GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Gonna be interesting to see what Jordan's response to this is.
Global authorities that the US government conveniently refuses to recognise have correctly condemned civilian casualties by the US military and clandestine agencies. You can ignore it as it pleases you, but that doesn't change the fact.
We have a winner:
...To carry out this strategy, ISIL needs a serious injection of recruits to build upon its current fighting force of about 30,000 at most, which is significantly fewer fighters than each of its opponent forces: the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, Iraqi and Syrian government forces and even potential Sunni tribal rivals. Simply put, ISIL is surrounded by enemies with greater fighting power, and needs to grow its military strength to create an Islamic—and Sunni—state inside Iraq and Syria.
So why the beheadings? In a word, publicity: They increase the group’s profile as the biggest challenger to the supposed greatest enemy of Islam. This allows ISIL to draw from a significantly larger pool of recruits, many with strong anti-American sentiment, which ISIL desperately needs to fight local battles as the group tries to carve out a de facto state. Yes, the beheadings are meant to challenge and intimidate the Western public, but that is only a secondary benefit for ISIL, whose focus remains on defeating enemies in immediate proximity.
Read more: Why ISIL Beheads Its Victims - Robert A. Pape and Michael Rowley and Sarah Morell - POLITICO Magazine
Like I have been saying, the media needs to carefully consider to what extent they report the details of these executions.
Do you think they would?
....Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are occasionally held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves re-mentioning....
You don't name these "global authorities," but what they think is irrelevant. If they're convinced they hold the moral high ground, let them try to do something about it. The government of the United States is responsible to our Constitution, and nothing else in the world. You can ignore that as it pleases you, but it won't change a damned thing.
We have a winner:
...To carry out this strategy, ISIL needs a serious injection of recruits to build upon its current fighting force of about 30,000 at most, which is significantly fewer fighters than each of its opponent forces: the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, Iraqi and Syrian government forces and even potential Sunni tribal rivals. Simply put, ISIL is surrounded by enemies with greater fighting power, and needs to grow its military strength to create an Islamic—and Sunni—state inside Iraq and Syria.
So why the beheadings? In a word, publicity: They increase the group’s profile as the biggest challenger to the supposed greatest enemy of Islam. This allows ISIL to draw from a significantly larger pool of recruits, many with strong anti-American sentiment, which ISIL desperately needs to fight local battles as the group tries to carve out a de facto state. Yes, the beheadings are meant to challenge and intimidate the Western public, but that is only a secondary benefit for ISIL, whose focus remains on defeating enemies in immediate proximity.
Read more: Why ISIL Beheads Its Victims - Robert A. Pape and Michael Rowley and Sarah Morell - POLITICO Magazine
Like I have been saying, the media needs to carefully consider to what extent they report the details of these executions.
The military knows damn well that the drone program is far more harmful to innocent civilians than the conventional method.
Drone strikes — billed by President Barack Obama as tactically surgical and less deadly to civilians than conventional air power — are 10 times more likely to cause innocent casualties than bombs or missiles unleashed from U.S. jets, according to a new study based on classified military documents.
OMG. The horror. The evil. They must be stopped. But how?
One thing to do is to give poison pills to all military who enter the area, so they can kill themselves, rather than be tortured and killed like this.
On the contrary. Having done targeting in the military for several years, I am pretty thoroughly aware of the opposite. The mitigated CER of a hellfire is pretty small - we've had instances where we've hit the back end of the car and the guy in the front gets out and runs away.
:doh
platform changes. Because launching bigger bombs is the way to kill fewer people. Yeah :roll: that's a great idea.
What this guy isn't taking into account is the different usage - fast movers in Afghanistan are used in support of troops in a TIC. Give them the drone mission, and all you'd be doing is risking a pilot, reducing the loiter time that is actually quite important in limiting civilian casualties, and (possibly) dropping bigger bombs.
The ICC is a global authority that has convicted and sentenced heads of state.
There are two lifelong friends. They each were high school football stars. Now they are each older, balding, overweight men. Similar as they are, one is a Republican and one is Democrat. The Republican looks in the mirror and sees the high school football player with cheerleaders on his arms. He smiles and says "What a stud I am". The Democrat looks in the mirror and sees a balding, overweight older man and says "I am fat. I need to get to the gym". Which one hates himself?
