LOOOONG way from targeting "populations."
So when it is Christians targeting Muslims because they are muslim they just happen to identify as Christian but don't represent Christianity. But when a Muslim does it they represent all Muslims. Got it. No, you don't got it. Combine all the Christian vs. Christian, Christian vs. Muslim and Christian vs. every one else, and it doesn't match up to The Muslim attacks and killings of the past 20 years.
And of course the 100,000 or so dead in Bosnia doesnt' count right? Or the tens of thousands of people where were raped and tortured? Nah, not at all. they were Muslim so they dont' count. Two points. One, that was 20 years ago. Two, who came to the aid of the Muslims in Bosnia when Christians were murdering them? Seems to me I remember a whole lot of predominantly Christian countries came to their aid. Are you trying to say they didn't? If we hated all Muslims because of their religion, why would we do that?
Muslims speak out every day against these atrocities. Hell Muslim governments are condemning ISIS. And Jordan seems about ready to put the hammer to them. What else do you want? Quite frankly, talk is cheap. As I've said before, the very Imams who actively support these savages in back will parrot the Imams who honestly don't support them up front. Are you denying they find it perfectly acceptable to lie to non believers?
Actually I know what you want. Every time something happens you want every Muslim to get on TV and disavow the actions of these extremists. Anything less is unacceptable because you know that what you demand is unattainable by any group. No, I want them to get off their asses and go kill these ****ers! If a wide range of Christians were actively killing Muslims or Catholics or any other religious group across the globe, I'd say go kill those ****ers too!
Like many others you seem to be making sure that you have a reason to hate them. reality be damned.
I mean no Muslim leaders have denounced terrorism or ISIS right?
Except Here...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
And here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364
See above. How many of these leaders have actively lobbied the great Muslim societies and countries to declare war on the savages? How many of them have held recruiting drives to enlist soldiers in the fight? How many of their Mosques have held meetings with their adherents to do this? Oh, and your source is complete crap. Let's see:
The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation: The Islamic State Has "Nothing To Do With Islam," Has Committed Crimes "That Cannot Be Tolerated." As the Vatican's internal news source reported, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world, condemned the Islamic State's persecution of of Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq, saying the "forced deportation under the threat of execution" is a "crime that cannot be tolerated."
How many of those predominantly Muslim countries have officially declared war on IS? How many of them have sent troops to fight IS? Seriously, if 1.4 BILLION Muslims found IS to be intolerable, they'd be erased from the face of the earth. Unless of course they're so weak and inept that 90% can't handle 10%?
And this one takes the cake:
CAIR Repeatedly Condemned The Islamic State As "Un-Islamic And Morally Repugnant." In a July 7 statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the terrorist group "un-Islamic and morally repugnant," noted that the Islamic State's "human rights abuses on the ground are well-documented," and called on other Muslim community leaders to speak out against the violence. CAIR reiterated the condemnation of the Islamic State as "both un-Islamic and morally repugnant" on August 11, and on August 21, CAIR once again condemned the group, calling the killing of American journalist James Foley "gruesome and barbaric"
CAIR? Seriously? ****ing CAIR? You really should vet your source material more thoroughly if you want to be taken serious. :rolleyes:
My comments in blue. Your argument is weak sauce my friend. Try harder.
Hate much?
Plenty of other Religions are involved in mass killing. Christianity, hell even Buddhist are guilty of it.
The irony is that your attitude and words are exactly what the extremist we are talking about say.
I would love to know about mass killings done for Buddha. And I don't mean the standard military of Burma where Buddhism is a popular religion. I want to see the equivalent of a "fatwa" or a declaration of "jihad."
Yeah...except we have NEVER done that. That is why we have a "war on terrorism" and haven't declared war on any specific country. Hell even in Iraq Bush decided to "liberate" the Iraqis from their own government.
Wanna know who randomly targets populations? Islamic terrorists. Sadly there isn't a official "Terrorist State of Islam" although that is basically what ISIS is trying to establish.
In our wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan we were so limited by ROE that guys basically had to wait until they were shot at before they could engage a target. And in more than a few cases where guys came under fire and non combatants were shot, guys who were in the middle of armed conflict were later prosecuted for hitting non combatants.
That is a LOOOONG way from targeting "populations."
Funny thing about that. Don't you think that if the peaceful Muslims in that area (who allegedly make up 90% of the population) were basically given the will and might of the greatest military force the world has ever known, and they REALLY wanted these evil bastards eliminated, don't you kind think we'd have completed the mission and been given a heroes parade by those Muslims for doing it? :confused:
So do you think 1.8 BILLION Muslims are so pathetically cowed by these savages that they can't fix the problem?
Of course that is the case. It doesn't take that much to control a population.
I know everyone says the wouldn't stand for it, but really, if the streets were owned by batshit crazy mafia who would not just kill you, but your entire family and nobody would help because they'd kill them and their family, would you really not stand for it?
-john
Yeah...except we have NEVER done that.
...
That is a LOOOONG way from targeting "populations."
I didn't say we were, I was responding to those seemed to be suggesting that course of action.
-john
Of course that is the case. It doesn't take that much to control a population.
I know everyone says the wouldn't stand for it, but really, if the streets were owned by batshit crazy mafia who would not just kill you, but your entire family and nobody would help because they'd kill them and their family, would you really not stand for it?
-john
No, I wouldn't. A lot of people wouldn't. Do you think we beat the Germans solely on invading forces? We worked with guerrilla groups behind enemy lines to degrade and demoralize their ability to fight us. Any free society that's been subjugated by a terrorizing force will have people that stand up. Look at that poor bastard in Tienanmen Square who faced down a tank!
Now if you're suggesting that the Muslim population has been cowed by their own religion and cultures to meekly accept the rule of these savages, feel free to make a case for that. We've heard all kinds of pabulum about how Islam is a peaceful religion and these savages are not representative of it, but we've yet to hear a single viable explanation as to why they seem to commit savagery in the name of Islam with near impunity? I mean, if drawing a picture of Mohammed is verboten and would get you stoned in places like Syria, wouldn't you think the wholesale slaughter of their fellow Muslims would cause a worldwide uproar? :confused:
My comments in blue. Your argument is weak sauce my friend. Try harder.
You my friend don't have an argument. that is the problem. You seem to want to boil it down to. Nu uh. I don't believe you. You ignore reality to make it fit your on twisted views.. reminds me of the very people we are talking about here. You said it yourself. You want them to go kill the others. I don't see you grabbing your AR and going over there of your own free will. tell you what. I will even buy you the plane ticket.
So when it is Christians targeting Muslims because they are muslim they just happen to identify as Christian but don't represent Christianity. But when a Muslim does it they represent all Muslims. Got it.
And of course the 100,000 or so dead in Bosnia doesnt' count right? Or the tens of thousands of people where were raped and tortured? Nah, not at all. they were Muslim so they dont' count.
Muslims speak out every day against these atrocities. Hell Muslim governments are condemning ISIS. And Jordan seems about ready to put the hammer to them. What else do you want?
Actually I know what you want. Every time something happens you want every Muslim to get on TV and disavow the actions of these extremists. Anything less is unacceptable because you know that what you demand is unattainable by any group.
Like many others you seem to be making sure that you have a reason to hate them. reality be damned.
I mean no Muslim leaders have denounced terrorism or ISIS right?
Except Here...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
And here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364
You miss the obvious point. Correlation is not causation. The Bosnians were not commanded by their religion to slaughter Muslims.
There is an undeniably violent component to Islam that is lacking in other world religions.
Watched the video.... effing A that was awful. The part smothering him with a loader was a little much. What a way to die...
If that wasn't an f u with an exclamation point, I don't know what is.
You my friend don't have an argument. that is the problem. You seem to want to boil it down to. Nu uh. I don't believe you. You ignore reality to make it fit your on twisted views.. reminds me of the very people we are talking about here. You said it yourself. You want them to go kill the others. I don't see you grabbing your AR and going over there of your own free will. tell you what. I will even buy you the plane ticket.
Yes, I do. You just don't like what it says. You can have your own opinions, but not your own set of facts. You've yet to come up with a remotely plausible theory as to why the world of Islam can't reign in their own savages the way we do ours? I'm serious, you try to compare a tiny handful of abortion clinic bombers or WBC nutbags to suicide bombers and Jihadi Johns? You REALLY need to step it up if you want any consideration on the subject at all.
And actually, I HAVE been over there with a rifle (and various other weapons). I spend my work days CONUS in defense against terrorists now that I'm getting a little long in the tooth, but you bet your ass I'd gear up and go at it if I thought it was absolutely necessary. Question is, why aren't a large majority of young American Muslims doing it? I know that if I were a highly religious Christian (I consider myself a spiritual but secular person of Christian leanings) and my fellow Christians were doing what their fellow Muslims were doing? I'd already be there. The truth is, you don't have any idea why they're not. You can't put forth one single theory on why Islamic attributed terrorism has run rampant in the 21st Century.
I'm all ears if you really want to sway my opinion, but you'd better bring your A game, cause you're WAY behind right now. :(
P.S., you didn't answer a single one of my questions. May I suggest you start there?
SeriousStudent
02-04-15, 21:58
Folks, let's all take a moment to slow down and take deep breaths. It would be neat if this thread stayed open.
But it's starting to be about members here, and not the murder of a military officer captured by terrorists. That's not what we do here, right?
Folks, let's all take a moment to slow down and take deep breaths. It would be neat if this thread stayed open.
But it's starting to be about members here, and not the murder of a military officer captured by terrorists. That's not what we do here, right?
While I do think the debate is getting a little heated, I don't mean to focus on fellow members. I'm just sick and tired of the hollow rhetoric (on both sides). I don't hate Muslims any more than I hate everyone else (I'm very equal opportunity that way). What I do hate is PC BS intended to stifle debate and shame those who reject it. I truly want an explanation how a rag tag bunch of nutbags that allegedly no one supports, can amass 65,000 fighters and commit such atrocities in the midst of all these righteous people? Does anyone else see the absurdity in it?
I just don't believe that all these righteous Muslims are getting twirled around the little finger of IS, al Qaeda, etc. I just don't buy that they're completely bereft of moral fortitude and ability to say "enough is enough". What would Sherlock Holmes say about this? Let's strip the emotional fantasyland pie in the sky beliefs out of the debate and call a spade a spade.
If we can't do that, then we will live till the end of days witnessing these atrocities and I just can't accept that. :(
I'm signing off now to have a drink. Let's see what tomorrow brings? Cheers! :)
SeriousStudent
02-04-15, 22:21
Hopefully, it brings more drinks.
Whiskey_Bravo
02-04-15, 22:33
Funny thing about that. Don't you think that if the peaceful Muslims in that area (who allegedly make up 90% of the population) were basically given the will and might of the greatest military force the world has ever known, and they REALLY wanted these evil bastards eliminated, don't you kind think we'd have completed the mission and been given a heroes parade by those Muslims for doing it? :confused:
Not a bad point.
Of course that is the case. It doesn't take that much to control a population.
I know everyone says the wouldn't stand for it, but really, if the streets were owned by batshit crazy mafia who would not just kill you, but your entire family and nobody would help because they'd kill them and their family, would you really not stand for it?
-john
If they were capable, it would have already happened. It takes a dense population of like minded people to permit such actions. That is why they have crips and bloods in Los Angeles, that is why they have "honor killings" in Dearborn. It is also why they have legal weed in CO, gambling in Vegas and why San Francisco still has hippies.
But with the exception of very localized communities, the "batshit mafia" and the US chapter of "Al Quida" don't stand a chance because they don't have the support of the vast majority of the population. But in places like Syria, Iraq and Yemen they do enjoy such popular support and are at least tolerated by the majority of the population much like Los Angeles tolerates Crips and Bloods.
And it actually takes a LOT to control a population, especially in this country. Otherwise we'd have been disarmed long ago by people who are a hell of a lot more effective than groups like ISIS. If a terrorist group tried to operate out in the open they wouldn't even last as long as Chris Dorner.
In our wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan we were so limited by ROE that guys basically had to wait until they were shot at before they could engage a target.
Where do you get that from?
Again, I cannot speak for Iraq, but for Afghanistan it is patently false information. That criteria has NEVER been part of the ROE.
Unless US forces were subject to a different "ROE" than the rest of ISAF, or command guidance was given for US forces regarding engagement criteria, these kinds of statements come from people who either 1) do not understand the different ROE's of the theather or 2) are misrepresenting the information in order to get a point across. I suspect a combination of both.
The ONLY guidance I am aware of that was given, came in 2009, when Gen McChrystal implemented some restrictions with regards to CAS.
Again, curious where you get it from.....
Where do you get that from?
Again, I cannot speak for Iraq, but for Afghanistan it is patently false information. That criteria has NEVER been part of the ROE.
Unless US forces were subject to a different "ROE" than the rest of ISAF, or command guidance was given for US forces regarding engagement criteria, these kinds of statements come from people who either 1) do not understand the different ROE's of the theather or 2) are misrepresenting the information in order to get a point across. I suspect a combination of both.
The ONLY guidance I am aware of that was given, came in 2009, when Gen McChrystal implemented some restrictions with regards to CAS.
Again, curious where you get it from.....
I hate snopes, but this is the first thing that came up in a google search. I remember reading these rumors myself.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/unloaded.asp
I hate snopes, but this is the first thing that came up in a google search. I remember reading these rumors myself.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/unloaded.asp
Not really related.
A deployed force will use something that is called a Force Protection Board, which will designate dress code, PPE regulations, vehicle movement regulations, as well as weapons readiness level regulations. It is usually split between inside and outside the wire. It is true that there a readiness level option for mag loaded/empty chamber, but it is never used outside the wire.
The statement I called into question is related to ROE, and that it is supposedly not allowed to shoot without first being engaged.
Whatever happened to those daisy cutters and moabs that were all the rage around 2002-03?
Not really related.
A deployed force will use something that is called a Force Protection Board, which will designate dress code, PPE regulations, vehicle movement regulations, as well as weapons readiness level regulations. It is usually split between inside and outside the wire. It is true that there a readiness level option for mag loaded/empty chamber, but it is never used outside the wire.
The statement I called into question is related to ROE, and that it is supposedly not allowed to shoot without first being engaged.
ROE do limit actions in Afghanistan. All ROEs do. Honce the name. It is not the SOP stuff you are talking about. Those are just SOPs and no not everyone followed the same SOPs or had he same ROE. It is the actual rules that were limiting the SOPs that you are describing are self imposed.
Averageman
02-05-15, 09:30
ROE do limit actions in Afghanistan. All ROEs do. Honce the name. It is not the SOP stuff you are talking about. Those are just SOPs and no not everyone followed the same SOPs or had he same ROE. It is the actual rules that were limiting the SOPs that you are describing are self imposed.
