Can we stop ISIS?

[Brischera]

Yes, it is. As soon as you claim a deliberate policy of supporting ISIL in order to justify our return (which is idiotic - you think Obama wanted to go back to Iraq?), you are making a CT claim. You are claiming that US foreign policy is the opposite of what is stated, and that a conspiracy of true actors at the top seek to create chaos and bloodshed in order to justify.... deployments for the sake of deployments, I suppose.



That is correct. It is not a theory. Because it is not historically accurate. The group that was the genesis of ISIL existed prior to our 2003 invasion of Iraq, and their evolution into ISIL happened after we left Iraq.



:lol: Drones kill fewer civilians than any other interdiction method, and approximately zero people in Iraq give a flying **** about the gitmo detainees.

They aren't "nothing but terrorists". They are terrorists who are also now running a semi-failing state. But they are definitely terrorists.

Okay, thanks for your feedback.

 

[Brischera]

They are terrorists. They decapitate little kids, rape girls as young as 7, and sell and sexually abuse women.

Whatever the U.S. or any other nation has done or not done, ISIS are terrorists.

How is there any material difference between us killing kids with drones and them killing kids with a knife?

 

[Brischera]

No, I label silly conspiracy theories as CT. Because they are. What you spouted off was a conspiracy theory, and belongs in that forum.



No. It's because non-falsifiable claims by those who naively presume USG omnicompetence only at the task of evil are worthless discussions.



:shrug: as a combat vet with 8 years in the US military, I don't have a problem saying that my fellow vets can be idiots.

However, this article does not support your claims. It looks like you googled "America helped ISIS", and went with the most reputable URL you could find. They are simply rehashing the Camp Bucca story, which is A) Historically accurate and B) not a conspiracy theory claiming that we helped support ISIS with training/weapons, that we do not want to stop ISIS, etc.

Like you I am a combat Vet but was only in for 4 instead of 8. It reminded me to ask you a question. What do you think is the most obvious and overlooked evidence we (as in the US government) knew Iraq did not have WMD?

 

[Will B. Black]

How is there any material difference between us killing kids with drones and them killing kids with a knife?

ISIS do it to show off, if they really do it.
'Us' kill with drones? No, it's not us, it's what the forces ruled by the govt do.

 

[Brischera]

ISIS do it to show off, if they really do it.
'Us' kill with drones? No, it's not us, it's what the forces ruled by the govt do.

The other difference I noticed is when they kill someone on video they have great control over who actually dies as a result of their actions. When our drones lather up a street with detonations we do not appear to have the same level of control over who gets killed.

 

[cpwill]

Like you I am a combat Vet but was only in for 4 instead of 8. It reminded me to ask you a question. What do you think is the most obvious and overlooked evidence we (as in the US government) knew Iraq did not have WMD?

The US Government thought Iraq did have WMD - and in fact Iraq did have WMD. We are dealing with some of it now.

What we thought that they had that they didn't have was an ongoing WMD production program. There were no portable laboratories, there were no active chemical facilities. There were just a bunch of old rounds from back in the day that Saddam hadn't turned over, along with a bunch of illegal missiles and the like.



The issues with the National Intelligence Estimate that came to those conclusions have been beaten to death (no ability to collect against gaps, poor methodology, poor source criticism, etc), but probably could have been avoided had the authors been given more time; a 6 month process was demanded with a timeline of 21 days. I did a pump as infantry and then a pump as an intel bubba - as part of our advanced analyst training we spent a few days going over the Iraq WMD reporting and then Commission Report to apply proper analytic tradecraft to the information available at the time. It is (and is designed to be) a humbling exercise.

At the end of the day, you can't build an honest assessment that Iraq did not have WMD's with the evidence that was available (which is good, as that would have been incorrect), and you can't build an honest assessment that Iraq did not have an ongoing program with the evidence that was available - all you can do (if you apply good analytic techniques, etc) is significantly reduce the certainty of the judgments. It was far from a "slam dunk".

How is there any material difference between us killing kids with drones and them killing kids with a knife?