Those who get recruited into ISIL don't generally get their news from Western Media, and they certainly don't get their Jihad Updates from there. Once the video was on twitter, it was already in the hands of everyone who could be operationalized by it.
February 5, 2015
Jordanian jets carried out air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria Thursday and then flew back over the village of the Jordanian pilot who was burned alive by militants, Jordan TV reports.
To the extent that you're correct in your analysis, you're by extension proving the point that, without exposure of IS brutality, opposition in the west will not be sufficient to present the military challenge needed to stop them. Not to be disrespectful, but most Americans are quite insular and far more interested in what affects them directly in their daily lives than in what is happening in a neighboring city let alone half way around the world. Unless they are hit with it directly, they don't believe it exists.
At this point in time, IS is winning the PR war and the Obama Administration could take some lessons from them on how to win an advertising campaign.
Twitter is a media outlet. Youtube is a media outlet. Facebook is a media outlet.
1) When was the last time Canada took the lead on anything involving a foreign nation ahead of token jumping on US coattails?
2) I do not support US military intervention in the Middle East until the Middle East countries themselves take the lead in this fight, and we simply supply/finance them in their fight.
3) The US has been at war with terror a few days longer than Canada regardless.
Mr. Will, or Mr. Lewis??????? I'll have to contemplate that one for a bit.
The report’s author, Lawrence Lewis, a researcher at the federally funded Center for Naval Analyses who possesses a top-security clearance, dissected secret data on U.S. air attacks in Afghanistan from mid-2010 to mid-2011 — the peak of unmanned drone use during the war, executed under the command of former Gen. David Petraeus.
1) When was the last time Canada took the lead on anything involving a foreign nation ahead of token jumping on US coattails?
2) I do not support US military intervention in the Middle East until the Middle East countries themselves take the lead in this fight, and we simply supply/finance them in their fight.
3) The US has been at war with terror a few days longer than Canada regardless.
You seem to think Obama is cool with it.
Faster reply. I see you are getting faster at licking the screen clear of spittle.
As in the thread where you posted this crap, you run away with denials.
Denial, and oh that was sarcasm, or some sort or BS reply is your foxhole to run to.
Tell ya the truth, you are not worth the effort.
And as was mentioned on another thread, I wonder if you really are a wannabe.
Canada is currently in a lead role in the fight against IS - our soldiers are on the ground, on the front lines, training Iraqis, and taking and returning fire from IS forces directly.
I always love when a leftist in America criticizes Canada when Canada and Canadians instigate no problems in the world but are quick to defend those attacked and often are dragged into conflicts because of actions initiated by Americans. Canada does what's right not because it's in our own country's personal self-interest, but because it's right.
It's good that most people in the west, if not the world, look past the idiotic smugness and xenophobia of the American left and continue to support the general goodness of the American people at large. America still has a lot of friends in the world, Canada included, even thought the asinine comments of some, like yours, make us wonder why we bother some times.
Well if you are in the lead, then there is no need for us to become involved because Canadians are world renowned for their superiority. In the meantime, if you are willing to sit at home while somebody else dies in your stead, then your smugness is well deserved. I prefer our soldiers not die on a fool's errand. You apparently do not as long as it is not you being sent.
Yes, Canadian soldiers, both men and women, are renowned for their superior skills and training - just ask any American soldier who's served with them if you want an answer. And no, a 59 yr old man is not a good recruit for our armed services, although if the time came when my services were needed or accepted, those services would be gladly offered.
But hey, I'll bow to your advice on smugness since you seem to be an expert in the field.
Simply slanderous. Canada is a staunch ally, and never has so much as a peep when it comes to standing with us. If this is the way you view friendships, you must be one lonely guy.Yes these world renowned troops only engaged ISIS because they drove into an attack. Otherwise they hide in the wire.
Ok, stop it!! You're just yanking peoples's chains with that comment!! Surely, you don't believe that!!
Study the history of Islamic Spain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?