I was never an 11 anything, but as a 19K I've had them give me the "Not another Main Gun Round will be fired without permission from the Battalion Commander."
So, I guess the SOP or ROE or whatever you might want to call it can be changed by the 05/06 in the chain whenever he's feeling froggy.
The radio traffic and general frustration with the guy sitting somewhere in a TOC can be mind numbing.
I remember walking out of the hotel I was staying at to find a young lady bleeding from the nose and crying because she happened to walk out of the door drinking a Soda during Ramadan and ran in to two guys who thought smacking her for breaking their religious laws during Ramadan was a good thing to do. You know what, nobody did anything about it, that was Okay even with the Cops.
FWIW, only fifty years ago today in this country, the same kind of scene played out where ordinary Joes roughed up people because they dared to vote, or wanted to date the the "wrong" person or otherwise just didn't "know their place". People who defied this were intimated, beaten and sometimes worse. Emphasis on "worse" as you go farther back in time.
This is despite the founding of our country based on tolerance and freedom, a strong tradition of rule of law, large population of Christians, relative economic prosperity and all the other cool stuff people have been pointing to in this thread that demarks the differences between "us" and "them".
I'm not saying these things are excusable. Far from it. I'm just saying remember we have only recently become enlightened, and it was a long, hard road despite the relative fortune we enjoyed.
If aliens landed here 100 years ago, would you have them carpet bomb the US till it was glassed over because we were all complicit in the bad things that went on, or would you say "go after the extremists and foster an environment where they can become enlightened"?
-john
If they were capable, it would have already happened. It takes a dense population of like minded people to permit such actions.
I'd say it takes inertia. It's a lot easier to stop something before it gets up momentum. Once it gets rolling, it's hard to stop.
-john
ROE do limit actions in Afghanistan. All ROEs do. Honce the name. It is not the SOP stuff you are talking about. Those are just SOPs and no not everyone followed the same SOPs or had he same ROE. It is the actual rules that were limiting the SOPs that you are describing are self imposed.
I was specifically adressing the statement:
so limited by ROE that guys basically had to wait until they were shot at before they could engage a target
This is not correct according to the Soldier Card, and it is not correct according international law - right to self defense. This is specified on the soldier card, where it clearly states that anything described on that card does not limit the right to individual self defense. Self defense extends beyond waiting to be engaged.
I assume that you have deployed there. If so, you know that there is not a single, static ROE. There are several that go beyond the basic Soldier Card. Some of which grant you significantly more leeway with regards to shooting the enemy. Particularly if you did your dues when planning, and had a good grasp of the area you were going into (intel on enemy actions, enemy dispositions, local populace, enemy TTP's etc), getting release on these ROE was not an issue.
Yes, some forces deploy with caveats. Not what I am discussing.
The SOP, Force Protection Board stuff was just a quick reply to ryr8828, and not the topic at hand. Force Protection guidelines were RC specific, not country. Some info on the board, without going into detail, was regulated for all of ISAF.
The point still remains, it is not the lack of a ROBUST ROE that was an issue in Afghanistan. The ROE was plenty robust.
I do understand what you are saying. But the ROE in Afghanistan was one of the more restrictive that I have worked with.
Joe Rogan interviewing Ali Rizvi who is a writer, musician, physician, currently working on his first book, The Atheist Muslim. I started the clip where they're discussing ISIS and Ali Rizvi's opinion about how many Muslims support what ISIS is doing.
http://youtu.be/9-L626DnAuM?t=14m38s
I do understand what you are saying. But the ROE in Afghanistan was one of the more restrictive that I have worked with.
I am genuinely curious as to the context, and what constitutes a non-restrictive ROE for you.
I feel the opposite; the ROE in Afghanistan gave us plenty of options, based on what the mission required to best fit the overall strategy.
I did not feel that there was any doubt or uncertainties surrounding when we could use deadly force outside of clear self defense situations - and we most certainly did, to good effect.
-We shot first, if we could help it
-We engaged out of range of their small arms using superior weapons and optics/sensors
-We engaged enemies who were "unaware" of our presence
-We engaged fleeing enemies
Clearly, what you and I did was miles apart wrt short term and long term goals, as well as mission spectrum so that will color the outlook.
Still, a free-for-all shoot on sight policy might not be the best policy on a strategic level, although on the ground level it might be the only/best/desired option in a given situation or for a given mission.
Sometimes the gain of taking someone out just isn't there. Bombing or engaging with small arms 3-4 INS just because you can isn't always the tactically sound thing to do. Mission dictates course of action.
Instead of re-hashing all the old rhetoric on Islam/Muslims, why not try to suggest actual, viable strategies for the situation we are facing?
What should be done? Should the West back off, and let the ME-nations handle it themselves?
Should a coalition of western nations commit to military action in the region on a larger scale than now?
What is the likely development in the area if we continue the present course?
What is the desired end-state?
And just to clear up some terminologies:
ISIS - Islamic State In Syria. Term used by enemies of ISIS since it does not acknowledge the Islamic State
ISIL - The Islamic State In Iraq and the Levant
DAESH(Da'ish) - Arabic acronym for Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām, which is ISIS
IS - Islamic State. Used by supporters of DAESH, as they acknowledge the Caliphate. Some use IS out of ignorance.
The origins of the names of these groups come from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, established in 1999. This group changed it's name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn in 2003, or Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The "Varsity squad" term has become sort of a farse, but it is interesting that I tried to point out the skill level of these guys in a thread, and some members here we quick to dismiss my comments, and call these guys amateurs. Anywho, it is important to note that ISIS have skilled and trained military officers in their ranks, some of Saddams top guys who were in the deck of cards of Iraq's most wanted men. These guys have fought US forces, Shia ISF, Shia militia, and Bashar in Syria since 2003. They know insurgency, and have a adopted a level of brutality that exceed that of their enemies.
The situation can be summed up as follows:
DAESH has great momentum in Syria and Iraq.
AQ has great momentum in Yemen
AQ and others have great momentum in Somalia (Al-Shabaab)
Extremist Jihadists have great momentum in Libya and Nigeria (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Boko Haram)
It is not far fetched to conclude that the current open ground war can spread to mainland Europe, if these factions so desire.
FWIW, only fifty years ago today in this country, the same kind of scene played out where ordinary Joes roughed up people because they dared to vote, or wanted to date the the "wrong" person or otherwise just didn't "know their place". People who defied this were intimated, beaten and sometimes worse. Emphasis on "worse" as you go farther back in time.
This is despite the founding of our country based on tolerance and freedom, a strong tradition of rule of law, large population of Christians, relative economic prosperity and all the other cool stuff people have been pointing to in this thread that demarks the differences between "us" and "them".
I'm not saying these things are excusable. Far from it. I'm just saying remember we have only recently become enlightened, and it was a long, hard road despite the relative fortune we enjoyed.
If aliens landed here 100 years ago, would you have them carpet bomb the US till it was glassed over because we were all complicit in the bad things that went on, or would you say "go after the extremists and foster an environment where they can become enlightened"?
-john
LOL. Like women will ever be able to vote in those places 100 year from now. Apples and crescent wrenches. You'd have to go back to the days of slavery to try and draw such parallels.
I'd say it takes inertia. It's a lot easier to stop something before it gets up momentum. Once it gets rolling, it's hard to stop.
-john
That is your opinion, and it is my opinion that it doesn't work that way. National Socialism worked in Germany because it was compatible with what the population wanted. National Socialism (in the form of the Bund) failed here because it did NOT enjoy popular support despite a significant population of Americans who came from Germany and shared some of the old country values.
But they preferred the values of their new country and that is why my Grandfather bombed the "fatherland" during WWII.
This is not correct according to the Soldier Card, and it is not correct according international law - right to self defense.
It is NOT correct to the soldier card, but when the Marines were Fallujah that is exactly what they were subjected to. It happened.
Averageman
02-05-15, 15:20
FWIW, only fifty years ago today in this country, the same kind of scene played out where ordinary Joes roughed up people because they dared to vote, or wanted to date the the "wrong" person or otherwise just didn't "know their place". People who defied this were intimated, beaten and sometimes worse. Emphasis on "worse" as you go farther back in time.
This is despite the founding of our country based on tolerance and freedom, a strong tradition of rule of law, large population of Christians, relative economic prosperity and all the other cool stuff people have been pointing to in this thread that demarks the differences between "us" and "them".
I'm not saying these things are excusable. Far from it. I'm just saying remember we have only recently become enlightened, and it was a long, hard road despite the relative fortune we enjoyed.
If aliens landed here 100 years ago, would you have them carpet bomb the US till it was glassed over because we were all complicit in the bad things that went on, or would you say "go after the extremists and foster an environment where they can become enlightened"?
-john
If you really want to compare what we did in our history and then compare that to what is happening now in the M.E. I think that line of thinking is fundamentally wrong and flawed.
Although our country was founded on compromise and in order to unite the states we had to allow the south keep slavery that's a given, but even at that point there were folks willing to stand up and point out the wrong and the hypocrisy. There were people fighting that from day one.
I think we can always look back and point fingers, but it isn't 1965, 1865 or 1775.
We are living in the 21st Century and dealing with an enemy that really wants to live in the 10 th Century, but willing to use todays technology to die and kill for their religion. You don't see a lot of Muslims standing up and pointing out that the idea of fighting Christians, Jews and other sects of Islam is wrong, for the most part I have yet to hear one person in the M.E. staying in the M.E. and voicing those opinions.
Looking closely at those differences then you must ask what is the fundamental difference? I would say they have never developed a respect for human life and individual freedoms.
They love our Cellphones, Cars and A/C, but still don't want their women to drive, have a clitoris or respect the human rights of anyone even slightly different than them.
So how do you deal with them, we've tried to ignore them, tried to deal with them and finally after attacked time and again we've finally decided to tie one hand behind our back and fight them. After all of that as we are essentially forced to defend ourselves by fighting them we continue to apologize for doing so.
We're not going to win this one unless we change.
It is NOT correct to the soldier card, but when the Marines were Fallujah that is exactly what they were subjected to. It happened.
Not according to this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/11/some_thoughts_on_fallujah.html
l
et's look first at what the rules of engagement were for Marines fighting in Fallujah. Though the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), whose units were, and are, in action there, will not divulge specific rules of engagement for obvious reasons, we do know that Marines were authorized the use of force if confronted with a hostile act or hostile intent.
Or this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/themes/roe.html
Fallujah II is an example of where the rules of engagement were dramatically relaxed to allow for Marines to fire much more liberally, shall we say, than they would be in other environments.
Or this actual US ROE card:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/roecard.pdf
It is NOT correct to the soldier card, but when the Marines were Fallujah that is exactly what they were subjected to. It happened.
Who the fu€k told you that?
Were there ever Marines in Fallujah that needed to be engaged to return fire? I'm sure. RCT, BLT, Bn, various levels of command can and will authorize ROEs as restrictive or non-restrictive as needed. Sometime in early 05 and onward, Fallujah no longer became a Clear and Hold focal point and COIN became the rule again. Like Ramadi and Baghdad/Sadr City, the happenin' dudes seemed to go where the party was.
But I'm guessing your reference to "Marines in Falluja" was the Vigilint Resolve (CHHYYUUUTTT!)/Phantom Fury crew. And if that's what you heard was the ROE you were bamboozled.
There's a time and a place to kiss hands and shake babies, and a time to clear living rooms with frags. The big picture isn't nearly as foolish as many believe, it's just mucked up by GOs who want to make a name of themselves. I can kill two Muj every day and never run out. If I can open a Wal-Mart and give the majority an alternative (few low-mid level fighters actually care about jihad) method for stackin bands, that's an easier to control low risk solution that doesn't put many American lives as readily taken. Will the average first term enlisted Grunt think that is a viable plan? Not likely, he wants to fight and he wants to see the bad guys lose. But even a year long tour is going to be a very small glimpse of what the long road of reconditioning a demographic actually looks like.
You're also wrong about women being so passive and unmotivated. Women have fought back, voted, and kept women's medical clinics and schools open. This is in complete defiance and carries a death sentence but it seems the subhuman women over there have more balls and conviction to fight than most American men ever will.
Anyway...
Not according to this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/11/some_thoughts_on_fallujah.html
l
Or this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/themes/roe.html
Or this actual US ROE card:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/roecard.pdf
Yeah, you got it. You don't even have to go that far back. Even in AFG, a country far more tribal and traditional than Iraq and one where engaging key leaders and local pops is literally life or death for small FID units, there were Go Zones...
Ramadi 06-07, Now Zad 08, Nad-I-Ali 08-09, Trek Nawa 09, Marjah 09-11, Sangin 11-13 and a few others like Musa Qala and the like. Some villages were so consistently bad guys that being a MAM was all it took. The real victory comes from giving loose ROE to intelligent and responsible ground troops. Just because you can't kill someone, doesn't mean you have to. And just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Quality troops and small unit leaders can cover a large AO and separate friend from foe and, without having a big comfy FOB to go back to, the immediate risk associated with such carefree target selection.
And so it goes.
I know I sound like the defender of Islam sometimes. That's not the case, in fact I have no more or less allegiance to one religion than another. What I detest is ignorance. Not because I believe I'm super smart and better than anyone but because I understand the outcome, the quick escalation of group thinking in the face of ignorance and fear. I'll explain as briefly as possible starting with this incident and ISIS, and so on.
ISIS has become as legitimate a military force as any terror or extremist organization, that's not really in question. What they are though is amateur and that's deeply ingrained in any fighting force with no real recruitment and selection process. Now as horrific as it may seem, the man in the cage was not "innocent". I don't think anyone gets in the hot seat of a jet to drop bombs or throws a mag in before patrol without thinking about the risks associated. He was captured running bomb runs against an enemy that is by now known for brutality, lack of structure, and is not a conventional force. I don't think he thought he was going to get a great room with a view. This is the problem with the mindset that cooperative capture will earn mercy from your captors but that's exactly what we do. So what makes these guys different that they're so capable of heinous behavior?
Ignorance. The lack of professional ethics that says "I will abide by my honor code even if it goes against my emotional response" within our own mil branches. When we take prisoners we are agreeing to protect them and give them safe while in our custody. Uncomfortable...maybe. But those ethics are beat into our head because we know that ALL of us are capable of the most horrific acts when emotionally driven.
Don't want to think we're like them? Go read through these threads and read what some members say we should do in retaliation. If anything we should know better, because we can't plead ignorance. Yet every thread like this we see the bravado and torture fantasies and in the real world, that shit takes hold of a group. Mix that with the stress and horror of war and you could have a group of American men, a militia for example, doing this exact same thing if no professional order was established.