We don't want to kill kids, we go to great lengths to avoid killing kids, we are willing to put ourselves at risk to avoid killing kids, and when we do kill kids, it is usually because the enemy has chosen to use them as human shields in his attempt to leverage the fact that they know we don't want to kill kids.

When ISIL kills kids, they do it on purpose, they do it horror-porn, and they often seek to do it to as many kids as possible.

The other difference I noticed is when they kill someone on video they have great control over who actually dies as a result of their actions. When our drones lather up a street with detonations we do not appear to have the same level of control over who gets killed.

:lol: dude. The mitigated combined effects radius of a hellfire is ridiculously (painfully, sometimes) small. "Lathering up the street with detonations" doesn't happen unless we are in a full conventional TIC against that street.

Okay, thanks for your feedback.

You're quite welcome.

 

[Brischera]

The US Government thought Iraq did have WMD - and in fact Iraq did have WMD. We are dealing with some of it now.

What we thought that they had that they didn't have was an ongoing WMD production program. There were no portable laboratories, there were no active chemical facilities. There were just a bunch of old rounds from back in the day that Saddam hadn't turned over, along with a bunch of illegal missiles and the like.



The issues with the National Intelligence Estimate that came to those conclusions have been beaten to death (no ability to collect against gaps, poor methodology, poor source criticism, etc), but probably could have been avoided had the authors been given more time; a 6 month process was demanded with a timeline of 21 days. I did a pump as infantry and then a pump as an intel bubba - as part of our advanced analyst training we spent a few days going over the Iraq WMD reporting and then Commission Report to apply proper analytic tradecraft to the information available at the time. It is (and is designed to be) a humbling exercise.

At the end of the day, you can't build an honest assessment that Iraq did not have WMD's with the evidence that was available (which is good, as that would have been incorrect), and you can't build an honest assessment that Iraq did not have an ongoing program with the evidence that was available - all you can do (if you apply good analytic techniques, etc) is significantly reduce the certainty of the judgments. It was far from a "slam dunk".




We don't want to kill kids, we go to great lengths to avoid killing kids, we are willing to put ourselves at risk to avoid killing kids, and when we do kill kids, it is usually because the enemy has chosen to use them as human shields in his attempt to leverage the fact that they know we don't want to kill kids.

When ISIL kills kids, they do it on purpose, they do it horror-porn, and they often seek to do it to as many kids as possible.



:lol: dude. The mitigated combined effects radius of a hellfire is ridiculously (painfully, sometimes) small. "Lathering up the street with detonations" doesn't happen unless we are in a full conventional TIC against that street.




You're quite welcome.

You claimed:

"The US Government thought Iraq did have WMD"

As a combat Vet I would have thought you would have seen the obvious evidence we knew they did not have WMD but I guess not.

However, your next claim:

"...and in fact Iraq did have WMD. We are dealing with some of it now."

It has been a DECADE since the Bush admin admitted no wmd was in Iraq:

CNN.com - Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs - Jan 12, 2005

Im sure you have become suave at referencing munitions older than most college graduates as if stuff from the 80s is the material we referenced to justify the invasion.

As you said, fellow Vets can be very stupid.

 

[cpwill]

You claimed:

"The US Government thought Iraq did have WMD"

As a combat Vet I would have thought you would have seen the obvious evidence we knew they did not have WMD but I guess not.

We did indeed think they had WMD. Not only did we think it - the British thought it, the Russians thought it, the French thought it, the Germans thought it, etc. Regardless of the accuracy of our beliefs regarding the nature of his holdings, they were sincerely held.

However, your next claim:

"...and in fact Iraq did have WMD. We are dealing with some of it now."

It has been a DECADE since the Bush admin admitted no wmd was in Iraq:

CNN.com - Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs - Jan 12, 2005

Im sure you have become suave at referencing munitions older than most college graduates as if stuff from the 80s is the material we referenced to justify the invasion.

:shrug: whether you like it or not, Saddam did indeed continue to hold on to WMD's (thousands of them, in fact), some of which have been since used against coalition and other forces. Our average Air Force bomber is also older than today's college graduates; I don't recall that making them not deadly.

