Airstrikes in Syria.

[dave1251]

I am happy there are reports of air strikes against Al-Qaeda affiliates such as the Khorasan group that are also fighting ISIS. What the vast majority of Americans are not being told is the Free Syrian Army(moderate rebels) is allied with Al-Qaeda and it many affiliates and offshoots in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad first and ISIS second. Then Assad and the Russians have stated in the past any strikes against targets in Syria by the U.S. would be considered an act of war. Now there are reports that Assad was informed of the airstrikes by the U.S. before hand. Is informing Assad of airstrikes enough to appease Russia and Assad? The bottom line eliminating ISIS can not be done by airstrikes. Training and arming Al-Qaeda allied groups to fight ISIS is not wise I rather the U.S. along with its allies fight and degrade ISIS directly rather than arm and train terrorist with the means and training to fight us down the road.

 

[Olas]

Terrorism is a subjective term. The 'Americans' were thought to be terrorists when they wanted independence from the crown.

 

[L_Sludger]

its all a ploy to remove Assad. Who knows what the reaction will be when we start attacking Assad proper? The Russians probably won't stand idly by. The administration is counting on them to sit on the sidelines and moan.

 

[IndyIan]

The sad thing is that probably the Kurds are the most trustworthy group there that's willing to take on ISIS on the ground, but other political considerations keep them from being assisted too much... Why not let them have their own nation state? Clearly they are willing to fight for it. Also why do we care what Russia thinks about Syria right now? They should get a stiff response for what they are doing in Europe at the moment. What goes around, comes around...

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Olas

Terrorism is a subjective term. The 'Americans' were thought to be terrorists when they wanted independence from the crown.

Webster's says: Ter´ror`ism n. 1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. 2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals. Sounds to me like the "Terrorists" in that situation was more like the British to me.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Olas

Terrorism is a subjective term. The 'Americans' were thought to be terrorists when they wanted independence from the crown.

Then you are in favor of a global caliphate?

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan

The sad thing is that probably the Kurds are the most trustworthy group there that's willing to take on ISIS on the ground, but other political considerations keep them from being assisted too much... Why not let them have their own nation state?

Why not let East Ukraine have its own nation state of Novorossiya?

 

[dave1251]

New Russia is not a independent country. It is a providence of the Russian Federation.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

New Russia is not a independent country. It is a providence of the Russian Federation.

Well if you're talking about Donbass, Donetsk, Odessa, Slovyansk, etc., they're not yet officially recognized as part of Russia proper, and their full independence from the Kiev junta regime thugs is not recognized yet either.

 

[bepperb]

Originally Posted By: Olas

Terrorism is a subjective term. The 'Americans' were thought to be terrorists when they wanted independence from the crown.

I'm certainly no expert but I do not recall aggression against English civilians during what we call the Revolutionary war. I would be surprised if the resources were available to conduct such an attack. Of course I'd be interested to hear if I'm wrong. I think you are considering guerilla warfare and terrorism to be the same thing, they are not. When a military target is attacked by any means that is not terrorism. There should be an expectation when you are a military occupying an area that has issued a declaration of independence that you would be attacked. That's an act of war, which was declared, not an act of terrorism. To be honest 200 years ago the media didn't make terrorism a realistic tactic. The leverage of the media is the only thing that makes it popular now.

 

[andrewg]

Excellent post^^^

 

[Concours14]

Other than protecting through air strikes and arming the Kurds, who can be re-supplied by air with all the best killing gear the American taxpayer can buy, I'm all for allowing Islamics to kill Islamics. They're the same brand of the same animal. It isn't worth even one more of our guys and not even worth one more $2,000,000 cruise missile. Not one. When the dust settles, China can buy their oil from the last man standing, a man who will be a man not unlike 1970's-era Saddam Hussein as the Sunni Muslims seem willing to commit the most heinous brutalities. It's a feral region, they'll cut their own mothers' throats for a dollar, the only measure of value is destruction. He who kills best garners the most and even the members of the strongman's camp wants him dead so THEY can grab the brass ring. We were idiots to think they could be civilized, and I was one of those that once thought they could. It's a hopeless region to deal with and now that we don't need the oil, the Asians can have their turn at it..

 

[bepperb]

Originally Posted By: Concours14

Other than protecting through air strikes and arming the Kurds, who can be re-supplied by air with all the best killing gear the American taxpayer can buy, I'm all for allowing Islamics to kill Islamics. They're the same brand of the same animal. It isn't worth even one more of our guys and not even worth one more $2,000,000 cruise missile. Not one. When the dust settles, China can buy their oil from the last man standing, a man who will be a man not unlike 1970's-era Saddam Hussein as the Sunni Muslims seem willing to commit the most heinous brutalities. It's a feral region, they'll cut their own mothers' throats for a dollar, the only measure of value is destruction. He who kills best garners the most and even the members of the strongman's camp wants him dead so THEY can grab the brass ring. We were idiots to think they could be civilized, and I was one of those that once thought they could. It's a hopeless region to deal with and now that we don't need the oil, the Asians can have their turn at it..