These savages, they're not evil. Just ignorant. Now that's not an excuse and I'm fine with eradicating the lot of them but let's at least take a lesson from it. The common theme with them is Islam. Keep in mind, Islam didn't name them, they named themselves after Islam. And for a group of guys that can't read or write and are taught what the book says in training camps, their ignorance is capitalized. They're being given justification they want and there's no true link to Islam there. If I took a bunch of kids and raised them in a lab with no outside influence, I could make them believe that being Christian means eating people. Doesn't have to mean they represent the Christian community but damn if they wouldn't insist their cannibalism was in the name of the lord. We weren't raised in a lab though. We don't think we can do a dance to control the rain or that a drought is the wrath of an angry God. We learn irrigation and weather patterns, we replace fear and irrational violence with knowledge and understanding of how things work.
They blame their savagery on Islam. We know better, illiteracy and poverty and manipulation is what made them into what we see now. Yet we're clearly being as easily swayed to believe that ALL Muslims are in some way guilty of being part of this savage uprising, that they are subhuman. And the problem with that is that believing "we" are better than "them" reenforces the belief that some people are worth less and can be killed. We're not better we just have better resources and education and societal norms that are able to exist in countries not torn by war for decades where the most violent thrive. So let's make sure we don't become them.
Who the fu€k told you that?
Maybe it was Sadr. I just remember watching it on the news and being flabbergasted. I remember Marines being interviewed about it and they were pretty much dismayed. I'll try and source it.
You're also wrong about women being so passive and unmotivated. Women have fought back, voted, and kept women's medical clinics and schools open. This is in complete defiance and carries a death sentence but it seems the subhuman women over there have more balls and conviction to fight than most American men ever will.
Anyway...
It wasn't a critique of the women, I'm aware they have been literally dying for the cause. It was a critique of a culture that still won't let women drive a car in some countries.
Not according to this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/11/some_thoughts_on_fallujah.html
l
Or this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/themes/roe.html
Or this actual US ROE card:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/roecard.pdf
Found it.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/12/06/politically-correct-rules-of-engagement-endanger-troops/
Seems it was pretty widespread.
The military has also tightened rules of engagement as the war has progressed, toughening the requirements before a sniper may shoot an Iraqi. Potential targets must be engaged in a hostile act, or show clear hostile intent.
The marines say insurgents know the rules, and now rarely carry weapons in the open. Instead, they pose as civilians and keep their weapons concealed in cars or buildings until just before they need them. Later, when they are done shooting, they put them swiftly out of sight and mingle with civilians.
“A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back, says Cpl. Peter Mattice, of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. “In Fallujah, [insurgents] know our [rules of engagement] – they know when to stop, just before we engage."
However, the new standard ROE promulgated this past summer (CJCSI 3121.01B) has individual self-defense described as a subset of unit self-defense.
Furthermore, the new regulation ominously adds some specific wording that says, “as such, commanders may limit the individual right of self-defense.”
Seems to be an ongoing multi theater issue as well.
http://victoriajackson.com/10529/us-troops-fed-insane-rules-engagement
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=721
In Fallujah in November of 2004, Bellavia’s unit learned firsthand the perils of that policy. After taking intense fire from a mosque, the GIs moved in to surround it. Restricted from entering the mosque themselves, the troops were forced to wait until an Iraqi unit could be found to enter the mosque and root out the attackers. “Meanwhile, we’re exposing ourselves to hellfire,” Bellavia recalls. “Even when the Iraqis arrived, we had to ask for permission to enter the firefight.... [We were] being asked to respect landmarks that we [knew] for a fact [were] being used as stockpiles for weapons. On the level, the whole thing is ridiculous.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/one-marines-views-on-afghanistan-2012-8
There is a lot of misrepresentation/misunderstanding in those articles.
Hostile intent or hostile act is not the same as being shot at. If anyone thinks so, they are mistaken.
Commanders can issue ENGAGEMENT CRITERIA as part of the Operations Order under Section III Execution - D Coordinating Instructions. These can limit the base ROE, if the commander feels it pertinent wrt to mission/situation.
With regards to preserving cultural landmarks, ie not blowing up the mosques, and civilian casualties/collateral damage, it is a compounded issue. According to LOAC, we are supposed to seek to preserve important landmarks. When an enemy uses protected buildings, like religious buildings, the risk of not eliminating the threat must be SEVERE before you can actually justify blowing it up. With regards to civilian casualties, you are required to minimize civilian casualties. That means no indiscriminate use of fires, and for CAS you will seek to deconflict as much as possible. For prep fires from air assets, you ususally do a thorough targeting process beforehand, and measure the targets value against LOAC (military neccessity), ROE and so forth. some targets are definitely of a high enough value that you will accept collateral damage.
I remember a situation we faced, and they are common, where the Taliban had children amongst them when they were shooting at us. We did not shoot back, or call in air strikes, because we did not want to kill these children. We could control the situation, and pull out. It is a risk you take then and there. Sometimes, the mission requires you to take extraordinary risk in order to reduce second and third order negative effects down the line.
Being in combat (contact/ambush) is not an arena where you follow a matrix, and choose a course of action based on what the matrix says. You need to assess the situation, enemy, terrain, own forces, civilian considerations etc., and make the call then and there as to what you are going to do.
Regarding the whole PID issue, isn't that sort of a given? That you should know what you are shooting at? Know the targets foreground and background? You started a facebook page where you ridiculed people who you felt violated the safety violations, but somehow Rule number 4 is not important in combat? It is important, to a certain extent. You are of course allowed to engage enemies that are cresting a ridge, knowing that some of your rounds will fly over the target and into an unknown area. That said, you cannot engage indiscriminately into blind areas, or engage targets you "think" is the enemy. There are situations where you can engage personell that are not brandishing firearms, but you need to have your ducks in a row....
And yes, media is everywhere. What we do on the ground will be scrutinized by people who have no clue as to what it's like, what the situation on the ground is. If this is affecting the morale of the troops, it is a leadership responsibility to fix the issue.
I'm going on record here to say anything Arctic posts from here on gets an automatic +1 from me. Better at wrestling words and all that.
Steyr I'm gonna tread lightly out of respect for the dead, many of whom unfortunately we're killed because of the actions of others. I'll say this, when you mentioned Marines struggling with mission accomplishment and ROEs, the two words that came to mind were "WHO" and "WHY". There's some areas of uncertainty but I'll comment on what I know. And remember that I'm not bashing anyone. I merely want to point out what I see when I read the same reference you linked.
"1st Bn 24th Marines in Falluja 06-07 something something ROEs are bad". Any Marine who's boots sank into hot Iraqi pavement knows that unit and there's an almost immediate response of solemn silence. 1/24 was/is a reserve unit and one of the first Marine reserve units to be handed a hot AO instead of augmenting a standing unit. Because of them and the monumental failure to prepare that unit for war, the entire training structure for reserve units had to be rebuilt. The ROEs were the last damn thing they needed to worry about.
"Cpl Grunt Nuts, discussing Haditha says blah blah ROEs no es bueno blah" Haditha is something that Marines and particularly enlisted leaders in the grunt units will argue about for some time. I see through the middle, but the issue overall wasn't the ROEs. The issue in Haditha was a loss of control by small unit leaders, their Marines needed to be lead but were instead let loose. There were more legitimate mil targets than the foreign media admits. There were also more innocent people laying dead after than is ever acceptable and, had they not been motivated by a chance to get revenge on an elusive enemy, the patrol and QRF should have never gone off the MSR into the houses and alleys. Either way, nobody that participated in what went down has a right to bitch about ROEs because they are the damn reason for strict ROEs in the first place.
"Business Insider Article by....Paul Szoldra" That's where you lost me. See I know Paul. To say we are friends would be a huge stretch. He often writes these weird opinion pieces and "articles" that are the journalistic equivalent of a coloring book. Buzzwords and pretty pictures. And while he was a Squad Leader in his time, he left a big part out. He was never in a gunfight, never fired his rifle, never was directly engaged in contact and forced to balance policy with intuition. That's not his fault and I don't hold that against him. I just fail to see how he, like LtCol Grossman, has any insight on the subject having no experience. It's disingenuous for him to use his background then make a completely subjective statement with no real knowledge and I don't look at him as someone whose advice I would ever heed.
It's been my experience that those who blame ROEs for failures are usually the ones who I'm glad aren't able to engage freely. I challenge you to present me with a scenario where I would be held back and maybe killed because ROEs prevent me from pulling the trigger. I really mean this, I think it would help clear up whatever confusion you may have.
The most dificult decisions I have ever made were way in the green for a good shoot but came with heavy consequences due to the horrific nature of war.
It's been my experience that those who blame ROEs for failures are usually the ones who I'm glad aren't able to engage freely. I challenge you to present me with a scenario where I would be held back and maybe killed because ROEs prevent me from pulling the trigger. I really mean this, I think it would help clear up whatever confusion you may have.
The most dificult decisions I have ever made were way in the green for a good shoot but came with heavy consequences due to the horrific nature of war.
Well first things first, I wasn't there. I only remember hearing it on the news and the subsequent discussions on TOS. But if things like not being able to return fire on a Mosque where you are taking fire from are true, then I have a huge problem with that.
I was watching reports of Marines who were complaining that they "could not fire, until fired upon" and to me that seems like a horrible restriction in a war where the enemy has no uniform. Not sure if the reports were accurate, it was the news after all.
But if things like not being able to return fire on a Mosque where you are taking fire from are true, then I have a huge problem with that.
Can you articulate why you have a problem with it?
Can you articulate why you have a problem with it?
Can you articulate why you don't? :confused:
Can you articulate why you don't? :confused:
Yeah I am with you. I don't care where the fire originates from. You should be able to retaliate.
Not saying you have to call in an arty strike but don't just sit there and take it.
Never said I don't. I am trying to understand, and hopefully I can provide some context as to the why, when he explains why he thinks it is a bad policy/rule.
Yeah I am with you. I don't care where the fire originates from. You should be able to retaliate.
Not saying you have to call in an arty strike but don't just sit there and take it.
It is not as straight forward as that.
It is not as straight forward as that.
Why not? Serious question. If you don't disagree, then what's to understand? We know exactly why they use Mosques as shields. It's the same reason they'll use Red Crescent ambulances to transport weapons, turn obvious civilian service vehicles into weapons and hide behind women and children. they have no honor. If they want to hide in a mosque and commit violence from within, that merely proves they don't consider it sacred after all. If they don't care, why should we?
Can you articulate why you have a problem with it?
Absolutely. It creates a safe haven for those who are trying to kill you. You mentioned a soldiers right to self defense, I don't care if incoming fire is coming from an orphanage, nobody expects anybody to get shot at and NOT try and stop it.
It's one of the things I hated about Bush (43), his religious views clouded his judgement and he was hesitant to damage anything of religious significance. What he didn't understand is in Islamic countries almost EVERYTHING including the 7-11 has religious significance. I think we should have shown the Mosques the same consideration the Taliban showed those ancient Buddhas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1326063/After-1700-years-Buddhas-fall-to-Taliban-dynamite.html
Can you articulate why you have a problem with it?
Why do you persist on playing this absurd game here?
MountainRaven
02-06-15, 19:56
It might just be my sons of Norway card screaming at me, but I usually find what Arctic1 posts to be interesting. I'd like to hear (read) what he has to say.
Outlander Systems
02-06-15, 20:08
It might just be my sons of Norway card screaming at me, but I usually find what Arctic1 posts to be interesting. I'd like to hear (read) what he has to say.
Sweden > Norway
;)
Why not? Serious question. If you don't disagree, then what's to understand? We know exactly why they use Mosques as shields. It's the same reason they'll use Red Crescent ambulances to transport weapons, turn obvious civilian service vehicles into weapons and hide behind women and children. they have no honor. If they want to hide in a mosque and commit violence from within, that merely proves they don't consider it sacred after all. If they don't care, why should we?
What's to understand? The complexity of that answer is something that would take so long to try to communicate that it would take pages of text, hours of reading, and even then you would have to really give a shit to make sense of it. But in the shortest answer possible...
You list known enemy tactics. It's been a while since two groups of largely expendable infantry stood across from each other and shot until the other broke formation. Due largely to global population increase, cities and towns are the modern battlefield. So what the enemy does isn't what sets our pace because a "Win" is no longer achieved by killing off the opposition. Especially not in insurgencies where nothing distinguishes the bad guys from the fence sitters from the people who want you to rebuild in a western way.
The issue isn't whether the enemy combatant as an individual holds the mosque as sacred. Maybe, as you suggested, he's using it as cover because he knows we won't return fire (which isn't true, we have and will but only with appropriate force to remove the immediate threat, including clearing the kill zone) but that would be some JV level shit. Likely, the mosque was chosen in hopes that launching an attack from the mosque would bring a crushing retaliation. And at that point it's not about what he holds sacred, it's about being able to say Americans leveled a mosque and killed 200 people who DO hold it sacred. That would leave a mark, one in the form of hundreds if not thousands of newly recruited fighters, bomb placers, scouts, and sways the population in the favor of the insurgent.
Not as easy as saying we're just a bunch of softies running from gunfights, but that's how it goes. You can say they have no honor if you want, half of what you mentioned are tried and true tactics they probably learned from our CIA in the past and are still using today. Honor...don't make me laugh. Honor is great and there's a place for it, FID and COIN aren't a challenge to fisticuffs at the flag pole after class. Were we to find our homes in the middle of an occupying military force, ourselves joining resistance movements after seeing abuse at the hands of the invader, your honor would get you killed in the first week.
Absolutely. It creates a safe haven for those who are trying to kill you. You mentioned a soldiers right to self defense, I don't care if incoming fire is coming from an orphanage, nobody expects anybody to get shot at and NOT try and stop it.
It's one of the things I hated about Bush (43), his religious views clouded his judgement and he was hesitant to damage anything of religious significance. What he didn't understand is in Islamic countries almost EVERYTHING including the 7-11 has religious significance. I think we should have shown the Mosques the same consideration the Taliban showed those ancient Buddhas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1326063/After-1700-years-Buddhas-fall-to-Taliban-dynamite.html
Again, what makes you think there's this magical bubble that exists around a mosque that it's a safe haven? A mosque on its own is not a legitimate military target. There's about the most broken down laymans summary of the ROE. If an attack comes from the mosque, that makes it a legitimate military target. This is why I have a hard time with those giving interviews about the ROE getting Americans killed, as I've never found myself sitting there getting smoked like an idiot because the little laminated card in my pocket says I have to.
And as Arctic said, where is this idea coming from that the only way to eliminate the threat is to shoot back? There are ways, tools in the infinite toolbox of American military awesomeness that leaves one only limited by his lack of intelligence and imagination. If I'm pinned down by an enemy element, I'm going to unass the impact area and check for follow on. Once I've set security, and knowing that my counter attack will put my guys running head first into a predetermined FPF (there's a reason they chose to hit you there) which is really what gets Americans killed, I'm not gonna be popping back into that KZ in the latest dynamic three-gun crouch. I'm gonna ask my JTAC/TACP/CCT what the situation looks like from a different angle and who else is in the area.