As I stated, Saddam did indeed have WMD's, as well as stores of illegal missiles (which was part of the decision as well, though everyone seems to forget that now). He simply did not have a production program up and running, (though he seemed fine with having people suspect that he did), as we thought.

 

[fmw]

How is there any material difference between us killing kids with drones and them killing kids with a knife?

We don't set out to kill children.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, we can. As we were talking about on the podcast last week, if we just treat all ISIS fighters as bandits captured in time of war and execute them all on the spot, then continue to do this in perpetuity, eventually they will run out of converts to their cause. That may be the only way to do it though. No more Guantanamos. No more trials. No more anything. You're ISIS? Bang.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, we can. As we were talking about on the podcast last week, if we just treat all ISIS fighters as bandits captured in time of war and execute them all on the spot, then continue to do this in perpetuity, eventually they will run out of converts to their cause. That may be the only way to do it though. No more Guantanamos. No more trials. No more anything. You're ISIS? Bang.

Winston Churchill famously proposed that leading members of the Nazi Party SS be given, upon capture, 15 minutes to explain themselves and then shot. I could see that working here.

 

[D_NATURED]

No war has ever really been won without killing, but agreements can be made....but that's kinda how we got where we are.

And, plenty of wars have been fought where much killing accomplished nothing in the end (see Vietnam). Instead of attacking them with bombs, we should publicly, and with great fervor, mock them for their crazy beliefs and their violent methods. I'd love to have a national "dress up like your favorite invisible deity" day, to press the point. We can't do that, though, because to mock their beliefs while we claim equally magical ones would seem insincere or hypocritical.

There is a contradiction in the way we try to ride the spiritual fence by, on one hand, claiming to have a secular nation with freedom of conscience and then allowing that ideal to excuse gross stupidity, here and abroad. To have a reverence for an idea called "god" while understanding that it can and does take absolutely ANY intellectual and emotional form is to value arbitrary faith over empirical truth. If god loves idiots or, at the least, idiotic things, then He is not worthy of such dedication as human kind give Him.

We should strike from our currency and our pledge any name applied to such a being that defies rational definition. Pandering to the sheeple who fear Him does nothing but make us all seem fearful, if not of a ridiculous divine revenge then the very real kind that the faithful practice upon society, threatening us until we patronize their delusions. The actions of ISIS are the realization of that threat upon another society.

If we refuse to adopt a superior idea than the crazy ISIS asshats use, how on Earth can we defeat them? We, and our subjective gods, are our own worst enemy because, in truth, they're no better than any other.

 

[Andalublue]

Winston Churchill famously proposed that leading members of the Nazi Party SS be given, upon capture, 15 minutes to explain themselves and then shot. I could see that working here.

He also ordered the starvation to death of 3 million Bengalis, the torture of Kenyan independence activists, the repression of the new Irish republic, and defended the gassing of Kurds and the wholesale slaughter of Boers and black Africans. Just because Churchill advocated something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[Brischera]

We did indeed think they had WMD. Not only did we think it - the British thought it, the Russians thought it, the French thought it, the Germans thought it, etc. Regardless of the accuracy of our beliefs regarding the nature of his holdings, they were sincerely held.



:shrug: whether you like it or not, Saddam did indeed continue to hold on to WMD's (thousands of them, in fact), some of which have been since used against coalition and other forces. Our average Air Force bomber is also older than today's college graduates; I don't recall that making them not deadly.

As I stated, Saddam did indeed have WMD's, as well as stores of illegal missiles (which was part of the decision as well, though everyone seems to forget that now). He simply did not have a production program up and running, (though he seemed fine with having people suspect that he did), as we thought.

Nobody can force you to be honest because we all know the invasion was not based on the old munitions from the 80s. The intellectual dishonesty you are shedding on this is disappointing.

Im still sort of surprised that as a combat Vet you are not able to state the one piece of clear evidence we have proving they knew Iraq did not have wmd.

Clinging to the Chivers piece is revealing so thanks for the feedback.

 

[Brischera]

We don't set out to kill children.

That is completely false. When you have a drone pilot flying the aircraft into a civilian population then dropping the bombs you are targeting the children.