The same could have been said about Western Europe 70 years ago. Sadly their path to stability isn't one anyone wants to go down again, and there doesn't seem to be a better option either. At least not one all parties in that region can agree on.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: bepperb

Originally Posted By: Olas

Terrorism is a subjective term. The 'Americans' were thought to be terrorists when they wanted independence from the crown.

I'm certainly no expert but I do not recall aggression against English civilians during what we call the Revolutionary war. I would be surprised if the resources were available to conduct such an attack. Of course I'd be interested to hear if I'm wrong. I think you are considering guerilla warfare and terrorism to be the same thing, they are not. When a military target is attacked by any means that is not terrorism. There should be an expectation when you are a military occupying an area that has issued a declaration of independence that you would be attacked. That's an act of war, which was declared, not an act of terrorism. To be honest 200 years ago the media didn't make terrorism a realistic tactic. The leverage of the media is the only thing that makes it popular now.

Excellent reply Military or civilian, terrorism is terrorism. How you percive it depends on which paper you read and whose bias you agree with. Tutsis and Hutus Norther Ireland and the republic of Ireland Israel and Palestine The list goes on and on but the consistency in all of these interactions is that both 'sides' want revenge on the other for some long-since forgotten event. We're the southern states terrorists in wanting independence? Or we're the northern states terrorists for forcing uniformity on, and thereby disallowing, the independence of said southern states? It's all about perception.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: bepperb

To be honest 200 years ago the media didn't make terrorism a realistic tactic. The leverage of the media is the only thing that makes it popular now.

Absolutely amazingly succinct, and so true. The media is precisely what ISIS has used to great effect...

 

[Mystic]

I am just glad they are finally going after ISIS in Syria and also the Khorasan organization that a lot of people probably have not heard about. That Khorasan group was trying to attack either Western Europe or the USA. The Khorasan organization was apparently very close to actually launching an attack on either a country in Western Europe or the USA. Hopefully they have been set back. Attacking ISIS in Syria and Iraq has to help slow them down. Some people have said they will just hide in the civilian population now. Well, that is fine. Because in order to launch an attack they have to come out and actually attack somewhere.

 

[Concours14]

Well, China could pour their billion-man Army in there and clean it up right QUICK. Then, they could stick a straw in the sand and suck every drop of oil out of there they can haul out. And they won't trouble themselves over cultural sensitivities or distinctions over civilian or military. Kill a Chinese soldier, they'll kill everyone in the village. It's their oil, their contracts, let THEM handle it. Suits me. All I know is, I don't want any of our guys involved on the ground. Not anymore. Iraq had their chance and they blew it.

 

[05LGTLtd]

Hopefully they will hit any means of oil production and distribution that ISIS has in syria soon, if not already. I would have like to seen some quick action against them at the oil fields in Iraq a month or so ago when they took a substantial production there. Cut the money that's allowing them to advance so quickly. We can always subsidize an oil company to fix it later... lol.

 

[Vikas]

Quote:

Hopefully they will hit any means of oil production and distribution that ISIS has

This is the part which I don't get at all! We have the ability to shoot off the ring from the finger from the sky of any individual (OK, slight exaggeration but you get my drift!) If we do not want those oil wells running, we can certainly punch in a gps co-ordinate from inside a nice air-conditioned office and evaporate them with hitting on a computer. So, what is preventing this from happening?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Concours14

Well, China could pour their billion-man Army in there and clean it up right QUICK. Then, they could stick a straw in the sand and suck every drop of oil out of there they can haul out. And they won't trouble themselves over cultural sensitivities or distinctions over civilian or military. Kill a Chinese soldier, they'll kill everyone in the village. It's their oil, their contracts, let THEM handle it. Suits me. All I know is, I don't want any of our guys involved on the ground. Not anymore. Iraq had their chance and they blew it.

So sorry to burst that bubble but China cannot project its power at all. The support required for a large force is a unique challenge, and they are incapable of sustaining anything meaningful on the ground for any length of time. This may change, but it will be a long time before it does. The Iraqi military fell apart because of their leadership filling the top posts with their cronies. If we hadn't pulled out and left a complete vacuum there was a chance none of this would have happened. I weep for the sons and daughters that were sacrificed for nothing.