Just because we're taught not stop, turn towards the direction of fire, and pop lock n drop it till we Winchester on ammo, doesn't mean we don't engage the enemy. You're buying a media created outrage if you think there's no better way to prevent the enemy from having a "safe haven". To use your example of those poor handicapped Marines idiotically being slaughtered in Falluja from those crafty little Mosque Muj, what did those awesome Falluja minarets look like? You like watching videos or pictures? Meh, have both.
http://youtu.be/TRPn6iEW9kI
http://youtu.be/UnhPgFp55Vs
So which is it anyway? You say almost EVERYTHING in the Islamic countries has religious significance, so who cares about hurt feelings. GTG seems to think that nothing is actually held sacred by Islamic folks. And yet you've both stated by now that the brutality, like the kind that inspired this thread, is something to be expected from all muslims because they follow the Quran to the letter and their religion is evil? Yikes, I wish I could go to one or many of these so called Islamic countries to witness the things you describe from your travels because I'm just ate up with liberal media and their misinformation campaigns.
31539
The issue isn't whether the enemy combatant as an individual holds the mosque as sacred. Maybe, as you suggested, he's using it as cover because he knows we won't return fire (which isn't true, we have and will but only with appropriate force to remove the immediate threat, including clearing the kill zone) but that would be some JV level shit. Likely, the mosque was chosen in hopes that launching an attack from the mosque would bring a crushing retaliation. And at that point it's not about what he holds sacred, it's about being able to say Americans leveled a mosque and killed 200 people who DO hold it sacred. That would leave a mark, one in the form of hundreds if not thousands of newly recruited fighters, bomb placers, scouts, and sways the population in the favor of the insurgent.
The fact that we fight wars based upon what the enemy might say about us is one of the reasons we no longer decisively win wars.
Monte Cassino
Dresden
Hamburg
Tokyo
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
What is the one thing all these places have in common? They all understood they were militarily defeated and they aren't in a hurry to try it again.
If we aren't willing to level buildings in order to not put our military personnel at undue risk, then we shouldn't send them in the first place. We either fight a war or not, half assed shit usually creates more problems than it solves (re: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam). And the only thing more absurd is wars on "ideology" or "factions" instead of against the countries and governments that host those ideologies or factions.
We should have never interfered when Saddam invaded Kuwait, they were in fact stealing his oil reserves via a technique called lateral drilling and the UN wasn't willing to do anything about it. Yes he was a vicious tyrant, and so is Assad, but they are both preferable to ISIS or Al Quida. We could have simply purchased Kuwaiti oil from Saddam, he was also keeping Iran in check.
Post 9-11 we should have invited Putin back to Afghanistan for a joint operation with an apology for the past, he would have understood the past was just payback for Vietnam. Let the Russian take some payback against the Muj, which became the Taliban while we concentrated on hunting down Al Quida.
Again, what makes you think there's this magical bubble that exists around a mosque that it's a safe haven? A mosque on its own is not a legitimate military target. There's about the most broken down laymans summary of the ROE. If an attack comes from the mosque, that makes it a legitimate military target. This is why I have a hard time with those giving interviews about the ROE getting Americans killed, as I've never found myself sitting there getting smoked like an idiot because the little laminated card in my pocket says I have to.
And as Arctic said, where is this idea coming from that the only way to eliminate the threat is to shoot back? There are ways, tools in the infinite toolbox of American military awesomeness that leaves one only limited by his lack of intelligence and imagination. If I'm pinned down by an enemy element, I'm going to unass the impact area and check for follow on. Once I've set security, and knowing that my counter attack will put my guys running head first into a predetermined FPF (there's a reason they chose to hit you there) which is really what gets Americans killed, I'm not gonna be popping back into that KZ in the latest dynamic three-gun crouch. I'm gonna ask my JTAC/TACP/CCT what the situation looks like from a different angle and who else is in the area.
Just because we're taught not stop, turn towards the direction of fire, and pop lock n drop it till we Winchester on ammo, doesn't mean we don't engage the enemy. You're buying a media created outrage if you think there's no better way to prevent the enemy from having a "safe haven". To use your example of those poor handicapped Marines idiotically being slaughtered in Falluja from those crafty little Mosque Muj, what did those awesome Falluja minarets look like? You like watching videos or pictures? Meh, have both.
http://youtu.be/TRPn6iEW9kI
http://youtu.be/UnhPgFp55Vs
So which is it anyway? You say almost EVERYTHING in the Islamic countries has religious significance, so who cares about hurt feelings. GTG seems to think that nothing is actually held sacred by Islamic folks. And yet you've both stated by now that the brutality, like the kind that inspired this thread, is something to be expected from all muslims because they follow the Quran to the letter and their religion is evil? Yikes, I wish I could go to one or many of these so called Islamic countries to witness the things you describe from your travels because I'm just ate up with liberal media and their misinformation campaigns.
31539
We've all seen that AC-130 footage where we attacked a group of terrorists outside a mosque and the FAC made it very clear which building was the mosque and it was clearly OFF LIMITS even when the terrorists we were targeting ran back inside.
Maybe it never happened with you, but there were plenty of incidents in plenty of places where people used a mosque as a "safe haven" and did so successfully. This is because is was a basic condition of the "cooperative effort" we believe we had with given populations.
As for equating the destruction of a mosque with actions like beheading POWs, I'm gonna leave that one unanswered. Smart guy like you can hopefully figure it out.
We've all seen that AC-130 footage where we attacked a group of terrorists outside a mosque and the FAC made it very clear which building was the mosque and it was clearly OFF LIMITS even when the terrorists we were targeting ran back inside.
Maybe it never happened with you, but there were plenty of incidents in plenty of places where people used a mosque as a "safe haven" and did so successfully. This is because is was a basic condition of the "cooperative effort" we believe we had with given populations.
As for equating the destruction of a mosque with actions like beheading POWs, I'm gonna leave that one unanswered. Smart guy like you can hopefully figure it out.
Where did you see me equate the two? I don't care what people think about us, if they love us or if their feelings are hurt. I don't care "what someone might say about us" and I'm certainly not against killing the enemy. Been doing it for quite a while, long enough to understand that there is more to fighting war than and to protecting our own guys than you are grasping.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm some peace loving bleeding heart pussy but I'm over it. Until the US goes to war with IPSC targets, I really cant accurately convey how much more goes into war and combat than shooting where you think someone is. It's so far from productive and creates more tension and easier enemy recruiting which in turn means more dead Americans. That you think it's as easy as your black and white scenarios shows the disconnect I haven't the time or energy to fix, especially when you aren't open to anything.
Oh and that video. You're missing a really big part of why the mosque wasn't leveled. Several actually and not a single one has to do with any of the American troops involved being too dumb and sensitive to hurt any muslim feelings.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-06-15, 23:53
SOW 0331,
I am loving your posts. Very educational, and with a great insight rarely seen outside of the CONUS War Drum players.
Where did you see me equate the two? I don't care what people think about us, if they love us or if their feelings are hurt. I don't care "what someone might say about us" and I'm certainly not against killing the enemy. Been doing it for quite a while, long enough to understand that there is more to fighting war than and to protecting our own guys than you are grasping.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I'm some peace loving bleeding heart pussy but I'm over it. Until the US goes to war with IPSC targets, I really cant accurately convey how much more goes into war and combat than shooting where you think someone is. It's so far from productive and creates more tension and easier enemy recruiting which in turn means more dead Americans. That you think it's as easy as your black and white scenarios shows the disconnect I haven't the time or energy to fix, especially when you aren't open to anything.
Oh and that video. You're missing a really big part of why the mosque wasn't leveled. Several actually and not a single one has to do with any of the American troops involved being too dumb and sensitive to hurt any muslim feelings.
Honestly, in my haste, I misread your response. I thought you were drawing a parallel between "Islamic acts of violence" and "our not respecting their sacred buildings." That is my error.
I'm trying to debate on the internet, get my stuff ready for tax season and a couple other things all at once. Excuses aside, I don't think we are accomplishing much and this is only going to go circular.
Honestly, in my haste, I misread your response. I thought you were drawing a parallel between "Islamic acts of violence" and "our not respecting their sacred buildings." That is my error.
I'm trying to debate on the internet, get my stuff ready for tax season and a couple other things all at once. Excuses aside, I don't think we are accomplishing much and this is only going to go circular.
That seems to be the way us M4C Insomniacs go. I should probably do that tax thing too instead of arguing about nonsense.
Why not? Serious question. If you don't disagree, then what's to understand? We know exactly why they use Mosques as shields. It's the same reason they'll use Red Crescent ambulances to transport weapons, turn obvious civilian service vehicles into weapons and hide behind women and children. they have no honor. If they want to hide in a mosque and commit violence from within, that merely proves they don't consider it sacred after all. If they don't care, why should we?
SOW nailed it with this post:
You list known enemy tactics. It's been a while since two groups of largely expendable infantry stood across from each other and shot until the other broke formation. Due largely to global population increase, cities and towns are the modern battlefield. So what the enemy does isn't what sets our pace because a "Win" is no longer achieved by killing off the opposition. Especially not in insurgencies where nothing distinguishes the bad guys from the fence sitters from the people who want you to rebuild in a western way.
The issue isn't whether the enemy combatant as an individual holds the mosque as sacred. Maybe, as you suggested, he's using it as cover because he knows we won't return fire (which isn't true, we have and will but only with appropriate force to remove the immediate threat, including clearing the kill zone) but that would be some JV level shit. Likely, the mosque was chosen in hopes that launching an attack from the mosque would bring a crushing retaliation. And at that point it's not about what he holds sacred, it's about being able to say Americans leveled a mosque and killed 200 people who DO hold it sacred. That would leave a mark, one in the form of hundreds if not thousands of newly recruited fighters, bomb placers, scouts, and sways the population in the favor of the insurgent.
An attitude of "I don't care where the enemy hides, I will destroy them no matter what" will not work in the current warfighting environments.
And as he said, it has nothing to do with what the enemy thinks or feels about mosques.
You have to understand that there are several aspects to a military operation, that is why one always conveys the intent of higher as part of an operations order.
In Afghanistan, for example, you had the ISAF strategy for the entire country, you had the strategy for each RC, each PRT etc. Everything is connected, and you have to act in accordance with the overall strategies.
No overall strategy will say "KILL EVERYONE". It is not realistic, and it is not doable.
But going back to the mosque thing, I'll try to exemplify how things are connected. This is just an example, not a real story.
A logistics element has supplied an FOB, and on it's way back to home base, it is attacked by INS with RPG's and SAF. The start beating back the enemy force. Two INS are spotted running into the village mosque, and they start taking fire from the mosque. The convoy commander orders the Mk19 gunner to engage the mosque. The mosque suffers a lot of damage, the two INS are killed, along with a few civilians.
Mission success right? They killed the enemy.
What they did not know was that an SF ODA, with CA and PsyOps, assets had been working in that village for a long time, and had managed to turn the tide so to speak, shifting their loyalties from the bad guys to the local government.
So a short term victory could potentially have negative long term effects. Depending on the significance of the village, and it's leaders, in the area it could drastically affect the security situation in the area.
On the other hand, if an enemy element or maybe a sniper team was situated in a mosque (or church for that matter), and was being so effective in limiting an element, and mission success of that element was paramount to the overall success of the mission (say a decisive offensive, for example), the threshold for leveling the building would be a lot lower. There are other options available, depending on the situation.
The battlefield we were engaged in for 14 years was a complex one, and that is something that a modern warfighter needs to accept and adapt to. Sometimes you have to accept a higher level of risk or take more risks, in order to keep in line with overall strategies. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were wars that required the level of violence some of you are advocating.
If you think so, your perspective and understanding of the mission is a bit off. If it was the right strategy or a good mission to get involved in, is a different discussion all together.
And saying that you would shoot up an orphanage....well, that is pretty cold.
Why do you persist on playing this absurd game here?
What game? Have a discussion on a complex matter, and asking for clarification rather than jump to conclusions or make assumptions?
Eurodriver
02-07-15, 08:16
SOW 0331,
I am loving your posts. Very educational, and with a great insight rarely seen outside of the CONUS War Drum players.
This.
Averageman
02-07-15, 08:37
SOW nailed it with this post:
An attitude of "I don't care where the enemy hides, I will destroy them no matter what" will not work in the current warfighting environments.
And as he said, it has nothing to do with what the enemy thinks or feels about mosques.
You have to understand that there are several aspects to a military operation, that is why one always conveys the intent of higher as part of an operations order.
In Afghanistan, for example, you had the ISAF strategy for the entire country, you had the strategy for each RC, each PRT etc. Everything is connected, and you have to act in accordance with the overall strategies.
No overall strategy will say "KILL EVERYONE". It is not realistic, and it is not doable.
But going back to the mosque thing, I'll try to exemplify how things are connected. This is just an example, not a real story.
A logistics element has supplied an FOB, and on it's way back to home base, it is attacked by INS with RPG's and SAF. The start beating back the enemy force. Two INS are spotted running into the village mosque, and they start taking fire from the mosque. The convoy commander orders the Mk19 gunner to engage the mosque. The mosque suffers a lot of damage, the two INS are killed, along with a few civilians.
Mission success right? They killed the enemy.
What they did not know was that an SF ODA, with CA and PsyOps, assets had been working in that village for a long time, and had managed to turn the tide so to speak, shifting their loyalties from the bad guys to the local government.
So a short term victory could potentially have negative long term effects. Depending on the significance of the village, and it's leaders, in the area it could drastically affect the security situation in the area.
On the other hand, if an enemy element or maybe a sniper team was situated in a mosque (or church for that matter), and was being so effective in limiting an element, and mission success of that element was paramount to the overall success of the mission (say a decisive offensive, for example), the threshold for leveling the building would be a lot lower. There are other options available, depending on the situation.
The battlefield we were engaged in for 14 years was a complex one, and that is something that a modern warfighter needs to accept and adapt to. Sometimes you have to accept a higher level of risk or take more risks, in order to keep in line with overall strategies. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were wars that required the level of violence some of you are advocating.
If you think so, your perspective and understanding of the mission is a bit off. If it was the right strategy or a good mission to get involved in, is a different discussion all together.
And saying that you would shoot up an orphanage....well, that is pretty cold.
And I'm thinking that these folks don't understand our mission nor our resolve.
The idea that the Taliban, ISIS or any other flavor of the day terrorist deserves their support needs to end.
They need to not be able to negotiate the safety of their mislead brothers and understand they are toxic to the safety of all of those around them.
I don't really care what you might want to do to save their lives, in the end they are a danger to you and your children and wives.
If you want to keep your Mosque you need to defend it with the Men who support it not being leveled to dust by turning away your radicals.