The lame, I mean, you-must-be-in-love-with-Satan crazy excuse that "terrorists" hide behind civilians is absolutely completely insane and is not a policy you would ever accept if you or people you loved were anywhere near the strikes.

 

[cpwill]

Nobody can force you to be honest because we all know the invasion was not based on the old munitions from the 80s.

I agree. It was based on (broadly) a Tripartite of claims:

1. Saddam continued to hold and produce WMD's and illegal missiles, despite the UN sanctions and inspections regime, which he regularly tossed out.
2. Saddam had historical and growing ties to terrorist organizations.
3. Saddam had a history of destabilizing actions, including use of WMDs against his own people, which made him someone we could not trust with both #1 and #2.

Now, the case for both #1 and #2 appear to have been overstated relative to what we know now. However, being wrong about the extent of Saddam's WMD program (which includes being right about its' ongoing existence) does not require that one was dishonest. You are attempting to conflate those two, and it's a false conflation.

Im still sort of surprised that as a combat Vet you are not able to state the one piece of clear evidence we have proving they knew Iraq did not have wmd.

Well, that's probably because I actually know wtf I'm talking about.


We thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
France thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Great Britain thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Russia thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
China thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Germany thought Saddam had an active WMD program.

Because all the available Intelligence said that Saddam had an active WMD program. There is no "one clear piece of evidence proving that we knew Saddam didn't have WMD" because we believed Saddam did have WMD, and we were correct in that assessment, though we were incorrect when we assessed the extent and activities of his program.

 

[blackjack50]

Yes, we can. As we were talking about on the podcast last week, if we just treat all ISIS fighters as bandits captured in time of war and execute them all on the spot, then continue to do this in perpetuity, eventually they will run out of converts to their cause. That may be the only way to do it though. No more Guantanamos. No more trials. No more anything. You're ISIS? Bang.

Violating the rules...or rather "art" of war is never a good idea.

 

[Brischera]

I agree. It was based on (broadly) a Tripartite of claims:

1. Saddam continued to hold and produce WMD's and illegal missiles, despite the UN sanctions and inspections regime, which he regularly tossed out.
2. Saddam had historical and growing ties to terrorist organizations.
3. Saddam had a history of destabilizing actions, including use of WMDs against his own people, which made him someone we could not trust with both #1 and #2.

Now, the case for both #1 and #2 appear to have been overstated relative to what we know now. However, being wrong about the extent of Saddam's WMD program (which includes being right about its' ongoing existence) does not require that one was dishonest. You are attempting to conflate those two, and it's a false conflation.



Well, that's probably because I actually know wtf I'm talking about.


We thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
France thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Great Britain thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Russia thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
China thought Saddam had an active WMD program.
Germany thought Saddam had an active WMD program.

Because all the available Intelligence said that Saddam had an active WMD program. There is no "one clear piece of evidence proving that we knew Saddam didn't have WMD" because we believed Saddam did have WMD, and we were correct in that assessment, though we were incorrect when we assessed the extent and activities of his program.

You keep repeating the same baseless claims while peppering in new ones so let me ask one question:

What changed with Saddam between 09/16/01 and March of 2003?

 

[fmw]

That is completely false. When you have a drone pilot flying the aircraft into a civilian population then dropping the bombs you are targeting the children.

The lame, I mean, you-must-be-in-love-with-Satan crazy excuse that "terrorists" hide behind civilians is absolutely completely insane and is not a policy you would ever accept if you or people you loved were anywhere near the strikes.

You have a curious analysis of the facts. You must really hate the U.S.

 

[cpwill]

You keep repeating the same baseless claims

:lol: baseless claims? The thousands of WMD shells we found were physical reality. The illegal missiles we found were a physical reality. The fact that even those who were diametrically opposed to our policy of regime replacement agreed with our assessments was a reality.

What changed with Saddam between 09/16/01 and March of 2003?

:shrug: we dealt with Afghanistan, which should have indicated to him that we were serious. I think you mean September 16, 2002, which is when Iraq claimed it would allow the inspections regime to begin again.

 

[cpwill]

That is completely false.

Actually it is correct. We go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, including increasing the risk to US civilians.

When you have a drone pilot flying the aircraft into a civilian population then dropping the bombs you are targeting the children.