Outlander Systems
02-07-15, 08:54
If someone could determine where the root is, could we not douse it in herbicide?
I think someone mentioned it, but the key issues are:
-poverty/economic inequality
-illiteracy/lack of education
-Secteric communities
-corruption
These factors are important contributors to the success of the extremists.
Again, I can only comment on Afghanistan, but the social component is very complex.
The biggest one is the fact that there is nothing uniting the population around the nation of Afghanistan.
The focus of the individual is much more narrow; family, village, ethnic group. Then you have the tribal pashtuns, who also make up the majority of the Taliban.
And even now, 13 years after the Taliban were ousted, an actual goverment presence and effect is rare outside of the larger cities like Kabul, Kandahar, MeS and so forth.
Another factor is external influence from people looking to exploit power vacuums and volatile security situations to further their agenda.
So, it is complex.
(on my iPhone so have to make it short)
And I'm thinking that these folks don't understand our mission nor our resolve.
The idea that the Taliban, ISIS or any other flavor of the day terrorist deserves their support needs to end.
They need to not be able to negotiate the safety of their mislead brothers and understand they are toxic to the safety of all of those around them.
I don't really care what you might want to do to save their lives, in the end they are a danger to you and your children and wives.
If you want to keep your Mosque you need to defend it with the Men who support it not being leveled to dust by turning away your radicals.
How do we achieve what you are suggesting by shooting up their mosques and orphanages?
If someone could determine where the root is, could we not douse it in herbicide?
Yup. Ready?
Root - Playing fast and loose with the lives of our former allies in the ME, using them to fight our wars with our funding and equipment only to leave them high and dry when our objective is achieved. This has caused distrust and resentment, a deep rooted sentiment that we must be held accountable as a nation for the lives lost by bringing war to their (formER allies) homes. There are South American countries that hold the same reservations towards us.
Instigation - Opposing nations, as well as wealthy self-serving individuals, funnel money and weapons into the continued war effort to play our own tactic against us. They create instability, illiteracy, and fuel hostile actions through the manipulation of the morals and values held in high regard.
A prime example would be Saudis/UBL>Al Qaeda>Taliban Afghanistan/Muj
Solution (Herbicide) - Here's where the truth differs the Hollywood reality some believe in, and why the study of war isn't done in five minutes from sensational media pieces. The only way to defeat the enemy is to defeat their idea, the only way to deat an idea is to eliminate the common bond. If you were to only kill combatants and strictly those originals, you would be creating one to two new enemy recruits per. Add in the monumental recruiting significance of the women and children some here are so eager to slaughter. Now you're looking at 1:25 as a ratio of active enemy joining the battle per innocent killed. That's a failing strategy, one that has been failing for decades despite the repeated attempts to bring peace through short incursions.
To break the common bond, you remove the emotional connection to the common theme, in this case religion. You don't do that by regurgitating sound clips and fear mongering media headlines without a minute of research. You don't contest the religion. You simply don't accept it as anything significant. Think of it like teaching your kids not to be afraid of the dark. You don't tell them it's okay by sitting outside the closet in a bunker, fully geared for a dynamic dynamical showdown and scream "I HATE YOU SCARY DARKNESS", you calmly walk in and show your kid how little power the dark has. It's nothing, it's a myth, it's not real. Education. Financial stability. Economic success. Alternatives to the "everything because God says so" approach.
Then you assist in standing up a security force. You oversee and supervise the early phases and minimize the growing pains, provide safety and security while creating a new bond and trust. You have to outlive the previous generation and make them look foolish for living in the past because the new generation will have seen a very different version of America.
Or you kill a bunch of women and children. I guess I have been going to the wrong shoot house dojo thing because it just doesn't sound like a winning approach; kill women and children to make men stop targeting our...women and children? Oh.
This.
Thanks dudes, I don't think there's a right answer here. But there's a few really wrong ones and those are what we can only avoid becoming reality through education. But I also understand how it is to have an opinion. Some discussions have to be objective or the ego will naturally drive us to each other's throats.
Unfortunately, I'm far too comfortable having a discussion with no emotional investment, it's not unreasonable to feel something about images of a man burning to death in a cage. Ah...feelings...those were the days ;)
Outlander Systems
02-07-15, 10:38
Yup. Ready?
Root - Playing fast and loose with the lives of our former allies in the ME, using them to fight our wars with our funding and equipment only to leave them high and dry when our objective is achieved. This has caused distrust and resentment, a deep rooted sentiment that we must be held accountable as a nation for the lives lost by bringing war to their (formER allies) homes. There are South American countries that hold the same reservations towards us.
Instigation - Opposing nations, as well as wealthy self-serving individuals, funnel money and weapons into the continued war effort to play our own tactic against us. They create instability, illiteracy, and fuel hostile actions through the manipulation of the morals and values held in high regard.
A prime example would be Saudis/UBL>Al Qaeda>Taliban Afghanistan/Muj
Solution (Herbicide) - Here's where the truth differs the Hollywood reality some believe in, and why the study of war isn't done in five minutes from sensational media pieces. The only way to defeat the enemy is to defeat their idea, the only way to deat an idea is to eliminate the common bond. If you were to only kill combatants and strictly those originals, you would be creating one to two new enemy recruits per. Add in the monumental recruiting significance of the women and children some here are so eager to slaughter. Now you're looking at 1:25 as a ratio of active enemy joining the battle per innocent killed. That's a failing strategy, one that has been failing for decades despite the repeated attempts to bring peace through short incursions.
To break the common bond, you remove the emotional connection to the common theme, in this case religion. You don't do that by regurgitating sound clips and fear mongering media headlines without a minute of research. You don't contest the religion. You simply don't accept it as anything significant. Think of it like teaching your kids not to be afraid of the dark. You don't tell them it's okay by sitting outside the closet in a bunker, fully geared for a dynamic dynamical showdown and scream "I HATE YOU SCARY DARKNESS", you calmly walk in and show your kid how little power the dark has. It's nothing, it's a myth, it's not real. Education. Financial stability. Economic success. Alternatives to the "everything because God says so" approach.
Then you assist in standing up a security force. You oversee and supervise the early phases and minimize the growing pains, provide safety and security while creating a new bond and trust. You have to outlive the previous generation and make them look foolish for living in the past because the new generation will have seen a very different version of America.
Or you kill a bunch of women and children. I guess I have been going to the wrong shoot house dojo thing because it just doesn't sound like a winning approach; kill women and children to make men stop targeting our...women and children? Oh.
Astute points.
Much as I hate to agree with the POTUS, we can't continue a policy of whack-a-mole indefinitely.
And, unfortunately, you can't wage a conventional battle against an idea.
People seem to forget that there's little reasoning in the face of religious zealotry. The overall scope of the problem requires, as you pointed out, a multi-generational approach. My concern, though, is that there are little guarantees that a PSYWAR campaign would be successful.
For instance, I worked with a first-generation Paki, who, for all intents and purposes was as American as it gets. That being said, his hatred for Jews was so bad, that, even in social situations, he could not help but to start flapping his dicksuckers about Jews. Positively, his views on the Caliphate were as follows: "That shit don't put bread on my table, son." So you win some, you lose some. This dude is fully westernized, but still carrying some residual cultural baggage.
I sometimes wonder if it would be more efficient for the west to allow the IS to become a dominant player in the ME. Given their propensity for tyranny and a lack of value in human life, it would be a lot easier to have a native population begging for liberation, and a "conventional" enemy, for which, military action would have a demonstrable and apparent outcome.
I agree with your plan for a security force, and stabilization of the local government; however it is my understanding that in Afghanistan there was a combination of corruption and ineptitude regarding the locals, that made this path almost prohibitively arduous. It's my supposition that the amount of money and time required to push that towards a successful outcome would be more than the U.S. civilian leadership and population would be willing to stomach.
For me, the simplest, and most effective approach is to:
Let them go full-blown Lord of the Flies, and suffer in a protracted hell of internecine conflict to the point where the civilian population becomes an easier target for psychological operations, and is more sympathetic towards western aid.
Provide security, and direct action intervention against any threat to oil production
My problem with the hearts/minds approach is that, we aren't going to convince them to stop the fundamental-Islam crap, any easier than if we were to storm the Vatican, and convince them that the Pope is pointless, and they have to stop with the Mary stuff.
The only acceptable solution is a long-term policy of resource protection/management.
Like a leg in the civil war with gangrene, sometimes all you can do is cut it off, let it rot, and snatch the golden toe-ring.
Yup. Ready?
Root - Playing fast and loose with the lives of our former allies in the ME, using them to fight our wars with our funding and equipment only to leave them high and dry when our objective is achieved. This has caused distrust and resentment, a deep rooted sentiment that we must be held accountable as a nation for the lives lost by bringing war to their (formER allies) homes. There are South American countries that hold the same reservations towards us.
Instigation - Opposing nations, as well as wealthy self-serving individuals, funnel money and weapons into the continued war effort to play our own tactic against us. They create instability, illiteracy, and fuel hostile actions through the manipulation of the morals and values held in high regard.
A prime example would be Saudis/UBL>Al Qaeda>Taliban Afghanistan/Muj
Solution (Herbicide) - Here's where the truth differs the Hollywood reality some believe in, and why the study of war isn't done in five minutes from sensational media pieces. The only way to defeat the enemy is to defeat their idea, the only way to deat an idea is to eliminate the common bond. If you were to only kill combatants and strictly those originals, you would be creating one to two new enemy recruits per. Add in the monumental recruiting significance of the women and children some here are so eager to slaughter. Now you're looking at 1:25 as a ratio of active enemy joining the battle per innocent killed. That's a failing strategy, one that has been failing for decades despite the repeated attempts to bring peace through short incursions.
To break the common bond, you remove the emotional connection to the common theme, in this case religion. You don't do that by regurgitating sound clips and fear mongering media headlines without a minute of research. You don't contest the religion. You simply don't accept it as anything significant. Think of it like teaching your kids not to be afraid of the dark. You don't tell them it's okay by sitting outside the closet in a bunker, fully geared for a dynamic dynamical showdown and scream "I HATE YOU SCARY DARKNESS", you calmly walk in and show your kid how little power the dark has. It's nothing, it's a myth, it's not real. Education. Financial stability. Economic success. Alternatives to the "everything because God says so" approach.
Then you assist in standing up a security force. You oversee and supervise the early phases and minimize the growing pains, provide safety and security while creating a new bond and trust. You have to outlive the previous generation and make them look foolish for living in the past because the new generation will have seen a very different version of America.
Or you kill a bunch of women and children. I guess I have been going to the wrong shoot house dojo thing because it just doesn't sound like a winning approach; kill women and children to make men stop targeting our...women and children? Oh.
This is fancy talk equating to nothing more than break your back attempting to understand and appease with a little offensive distortion sprinkled in at the very end. I'll support Jordan's lead any day while you and a couple others known for being of a similar mindset scour the mind to figure out how we can all just get along via elongated ideological bloviating.
Good thing it wasn't up to you to deal with Japan at the end of WWII or we'd still be fighting them with countless lost while trying to find ways to make them less hostile to the world through intellectual stimulation.
This is fancy talk equating to nothing more than break your back attempting to understand and appease with a little offensive distortion sprinkled in at the very end. I'll support Jordan's lead any day while you and a couple others known for being of a similar mindset scour the mind to figure out how we can all just get along via elongated ideological bloviating.
Good thing it wasn't up to you to deal with Japan at the end of WWII or we'd still be fighting them with countless lost while trying to find ways to make them less hostile to the world through intellectual stimulation.
Well I don't know what you found to be offensive distortion. Drop a 500lb bomb or HIMARS onto a hospital, mosque, or orphanage because some low hanging fruit are seen running inside and you know damn well it won't just be the bodies of military aged males getting dragged out of the dust. Now that you got that little personal attack off your chest...I'm not offended, say what you want about me but at least be accurate. I've had no issue with Jordan taking the lead and how they do it. So far they've acted as a professional military and they seem to have good follow through. Good for them, I'm as supportive of their lead as you are.
If you can't see the difference between the Island hopping campaign against imperial Japan and criticizing those who can successfully perform a combined DA/FID task in a COIN Operation as being weak, foolish, and cowardly, I have nothing to say. Japan was a world superpower with numbers, international support, and their human rights approach makes ISIS look like daycare teachers. They were methodical, disciplined, calculated, and successfully carried out attacks internationally in an effort to expand Japanese rule through genocide. ISIS is the biggest gang in a land of no law. They filled a power vacuum that would have never existed had we remained and we would have continued to force AQI to be nothing but a secret handshake and wink club. They're becoming organized, they're becoming networked, and I don't doubt that they could successfully carry out international attacks if they go unchecked.
And recognizing that I haven't once said to leave them be, that I feel sorry for them or wouldn't carry on putting them down like rabid animals. I lose no sleep over that shit and if we were on the ground in supported roles more overtly I would be there right now. I've never said we should look for ways to get along. Don't paint me to be a coward, THAT I won't tolerate, not after what what this game has cost me.
ISIS represents a group mindset that has no borders, no capital city, and cannot be pinpointed geographically. They're one of many, we shouldn't turn a blind eye to them. But there's s threat assessment matrix that says leveling the cities around each militant is going to cost us a lot more American lives. If that's what we allow for once city, well allow it for all cities and towns and villages. And that means we're gonna genocide the shit out of the middle eastern people who by the way, I'm supposing from your Japan comparison you advocate the systematic roundup of American citizens of ME heritage and putting them in internment camps? Maybe it is a good thing I'm not in charge after all, that whole pussy ass constitution thing would get in my liberal idealist way, wouldn't it?
If there was a chance that a nuke into Baghdad or Kabul or Aleppo or wherever would bring ISIS to an end and wouldn't result in a nuclear retaliation from the rest of the world on US soil I would push that button. If there was any hope that such a decision wouldn't mean HME going off in our schools and malls because our current allies would use terror groups to destroy American infrastructure...again, absolutely.
Instead of calling me an idealist for actually wanting to analyze potential cause and effect that's on you. I was taught to learn every angle before making a move. I don't need to hypothesize the idea of an indiscriminate bombing, high-cost collateral damage tolerating approach to dealing with modern warfare. Everything I've said was an outcome Id look to avoid is exactly what has happened in recent years when that approach was used. If it were as easy as you suggest, Assad would have wrapped this shit up four years ago and I would be all about it. Look what happened throughout Syria when he thought dick flexing would take the wind out of their sales.
Do you really think Syria is how you would want our home country to look? If you think it wouldn't happen here, you'd be the idealist.
Chess VS checkers.
SOW and Arctic have done a great job of articulating an effective strategy to deal with these types of threats and their areas of operations.
This is fancy talk equating to nothing more than break your back attempting to understand and appease with a little offensive distortion sprinkled in at the very end. I'll support Jordan's lead any day while you and a couple others known for being of a similar mindset scour the mind to figure out how we can all just get along via elongated ideological bloviating.
Good thing it wasn't up to you to deal with Japan at the end of WWII or we'd still be fighting them with countless lost while trying to find ways to make them less hostile to the world through intellectual stimulation.
I agree with you. The various permutations of radical Islam are not going to be pacified with education. Like communism and fascism, Islamism is as much a system of government as a religion. The free world can either conquer it like the Nazis, or bankrupt it like the Soviets. Either choice has its pros and cons.
Well I don't know what you found to be offensive distortion.
Well then I'll take a moment to clarify. You see at the end of your post you essentially stated that we do it your way or resign ourselves to being baby killers, which is what I found to be offensive. Just because many including myself believe it's time to fight fire with fire, a technique used successfully to end the second world war among others, doesn't mean we advocate genocide.
To top it off the slant you offered reeks of something straight out of MSNBC. We want to criticize the state of the inner city black community and say it's time society put it's foot down then we're racist. We don't support amnesty then we're biased against hispanics. Had enough of islamist extremism then we are surely islamophobic, etc. A distortion of facts designed to shut down an opposing opinion through shaming.
Honestly I applaud you for your fair sensibility, but there is a time and place for everything. With the enemy actually committing real genocide via mass murder including beheadings, burying children alive and lighting people on fire trapped in cages the time has clearly come to establish peace only through superior firepower.
Averageman
02-08-15, 11:29
Originally Posted by Averageman
And I'm thinking that these folks don't understand our mission nor our resolve.
The idea that the Taliban, ISIS or any other flavor of the day terrorist deserves their support needs to end.
They need to not be able to negotiate the safety of their mislead brothers and understand they are toxic to the safety of all of those around them.
I don't really care what you might want to do to save their lives, in the end they are a danger to you and your children and wives.
If you want to keep your Mosque you need to defend it with the Men who support it not being leveled to dust by turning away your radicals.
How do we achieve what you are suggesting by shooting up their mosques and orphanages?
No, I dont think you need to shoot up moques or orphanages. I think that's a far from what I wrote, or my intent.
We cannot stay there forever, these guys are killing far more muslims than they are killing 'our guys'. In the end when terrorists take these sorts of actions you'll have to secure the area and bring in the locals. or even better yet, have the locals provide the security before the problem exists.
They will have to take the action, after all it is their mosque and their children. The brunt of the blood spilled will be theirs.
What you are seeing Jordan do now is exactly that, but on an international level. The "locals" are just sick of the Hi Jinx these nut bags continue with, the death of their pilot in such a manner finally led to them having an "Ah Ha" moment.
What doesn't need to happen is We step in with good intent and do all the heavy lifting and make all of the hard decisons, so far all I have seen that do is make more terrorists.
What's to understand? The complexity of that answer is something that would take so long to try to communicate that it would take pages of text, hours of reading, and even then you would have to really give a shit to make sense of it. But in the shortest answer possible...
You list known enemy tactics. It's been a while since two groups of largely expendable infantry stood across from each other and shot until the other broke formation. Due largely to global population increase, cities and towns are the modern battlefield. So what the enemy does isn't what sets our pace because a "Win" is no longer achieved by killing off the opposition. Especially not in insurgencies where nothing distinguishes the bad guys from the fence sitters from the people who want you to rebuild in a western way.
The issue isn't whether the enemy combatant as an individual holds the mosque as sacred. Maybe, as you suggested, he's using it as cover because he knows we won't return fire (which isn't true, we have and will but only with appropriate force to remove the immediate threat, including clearing the kill zone) but that would be some JV level shit. Likely, the mosque was chosen in hopes that launching an attack from the mosque would bring a crushing retaliation. And at that point it's not about what he holds sacred, it's about being able to say Americans leveled a mosque and killed 200 people who DO hold it sacred. That would leave a mark, one in the form of hundreds if not thousands of newly recruited fighters, bomb placers, scouts, and sways the population in the favor of the insurgent.
Not as easy as saying we're just a bunch of softies running from gunfights, but that's how it goes. You can say they have no honor if you want, half of what you mentioned are tried and true tactics they probably learned from our CIA in the past and are still using today. Honor...don't make me laugh. Honor is great and there's a place for it, FID and COIN aren't a challenge to fisticuffs at the flag pole after class. Were we to find our homes in the middle of an occupying military force, ourselves joining resistance movements after seeing abuse at the hands of the invader, your honor would get you killed in the first week.
If those fence sitters are OK with terrorists using a mosque as a military position, but will go apeshit and commit to fight us if we return fire on the mosque, then I'm quite OK with that. Better to allow the enemies of peace to expose themselves than pretend they're fence sitters.
SOW nailed it with this post:
An attitude of "I don't care where the enemy hides, I will destroy them no matter what" will not work in the current warfighting environments.
And as he said, it has nothing to do with what the enemy thinks or feels about mosques.
You have to understand that there are several aspects to a military operation, that is why one always conveys the intent of higher as part of an operations order.
In Afghanistan, for example, you had the ISAF strategy for the entire country, you had the strategy for each RC, each PRT etc. Everything is connected, and you have to act in accordance with the overall strategies.
No overall strategy will say "KILL EVERYONE". It is not realistic, and it is not doable.
But going back to the mosque thing, I'll try to exemplify how things are connected. This is just an example, not a real story.
A logistics element has supplied an FOB, and on it's way back to home base, it is attacked by INS with RPG's and SAF. The start beating back the enemy force. Two INS are spotted running into the village mosque, and they start taking fire from the mosque. The convoy commander orders the Mk19 gunner to engage the mosque. The mosque suffers a lot of damage, the two INS are killed, along with a few civilians.
Mission success right? They killed the enemy.
What they did not know was that an SF ODA, with CA and PsyOps, assets had been working in that village for a long time, and had managed to turn the tide so to speak, shifting their loyalties from the bad guys to the local government.
So a short term victory could potentially have negative long term effects. Depending on the significance of the village, and it's leaders, in the area it could drastically affect the security situation in the area.
On the other hand, if an enemy element or maybe a sniper team was situated in a mosque (or church for that matter), and was being so effective in limiting an element, and mission success of that element was paramount to the overall success of the mission (say a decisive offensive, for example), the threshold for leveling the building would be a lot lower. There are other options available, depending on the situation.
The battlefield we were engaged in for 14 years was a complex one, and that is something that a modern warfighter needs to accept and adapt to. Sometimes you have to accept a higher level of risk or take more risks, in order to keep in line with overall strategies. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were wars that required the level of violence some of you are advocating.
If you think so, your perspective and understanding of the mission is a bit off. If it was the right strategy or a good mission to get involved in, is a different discussion all together.
And saying that you would shoot up an orphanage....well, that is pretty cold.
See above. You're currently speaking tactics and pretending to speak strategy. What you're really speaking is localized strategy, not theater or global strategy. Simply put, do you speak your native language or German? If you speak Norwegian, you have theater and global and strategy to thank. Because IS is not thinking about a craphole village or even an Iraqi city, they're thinking 8th Century Iberian Peninsula. They just have to take those towns, cities and regions to establish an overwhelming Sunni dominance before going there. The current battle has always been sectarian in nature. Boiled down to it's rawest form, Sunni vs. Shia. Buit that's never been the end game. Don't think so?
http://new.euro-med.dk/wp-content/uploads/muslim-caliphate.jpg
That's not an 8th Century map, it's a current IS map. So when you talk about acceptable risks on the battlefield, you're ignoring unacceptable risks globally. Likewise, your efforts have been at the behest of some of the most short-sighted policymakers in history. Not just Obama, but Bush before him and whoever replaces Obama after, along with all their alliance partners globally. This is primarily a result of presidential elections being an overgrown High School popularity contest, rather than a criteria based selection of critical global importance. They and their minions are FAR more concerned with what the 5PM news will say about them today than a week from now, much less what history will say years from now.
Further, you're attempting to express how the common Muslim on the street or in the small villages or even the ones in Western countries feel. Simply put, they don't drive Islamic policy. They can say what they think being a Muslim is, but they're not in control. If they were, there would be no IS, no sectarian violence and no long-term terrorism campaign against warring factions and the West. You talk about the localized PsyOp campaign, but ignore that we're losing the global PsyOp war, badly. The U.S. can't even officially state what the actual threat is due to political correctness. Without being able to speak plainly and debate the true elements of the problem, we lost before we ever started.
What we currently practice is risk aversion, not seeking victory. So let's keep this in perspective and consider the true big picture, not what bobbleheads on TV say it is. :(
Yup. Ready?
Root - Playing fast and loose with the lives of our former allies in the ME, using them to fight our wars with our funding and equipment only to leave them high and dry when our objective is achieved. This has caused distrust and resentment, a deep rooted sentiment that we must be held accountable as a nation for the lives lost by bringing war to their (formER allies) homes. There are South American countries that hold the same reservations towards us.
Instigation - Opposing nations, as well as wealthy self-serving individuals, funnel money and weapons into the continued war effort to play our own tactic against us. They create instability, illiteracy, and fuel hostile actions through the manipulation of the morals and values held in high regard.
A prime example would be Saudis/UBL>Al Qaeda>Taliban Afghanistan/Muj
Solution (Herbicide) - Here's where the truth differs the Hollywood reality some believe in, and why the study of war isn't done in five minutes from sensational media pieces. The only way to defeat the enemy is to defeat their idea, the only way to defeat an idea is to eliminate the common bond. If you were to only kill combatants and strictly those originals, you would be creating one to two new enemy recruits per. Add in the monumental recruiting significance of the women and children some here are so eager to slaughter. Now you're looking at 1:25 as a ratio of active enemy joining the battle per innocent killed. That's a failing strategy, one that has been failing for decades despite the repeated attempts to bring peace through short incursions.
To break the common bond, you remove the emotional connection to the common theme, in this case religion. You don't do that by regurgitating sound clips and fear mongering media headlines without a minute of research. You don't contest the religion. You simply don't accept it as anything significant. Think of it like teaching your kids not to be afraid of the dark. You don't tell them it's okay by sitting outside the closet in a bunker, fully geared for a dynamic dynamical showdown and scream "I HATE YOU SCARY DARKNESS", you calmly walk in and show your kid how little power the dark has. It's nothing, it's a myth, it's not real. Education. Financial stability. Economic success. Alternatives to the "everything because God says so" approach.
Then you assist in standing up a security force. You oversee and supervise the early phases and minimize the growing pains, provide safety and security while creating a new bond and trust. You have to outlive the previous generation and make them look foolish for living in the past because the new generation will have seen a very different version of America.
Or you kill a bunch of women and children. I guess I have been going to the wrong shoot house dojo thing because it just doesn't sound like a winning approach; kill women and children to make men stop targeting our...women and children? Oh.
I 100% agree with the first half of this, but differ on the bold part. Saying this is equivalent to saying we shouldn't have addressed the fascism of the Nazis or the imperialism of the Japan. This isn't about religion, yet THEY are the ones who've successfully dictated the PR campaign that we think it is. They have us furiously denying this is a religious war. No, it's about ideology. You can wrap it in the trappings of religion or nationalism or whatever flimsy excuse you want, but it's still the base ideology that drives the train. We just don't understand at that depth. American society is far to shallow for that.
Again, you're correct about the deplorable state of modern media sound bites. No one is willing to pay attention long enough to actually be thoughtful and consider the breadth and scope of the problem, much less the subtle nuances it's rife with. :(
I sometimes wonder if it would be more efficient for the west to allow the IS to become a dominant player in the ME. Given their propensity for tyranny and a lack of value in human life, it would be a lot easier to have a native population begging for liberation, and a "conventional" enemy, for which, military action would have a demonstrable and apparent outcome.
I agree with your plan for a security force, and stabilization of the local government; however it is my understanding that in Afghanistan there was a combination of corruption and ineptitude regarding the locals, that made this path almost prohibitively arduous. It's my supposition that the amount of money and time required to push that towards a successful outcome would be more than the U.S. civilian leadership and population would be willing to stomach.
For me, the simplest, and most effective approach is to:
Let them go full-blown Lord of the Flies, and suffer in a protracted hell of internecine conflict to the point where the civilian population becomes an easier target for psychological operations, and is more sympathetic towards western aid.
Provide security, and direct action intervention against any threat to oil production
My problem with the hearts/minds approach is that, we aren't going to convince them to stop the fundamental-Islam crap, any easier than if we were to storm the Vatican, and convince them that the Pope is pointless, and they have to stop with the Mary stuff.
The only acceptable solution is a long-term policy of resource protection/management.
Like a leg in the civil war with gangrene, sometimes all you can do is cut it off, let it rot, and snatch the golden toe-ring.
Ahh, glimmers of global strategy. My comments on bombing the hell out of IS are simply a byproduct of knowing that we will not entertain a successful long term strategy. Yours has far more merit than some would give credit for, but it will not come to pass. Given my option on this, I'd go dark on the whole affair until they were a hundred miles inside Saudi Arabia, then I'd extract some SERIOUS concessions from the House of Saud on what they do and don't support behind closed doors. :)
Outlander Systems
02-08-15, 18:32
You nailed it, buddy.
The civilian leadership in this country is a cadre of sniveling invertebrates, more concerned with five minutes down the road, than any existential threat.
Glocktogo's post is a great synopsis. The Muslim population can be thought of as concentric circles with militant Islamists in the center. These are the hardcore ISIS and Taliban fighters who behead and burn their enemies. Their goal is to establish an Islamist caliphate that is centered in the ME but is the dominant force on the globe.
The next layer is the Islamists. These guys may not pick up a bomb or a gun, but they give material support to the militants.
Conservative Muslims are the layer that probably represents most Muslms living in the ME. While they are not interested in turning the White House into a mosque, they do hold views that put them at odds with most democratic societies. For example, they believe in the subjugation of women and homosexuals. They hold extreme views on judicial punishment. These people typically do poorly assimilating into Western societies.
What remains are liberal and non-practicing Muslims. Many of these people are desperate to get out of the ME.
It's very hard to quantify the percentage of each circle since many Muslims move between circles throughout their lives. However, I'm willing to bet that the number of Islamists and militants vastly outnumber the number of Nazi's in 1942 as a proportion of the global population.
MountainRaven
02-09-15, 02:01
One of the inevitable drawbacks of a democratic government is that those doing the governing will almost invariably be shortsighted, geared toward ensuring things only go well into the next election cycle. One, perhaps, advantage to a monarchy wherein the monarch has teeth - and isn't a looney: The next election cycle is never. The monarch will be more interested in leaving things better off for his or her offspring or other heir(s), rather than leaving things better off for their party in two or four years.