I asked you before what the mitigated combined effects radius of a Hellfire missile was. Why didn't you answer, since apparently you know so much about drone strikes?

The lame, I mean, you-must-be-in-love-with-Satan crazy excuse that "terrorists" hide behind civilians is absolutely completely insane

No, it is accurate. That is why, according to the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Armed Conflict, they are the ones responsible for civilian casualties resulting from counter-strikes from their opposition. Those who militarize a civilian position are responsible for the following civilian casualties. Terrorist groups are fully aware that we don't like to kill non-combatants, and go to great lengths to do so, and that is part of why they embed themselves as fully as they can into civilian populaces, to help avoid targeting. It is also why they often put out misinformation regarding US military action to try to create the same image you are projecting here.

One of my buddies was in Afghanistan, when the battalion commander got a call asking why he hadn't reported why his Marines had murdered 20 Afghan civilians. Turned out they had been in a firefight earlier, in which they killed (1) TB, and the others (estimated at 5-6) had run away, but with zero civilian casualties. After the firefight, TB had come back, slaughtered some livestock, spread the blood and guts everywhere, filmed it, and sent the video in as evidence of the evil mass murdering Americans. That crap made it on CNN. And people who know about as much about ground ops as you apparently know about drone operations (and I don't mean to be offensive there - I've done targeting, I've done target intelligence, and what you describe does not come even plausibly close to matching reality) believed it.

 

[Brischera]

:lol: baseless claims? The thousands of WMD shells we found were physical reality. The illegal missiles we found were a physical reality. The fact that even those who were diametrically opposed to our policy of regime replacement agreed with our assessments was a reality.



:shrug: we dealt with Afghanistan, which should have indicated to him that we were serious. I think you mean September 16, 2002, which is when Iraq claimed it would allow the inspections regime to begin again.

No I did not mean 9/16/02. I meant 09/16/01. But like the original question of how we knew Iraq had no wmd in 2003 you do not know this one either.

I suppose you think we were justified invading Afghanistan on the basis the Taliban was "harboring" bin laden? The Taliban offered to work with the US to extradite bin laden but Im sure you have a rubber stamp for that as well. But let me ask this, if the KKK blew up some buildings in N. Korea would NK be justified in invading the US since we offered safe harbor to a known terrorist group?

 

[cpwill]

You have a curious analysis of the facts. You must really hate the U.S.

Well, the special allure of the conspiracy theory is that it makes you smarter than everyone else. You are "in the know" and have "figured out the truth". Those who disagree with you are sheep who believe what they are told, but you - YOU - are more clever than that.


:roll: Because, you know. Grand conspiracies by secret government masters can escape the discovery of hostile nations, hostile intelligence services, hostile political parties, and media enterprises, all with massive incentives and infrastructure to discover that sort of thing... but you, you in your basement, you have figured it out. :roll:

 

[Brischera]

You have a curious analysis of the facts. You must really hate the U.S.

This is the tactic of emotional hijacking. When you cannot justify the known facts you attack the speaker by simply accusing him or her of hating America. When I fought with the 3rd ACR in Iraq I had no idea I would be doing for people like you. People who simply falsely accuse others of hate because of disagreeable facts. Dont worry, I would still fight and risk my life so people like you could continue your free speech. In this case better described as speech free of honesty.

 

[Brischera]

Well, the special allure of the conspiracy theory is that it makes you smarter than everyone else. You are "in the know" and have "figured out the truth". Those who disagree with you are sheep who believe what they are told, but you - YOU - are more clever than that.


:roll: Because, you know. Grand conspiracies by secret government masters can escape the discovery of hostile nations, hostile intelligence services, hostile political parties, and media enterprises, all with massive incentives and infrastructure to discover that sort of thing... but you, you in your basement, you have figured it out. :roll:

Actually, you have just described your own position because as a conspiracy theorist you like to have the world framed in neat circles and squares which is why you believe you know exactly what is happening with which groups and why you can justify, in your own head, our drones are not killing innocent people.

Ive not even come close to alluding to any conspiracy theory which only helps reveal all the more how your agenda trumps the facts.