See above. You're currently speaking tactics and pretending to speak strategy. What you're really speaking is localized strategy, not theater or global strategy. Simply put, do you speak your native language or German? If you speak Norwegian, you have theater and global and strategy to thank. Because IS is not thinking about a craphole village or even an Iraqi city, they're thinking 8th Century Iberian Peninsula. They just have to take those towns, cities and regions to establish an overwhelming Sunni dominance before going there. The current battle has always been sectarian in nature. Boiled down to it's rawest form, Sunni vs. Shia. Buit that's never been the end game. Don't think so?
http://new.euro-med.dk/wp-content/uploads/muslim-caliphate.jpg
That's not an 8th Century map, it's a current IS map. So when you talk about acceptable risks on the battlefield, you're ignoring unacceptable risks globally. Likewise, your efforts have been at the behest of some of the most short-sighted policymakers in history. Not just Obama, but Bush before him and whoever replaces Obama after, along with all their alliance partners globally. This is primarily a result of presidential elections being an overgrown High School popularity contest, rather than a criteria based selection of critical global importance. They and their minions are FAR more concerned with what the 5PM news will say about them today than a week from now, much less what history will say years from now.
Further, you're attempting to express how the common Muslim on the street or in the small villages or even the ones in Western countries feel. Simply put, they don't drive Islamic policy. They can say what they think being a Muslim is, but they're not in control. If they were, there would be no IS, no sectarian violence and no long-term terrorism campaign against warring factions and the West. You talk about the localized PsyOp campaign, but ignore that we're losing the global PsyOp war, badly. The U.S. can't even officially state what the actual threat is due to political correctness. Without being able to speak plainly and debate the true elements of the problem, we lost before we ever started.
What we currently practice is risk aversion, not seeking victory. So let's keep this in perspective and consider the true big picture, not what bobbleheads on TV say it is. :(
First off, my terminology is correct. And claiming that I am discussing tactics shows that you lack an understanding of what tactics means in a military context. The tactical level is the lowest level of planning spanning hours, days or a few weeks at best. The strategic level is the highest level of planning, while the operational level is the intermediate level.
NATO had a strategy for Afghanistan, the Norwegian government had a strategy for our military's participation in Afghanistan, RC (N) had a strategy for operations and goals in northern Afghanistan, and our PRT had a strategy for it's operations and long term goals.
Further, you cannot say that I lack a global perspective when I was discussing the ROE of two specific conflicts. I was not discussing ISIS, nor the threat they are posing. This also goes for your claims that I am ignoring global risk. We were discussing theater ROE against a statement made on it's robustness, or lack thereof.
I posted the following on page 18, post #126:
Instead of re-hashing all the old rhetoric on Islam/Muslims, why not try to suggest actual, viable strategies for the situation we are facing?
What should be done? Should the West back off, and let the ME-nations handle it themselves?
Should a coalition of western nations commit to military action in the region on a larger scale than now?
What is the likely development in the area if we continue the present course?
What is the desired end-state?
And just to clear up some terminologies:
ISIS - Islamic State In Syria. Term used by enemies of ISIS since it does not acknowledge the Islamic State
ISIL - The Islamic State In Iraq and the Levant
DAESH(Da'ish) - Arabic acronym for Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām, which is ISIS
IS - Islamic State. Used by supporters of DAESH, as they acknowledge the Caliphate. Some use IS out of ignorance.
The origins of the names of these groups come from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, established in 1999. This group changed it's name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn in 2003, or Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The "Varsity squad" term has become sort of a farse, but it is interesting that I tried to point out the skill level of these guys in a thread, and some members here we quick to dismiss my comments, and call these guys amateurs. Anywho, it is important to note that ISIS have skilled and trained military officers in their ranks, some of Saddams top guys who were in the deck of cards of Iraq's most wanted men. These guys have fought US forces, Shia ISF, Shia militia, and Bashar in Syria since 2003. They know insurgency, and have a adopted a level of brutality that exceed that of their enemies.
The situation can be summed up as follows:
DAESH has great momentum in Syria and Iraq.
AQ has great momentum in Yemen
AQ and others have great momentum in Somalia (Al-Shabaab)
Extremist Jihadists have great momentum in Libya and Nigeria (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Boko Haram)
It is not far fetched to conclude that the current open ground war can spread to mainland Europe, if these factions so desire.
Unfortunately some people here are more concerned with attacking other posters for having a different opinion, rather than discussing the actual topic.
And regardless of the threat ISIS poses, a military victory is not the end-all strategy for this issue. People advocating this approach seem to have forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq.
Killing every single ISIS terrorist isn't doable. Killing all their supporters isn't doable. There is no feasibility in "nuking" a target in the ME, in the hopes that ISIS leadership will stop, since Japan and WWII was brought up.
If anyone thinks that option is valid, please expound on it.
You need a joint effort targeting both military, political, societal, cultural, religious aspects of the conflict, in order to be successful.
Since you want to talk on a global scale, and look at the bigger picture, here are my thoughts.
We should commit to a significant military effort in order to stop ISIS from operating as a coherent organization. This includes covert and overt operations, against ground forces but also the higher levels of their organization. In addition, I think we should target leaders and ideologists globally, who either overtly or covertly support terrorism and the expansionism of extremist islam. I am not saying to neccessarily kill them, but take action so that they are taken out of the game.
We also need to target radical islam, using memetic attacks, in order to sway the opinion of the so-called moderates, and maybe also some of those who are radical-leaning.
Some muslims are already too far gone to be affected by this, and will continue to spew forth their hateful ideology.
We also need to be realistic in our approach, and accept that we cannot eradicate the problem. Hopefully though, we can reduce them to a minority, in the truest sense. Hopefully, we can turn the tide and marginalize the radicals in their own society/community.
I'd like to thank Arctic and SOW for their in depth and thoughtful responses.
-john
I'd like to thank Arctic and SOW for their in depth and thoughtful responses.
-john
And there my friend lies the very heart of the problem. Some of us want to think while they find bigger and better ways to kill, completely and totally disinterested in any form of diplomacy or theology. Our state of intellectual superiority has allowed far too many to believe in an utter fallacy, one which poses a very real threat if not to you then certainly your children. And that's no silly drama brother.
At some point, after we strike fear into the heart of their operations and break their will, we then can attempt to de-program the masses. If you think the prior isn't possible then you are not a student of history. As far as the reprogramming, if done intelligently and with compassion it can possibly be achieved by the next generation.
And there my friend lies the very heart of the problem. Some of us want to think while they find bigger and better ways to kill, completely and totally disinterested in any form of diplomacy or theology. Our state of intellectual superiority has allowed far too many to believe in an utter fallacy, one which poses a very real threat if not to you then certainly your children. And that's no silly drama brother.
At some point, after we strike fear into the heart of their operations and break their will, we then can attempt to de-program the masses. If you think the prior isn't possible then you are not a student of history. As far as the reprogramming, if done intelligently and with compassion it can possibly be achieved by the next generation.
How do you propose we strike fear into their hearts, and break their will?
Maybe you can answer these questions:
-who do we kill?
-how many do we kill?
-where do we kill them?
Again there is this assumption that we are against kinetic options. I do not understand what gives you that impression.
It is because my suggestion is not an easy fix? Because it is not as easy as "kill the bastards"?
What is the ISIS equivalent of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Since you suggest a kinetic-only approach, I assume that you have suggestions on how to execute?
I don't see where anyone has suggested we leave the radical elements alone, or negotiate with them.
-john
First off, my terminology is correct. And claiming that I am discussing tactics shows that you lack an understanding of what tactics means in a military context. The tactical level is the lowest level of planning spanning hours, days or a few weeks at best. The strategic level is the highest level of planning, while the operational level is the intermediate level.
NATO had a strategy for Afghanistan, the Norwegian government had a strategy for our military's participation in Afghanistan, RC (N) had a strategy for operations and goals in northern Afghanistan, and our PRT had a strategy for it's operations and long term goals.
Further, you cannot say that I lack a global perspective when I was discussing the ROE of two specific conflicts. I was not discussing ISIS, nor the threat they are posing. This also goes for your claims that I am ignoring global risk. We were discussing theater ROE against a statement made on it's robustness, or lack thereof.
I posted the following on page 18, post #126:
Unfortunately some people here are more concerned with attacking other posters for having a different opinion, rather than discussing the actual topic.
And regardless of the threat ISIS poses, a military victory is not the end-all strategy for this issue. People advocating this approach seem to have forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq.
Killing every single ISIS terrorist isn't doable. Killing all their supporters isn't doable. There is no feasibility in "nuking" a target in the ME, in the hopes that ISIS leadership will stop, since Japan and WWII was brought up.
If anyone thinks that option is valid, please expound on it.
You need a joint effort targeting both military, political, societal, cultural, religious aspects of the conflict, in order to be successful.
Since you want to talk on a global scale, and look at the bigger picture, here are my thoughts.
We should commit to a significant military effort in order to stop ISIS from operating as a coherent organization. This includes covert and overt operations, against ground forces but also the higher levels of their organization. In addition, I think we should target leaders and ideologists globally, who either overtly or covertly support terrorism and the expansionism of extremist islam. I am not saying to neccessarily kill them, but take action so that they are taken out of the game.
We also need to target radical islam, using memetic attacks, in order to sway the opinion of the so-called moderates, and maybe also some of those who are radical-leaning.
Some muslims are already too far gone to be affected by this, and will continue to spew forth their hateful ideology.
We also need to be realistic in our approach, and accept that we cannot eradicate the problem. Hopefully though, we can reduce them to a minority, in the truest sense. Hopefully, we can turn the tide and marginalize the radicals in their own society/community.
No, I'm not wrong and yes, you were discussing local tactics. You mentioned that local tactics are sometimes in conflict with operational goals in theater. I'm telling you that you don't have the right strategic goals, therefore your operational and tactical goals are irrelevant. Let me ask you this:
What were the strategic goals of Norway In Afghanistan and were they met?
What were the strategic goals of NATO In Afghanistan and were they met?
If any of these goals were met, did they solve the global problem?
If you can't answer yes to the 2nd part of all three of those questions, then the desired outcome is completely irrelevant.
While I completely agree with you that we can't kill every IS terrorist and all their supporters, you can't effect those desired changes by disrupting their operational capability with a major military effort. Further, you will not be allowed to target the political, societal, cultural, religious aspects of the conflict, therefore you will not be allowed to commit memetic attacks on the root of the problem. The only things left are burying our heads in the sand or continuing the same failed policy we've been doing, expecting a different result. I predict that continuing failed policies is EXACTLY what we’ll do.
You have this problem at home, in some ways more so than we do in the U.S. Anders Breivik was correct in stating the problem and he was frustrated because he felt powerless to impact that problem. How he ultimately brought attention to the problem was reprehensible and intolerable. Ultimately he did more damage to his goal than good. He has his own problems of course and his ideology is as intolerable as the one he railed against. Chalk that one up to unintended consequences. Yet you still have the problem and so long as it can’t be plainly stated and addressed due to political correctness, the problem will remain.
Attacking the societal, cultural and religious aspects is a non-starter. The only possible starter is to attack the ideology itself. Until you accept that, killing anyone is an empty gesture. Any time I advocate remote killing as a response to these savages, it’s simply recognition that we’re not going to do it right, therefore we should do it with as little risk to our people as possible.
I never attacked you, simply your failure to address the more critical components of the debate. Now that you're on them, I hope you focus there and not on what happens at the field level. Talking tactics while ignoring the elephant in the room only ensures we'll remain in the field far longer than anyone wants. :(
No, I'm not wrong and yes, you were discussing local tactics. You mentioned that local tactics are sometimes in conflict with operational goals in theater. I'm telling you that you don't have the right strategic goals, therefore your operational and tactical goals are irrelevant. Let me ask you this:
What were the strategic goals of Norway In Afghanistan and were they met?
What were the strategic goals of NATO In Afghanistan and were they met?
If any of these goals were met, did they solve the global problem?
If you can't answer yes to the 2nd part of all three of those questions, then the desired outcome is completely irrelevant.
While I completely agree with you that we can't kill every IS terrorist and all their supporters, you can't effect those desired changes by disrupting their operational capability with a major military effort. Further, you will not be allowed to target the political, societal, cultural, religious aspects of the conflict, therefore you will not be allowed to commit memetic attacks on the root of the problem. The only things left are burying our heads in the sand or continuing the same failed policy we've been doing, expecting a different result. I predict that continuing failed policies is EXACTLY what we’ll do.
You have this problem at home, in some ways more so than we do in the U.S. Anders Breivik was correct in stating the problem and he was frustrated because he felt powerless to impact that problem. How he ultimately brought attention to the problem was reprehensible and intolerable. Ultimately he did more damage to his goal than good. He has his own problems of course and his ideology is as intolerable as the one he railed against. Chalk that one up to unintended consequences. Yet you still have the problem and so long as it can’t be plainly stated and addressed due to political correctness, the problem will remain.
Attacking the societal, cultural and religious aspects is a non-starter. The only possible starter is to attack the ideology itself. Until you accept that, killing anyone is an empty gesture. Any time I advocate remote killing as a response to these savages, it’s simply recognition that we’re not going to do it right, therefore we should do it with as little risk to our people as possible.
I never attacked you, simply your failure to address the more critical components of the debate. Now that you're on them, I hope you focus there and not on what happens at the field level. Talking tactics while ignoring the elephant in the room only ensures we'll remain in the field far longer than anyone wants. :(
Regarding your first paragraph, I am wrong because.....you say so? I'll say this again, you cannot take what I said within a VERY SPECIFIC context (ROE for specific theaters, shooting up mosques and long term effects within that AO), where I gave a very simplistic example of why a short term victory (killing INS) can affect other long term goals, and apply that to your argument regarding which level of planning I was discussing. That is called a strawman - creating an argument where there is none.
You are telling me I have the incorrect strategic goals? Based on what, exactly? Whether or not Norway's strategy or NATO's strategy in Afghanistan was successful or correct is a totally different discussion, and does not pertain to the global threat posed by ISIS - a relatively speaking new global threat. Extremist terrorism has been a threat for the past decades, but not organized in a way that ISIS is.
What is the correct strategic goal, since you so readily dismiss all others?
And why, exactly, can we not effect those changes that I proposed? Why will we not be allowed to do it? Do you have any suggestions, or are you just going to dismiss any/all other suggestions?
We have a problem with minority immigration, yes, and there is a small, but growing group of radical muslims centered around our capital. Within that group, several (70-100) have gone to Syria/Iraq to fight for ISIS. We have had people in government previously who have let this get out of hand, and who have gone very far in appeasing minorities in fear of offending them. I wholeheartedly disagree with these policies, but I am not in a raving panic about the situation either.
That you can even give some degree of acknowledgement to Anders Behring Breivik shows how bad you understand the issues we have here. He self-radicalized over the immigration/muslim issue, and decided to blow up our government and to kill 77 people, most of whom were only kids. Unintended consequences? On whose part? He deliberately killed these people.
Why is it a non-starter to attack the societal, cultural and religious issues? And how do we attack the ideology? How is that different from what I have suggested?
I never said you attacked me, I said some here have a habit of doing it. And I don't appreciate you saying that I missed the bigger picture, when it was unmistakably clear what I was discussing, as I stated in my first paragraph.
I am not some naive idealist, with no life experience or no first hand experience with the issue we are discussing.
So, I hope that you now will start offering up your own suggestions, and basing them on sound reasoning, rather than outright dismissing what others say.
Outlander Systems
02-09-15, 17:07
Quit getting both your tail feathers ruffled.
Keep it up, and IG will layeth the smackdown on this thread faster than a Kardashian can eclipse issues like this.
Personally, if any of us were in a position to enact policy, our voices would be worth a damn. Unfortunately, they're not.
The only thing we can do is learn from these things, and the instant either of you state that, "my way is the right way", you're blowing sunshine up our skirts.
I don't care if someone here personally kicked UBL in the dick; please dismount the high-horse.
In typical fashion, we're here, bickering over which one of us is, "mo bettah right", and ignoring the fact that a unified death cult would love nothing more than to see every one of our cities as a heaping pile of ash.
Quit getting both your tail feathers ruffled.
Keep it up, and IG will layeth the smackdown on this thread faster than a Kardashian can eclipse issues like this.
Personally, if any of us were in a position to enact policy, our voices would be worth a damn. Unfortunately, they're not.
The only thing we can do is learn from these things, and the instant either of you state that, "my way is the right way", you're blowing sunshine up our skirts.
I don't care if someone here personally kicked UBL in the dick; please dismount the high-horse.
In typical fashion, we're here, bickering over which one of us is, "mo bettah right", and ignoring the fact that a unified death cult would love nothing more than to see every one of our cities as a heaping pile of ash.
Let me take ownership of my part in this. I had to go back and reread from page 16 to figure out where it all went wrong.
The heat has been here for several pages, but FWIW, my tail feathers are not in the slightest ruffled by what Arctic has posted. I can't speak for him, so I won’t try. Starting on about page 17, the train went off the tracks about ROE. Arctic did try to go back on topic in Post #126, but it didn’t last long. Then despite my best intentions, I got sucked into the whole ROE derail. Then I tried to re-rail it, but misread Arctic’s Post #157 while trying to play catch-up (except the last couple of paragraphs, which I got). That caused me to conflate what he said up top with what he said at the end, which is incorrect on my part. So apologies to Arctic for that (truly Sir, sorry about that).
I THINK that caused him to think I was attacking him (maybe not?) and his response in #177 had a lot of content I disagree with. He obviously has a lot of experience, but I’m not exactly talking out of my butt here. I don’t have any misunderstanding of what tactics means in the military context, so perhaps he misread a bit as well. From there in #183, I tried to turn the conversation back to the bigger picture, but I guess (?) he thought I was dismissing his experience, which I wasn’t. I did agree with him on some points, just not all of them. I am open to suggestions, but I’m not up for entertaining fantasy beyond a couple of “gee, I sure wish…” statements. Obviously I touched a nerve mentioning Breivik, so I apologize for that. It was probably a “What? Too soon?” moment on my part.
So we disagree on the bigger picture, but I'm not one to say I'm right and that's that. FWIW, I’ve participated in combat exercises IN Norway on two separate occasions. Norway continues to be the best European country I’ve visited, and I’ve been to quite a few. Now, off for another drink, anyone care to join me? :)
Outlander Systems
02-09-15, 18:40
Let me take ownership of my part in this. I had to go back and reread from page 16 to figure out where it all went wrong.
The heat has been here for several pages, but FWIW, my tail feathers are not in the slightest ruffled by what Arctic has posted. I can't speak for him, so I won’t try. Starting on about page 17, the train went off the tracks about ROE. Arctic did try to go back on topic in Post #126, but it didn’t last long. Then despite my best intentions, I got sucked into the whole ROE derail. Then I tried to re-rail it, but misread Arctic’s Post #157 while trying to play catch-up (except the last couple of paragraphs, which I got). That caused me to conflate what he said up top with what he said at the end, which is incorrect on my part. So apologies to Arctic for that (truly Sir, sorry about that).
I THINK that caused him to think I was attacking him (maybe not?) and his response in #177 had a lot of content I disagree with. He obviously has a lot of experience, but I’m not exactly talking out of my butt here. I don’t have any misunderstanding of what tactics means in the military context, so perhaps he misread a bit as well. From there in #183, I tried to turn the conversation back to the bigger picture, but I guess (?) he thought I was dismissing his experience, which I wasn’t. I did agree with him on some points, just not all of them. I am open to suggestions, but I’m not up for entertaining fantasy beyond a couple of “gee, I sure wish…” statements. Obviously I touched a nerve mentioning Breivik, so I apologize for that. It was probably a “What? Too soon?” moment on my part.
So we disagree on the bigger picture, but I'm not one to say I'm right and that's that. FWIW, I’ve participated in combat exercises IN Norway on two separate occasions. Norway continues to be the best European country I’ve visited, and I’ve been to quite a few. Now, off for another drink, anyone care to join me? :)
We're all on the same team here, dude. We can't forget that.
I'd be down to quaff mead by the horn full with ya, bro.
Totally unruffled feathers on my part.
I just think it is a fruitless discussion when one party dismisses the argument of the other, without offering a counter-argument or explaining why the arguments are without merit.
I am not claiming to be right, either, but I am offering up what I feel is the ideal strategy. And it most likely will take a combined set of actions, not just kinetic, to fix the issue.
The inability of our leaders to adress the problem previously has led us to where we are now. And that is the situation that needs to be focused on, not what happened in the distant or not so distant past.
Totally unruffled feathers on my part.
I just think it is a fruitless discussion when one party dismisses the argument of the other, without offering a counter-argument or explaining why the arguments are without merit.
I am not claiming to be right, either, but I am offering up what I feel is the ideal strategy. And it most likely will take a combined set of actions, not just kinetic, to fix the issue.
The inability of our leaders to adress the problem previously has led us to where we are now. And that is the situation that needs to be focused on, not what happened in the distant or not so distant past.
I wasn't dismissing your argument, just pointing out what I felt was a more salient point. I do agree with your methodology in how to deal with the issue at large, but I also believe political correctness will prevent such actions from ever being implemented. Right now, we're down to making a shit sandwich for lunch. All that's left to decide is which condiments to use on it. :(
How do you propose we strike fear into their hearts, and break their will?
Does anyone really need to clarify this a general sense? Weren't you a soldier?
Maybe you can answer these questions:
-who do we kill?
-how many do we kill?
-where do we kill them?
Again there is this assumption that we are against kinetic options. I do not understand what gives you that impression.
It is because my suggestion is not an easy fix? Because it is not as easy as "kill the bastards"?
Am I to believe that you really don't understand how to accomplish such a goal? Why did you join the military, to show off a weapon and hope no one will force you to use it? Sure it's a complicated situation that goes beyond a formally organized government military force, but God forbid we allow that circumstance to dissuade taking decisive action then we're all screwed. For modern context, remember the surge? Wasn't a long term fix of course but it proved effective and would have been a sustained fix were it not for the spineless, corrupt waste of humanity in charge of their government and military. The U.S. can't police the world but, with the right leader, we just may be able to use things like people being burned in cages and children being buried alive to galvanize if they believe in the common cause and our leadership. As of now they see an assclown who would rather ride his bicycle through the park than stand up to evil.
What is the ISIS equivalent of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Who said there was one in the context you speak of? Did anyone advocate using a nuke, or might they simply be advocating the use of overwhelming force to subdue an out of control, completely irrational element of the world's population?
Since you suggest a kinetic-only approach, I assume that you have suggestions on how to execute?
We have a well known serviceman named Bowe Bergdahl who kind of felt bad about things, thought that maybe he could relate to his enemies "struggles" and talk some sense into them, yet the only reason his head is still attached to his body is because his captors desired leverage, which they got 5-1. Not to mention all the dead aid workers. You want to think I desire to kill every muslim, have disdain for a rational discussion of options and utilize violence prematurely so be it. Not wasting any more time going is useless circles, believe what you want.
Edit: I'm done with this discussion so no need for anyone to worry about it getting ugly. Artic is clearly a nice guy who has done respectable things with his life, but the mindset he and others possess during this difficult time can be both confusing and deeply frustrating to some. Is what it is, only time and diligence will determine what our world will be like for our children. Bottom line is that huge elements of islam are now a cancer spreading throughout the world and it must be dealt with aggressively or else. Moving on.
Outlander Systems
02-12-15, 17:04
....elements of islam are now a cancer spreading throughout the world and it must be dealt with aggressively or else. Moving on.
Nailed it.
It is nothing short of a societal cancer.
Never mind. Have a good day.
vicious_cb
02-12-15, 17:14
Edit: I'm done with this discussion so no need for anyone to worry about it getting ugly. Artic is clearly a nice guy who has done respectable things with his life, but the mindset he and others possess during this difficult time can be both confusing and deeply frustrating to some. Is what it is, only time and diligence will determine what our world will be like for our children. Bottom line is that huge elements of islam are now a cancer spreading throughout the world and it must be dealt with aggressively or else. Moving on.
Confusing? Arctic is dead on. While the US has the ability to win any battle at the tactical level, history has shown us that we are appalling bad at accomplishing our strategic goals. The ISIS issue wont be solved by dropping a few bombs and "fighting fire with fire."
Does anyone really need to clarify this a general sense? Weren't you a soldier?
You stated the intent of your course of action, and the end state. I am asking you to expound on your recommened methods and means to reach the end-state.
Have you done an analysis of the motivation and morale of the current enemy? If yes, have your findings led you to the conclusion that this "striking fear into their hearts and breaking their will" is a realistic and achievable goal?
For the record, I don't think the goal you are describing is achievable with this enemy.
Yes, I was a soldier. Were you?
Am I to believe that you really don't understand how to accomplish such a goal? Why did you join the military, to show off a weapon and hope no one will force you to use it? Sure it's a complicated situation that goes beyond a formally organized government military force, but God forbid we allow that circumstance to dissuade taking decisive action then we're all screwed. For modern context, remember the surge? Wasn't a long term fix of course but it proved effective and would have been a sustained fix were it not for the spineless, corrupt waste of humanity in charge of their government and military. The U.S. can't police the world but, with the right leader, we just may be able to use things like people being burned in cages and children being buried alive to galvanize if they believe in the common cause and our leadership. As of now they see an assclown who would rather ride his bicycle through the park than stand up to evil.
You make a statement on what we need to do in order to end this conflict. It is clear to me what your suggested course of action is, based on your critique of my suggestions.
I am therefore asking you to quantify your statement by answering the questions I posed. Since you have a strong opinion on what needs to be done, then you should also have some idea on what is required to reach it.
Who do we kill?
Where do we kill them?
How many do we kill?
Can you quantify these metrics into a solid data point that we can use to measure success? When is the threat over?
For the record, I don't think this can be quantified at all, because pursuing a kinetic-only option is not viable.
Who said there was one in the context you speak of? Did anyone advocate using a nuke, or might they simply be advocating the use of overwhelming force to subdue an out of control, completely irrational element of the world's population?
I was using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the overwhelming force you are advocating, not saying that anyone suggested using nukes. I wanted your thoughts on where to apply this overwhelming force. Which strategic or symbolic targets will have the effect that you desire?
We have a well known serviceman named Bowe Bergdahl who kind of felt bad about things, thought that maybe he could relate to his enemies "struggles" and talk some sense into them, yet the only reason his head is still attached to his body is because his captors desired leverage, which they got 5-1. Not to mention all the dead aid workers. You want to think I desire to kill every muslim, have disdain for a rational discussion of options and utilize violence prematurely so be it. Not wasting any more time going is useless circles, believe what you want.
Edit: I'm done with this discussion so no need for anyone to worry about it getting ugly. Artic is clearly a nice guy who has done respectable things with his life, but the mindset he and others possess during this difficult time can be both confusing and deeply frustrating to some. Is what it is, only time and diligence will determine what our world will be like for our children. Bottom line is that huge elements of islam are now a cancer spreading throughout the world and it must be dealt with aggressively or else. Moving on.
You outright dismiss my thoughts on the matter, and insinuate that "I don't get it", whatever it is. You seem to think that I am opposing kinetic options, when I have clearly stated the opposite. I am just stating that kinetic options is not going to be viable on it's own, in a vaccum. You can actually develop and pursue different courses of action at the same time. It is called three block warfare for a reason, just apply it to a bigger picture.
I also don't get why you post a reply, and then add that you are done with the discussion. It is a poor debate technique. Further, what I am posting has nothing to with me being a "nice" guy. There are many reasons why mindset differs - that does not mean that one is automatically wrong, or right.
As for your cancer analogy, I agree completely that we need to stop the current development. I just don't think that cutting the cancer out will work on it's own, we will need several different types of treatment to combat this.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-13-15, 03:12
Artic1 is making complete sense right now. But what do I know, I was never a soldier, just a Marine.
And ViciousCB makes a great point as well. Our military might means little when long term strategic goals can not be accomplished. The war on radical Islam is one that must be fought in many different ways. The battlefield warfare is a surprisingly small aspect of it.
I do not have much to say on this matters, but there is this small group of people living in Israel, who fight for their life for last like 60 years or so, among other things also with radical islamists. I think they are right bunch of people to ask what to do. From what I see in the news, they try to "aim for the head".
There is also this story I heard (supposedly true, but might be urban myth), about why citizens of Warsaw Pact countries were relatively safe in Lebannon, at least from kidnapping. It had something to do with ugly kind of end that happened to every leader of every fraction who even remotely was connected to kidnapping and dead of one low ranking USSR diplomat.
Point is: somebody is giving orders, organizing, financing. What you need to do is make this to be very risky business, with very ugly consequences. You can not put fear in mind of someone ready to blow himself up. But his boss is not ready to do that, in other case he would already blow himself up and enjoy virgins.
Eurodriver
02-13-15, 06:41
I do not have much to say on this matters, but there is this small group of people living in Israel, who fight for their life for last like 60 years or so, among other things also with radical islamists. I think they are right bunch of people to ask what to do. From what I see in the news, they try to "aim for the head".
There is also this story I heard (supposedly true, but might be urban myth), about why citizens of Warsaw Pact countries were relatively safe in Lebannon, at least from kidnapping. It had something to do with ugly kind of end that happened to every leader of every fraction who even remotely was connected to kidnapping and dead of one low ranking USSR diplomat.
Point is: somebody is giving orders, organizing, financing. What you need to do is make this to be very risky business, with very ugly consequences. You can not put fear in mind of someone ready to blow himself up. But his boss is not ready to do that, in other case he would already blow himself up and enjoy virgins.
This is a good post, and I concur.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.