ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.

Actually, it's the plot of Taken. The point was the intent, not necessarily the direct action. I would say that "I would kill anyone between me and my child" should evoke an image of me with a minigun rather than me with a headset telling the SAS to use a minigun.

I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.

Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?

You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.

It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.

One should attempt a rescue is it is feasible, it is of course not defensible to get ten soldiers killed to rescue one civilian - though it's more likely all the soldiers get out alive and the civilian is executed.

I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release.

Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.

I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.

I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".

No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.

To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.

[Husar]

Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.

I think most countries do this, I just wasn't aware of whether it change their behavior a lot when you go to the country anyway.

Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?

You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.
[...]
I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.

Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose.
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.

[Montmorency]

No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.

To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.

Seriously? By my recollection, this makes your position different than in 2012. At any rate, pseudo-solipsism is not a moral device that can rescue the continually-benighted.

[HopAlongBunny]

But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.

[Pannonian]

But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.

Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.

[Gilrandir]

Actually, it's the plot of Taken.

And Commando.

[HopAlongBunny]

Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.

That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rorism/277844/

[Pannonian]

That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rorism/277844/

There are Muslim preachers who are taking the with our acceptance of all cultures as relative and their knowledge of our liberal tendencies. Promoting the most backward forms of Islam and arguing that it has a place here and so on. I take Ataturk's line on this; there are many cultures, but only one civilisation. If they want to undermine our civilisation, they can bugger off to where their ideas have a history.

I can't find the url at the moment, but I've read one Guardian interview with one of these preachers, who argued that man and woman were biologically different, and therefore Islam's treatment of the sexes was correct, and our treatment of them was corrupt. Corrupt it may or may not be, but equality of the sexes is also a British thing, and if he doesn't like it, then he can bugger off. If he's actively preaching that we're corrupt because of stuff like that, then we should bugger him off whether he likes it or not.

[Brenus]

Well, it is quite easy to deal with these preachers. Apply the law. Ah, I forgot. No law in UK. Hate speeches are the one against religions, not the against the religions that spread hate and discrimination...
And call to murder is freedom of speech as well, no?
In France, to call to kill the gays and the infidels is not considered as an opinion, but an incitement to murder/violence. To wear a burka is not considered as an element of fashion but an element of fascism as the tenets of this faith are against the principles written in the Constitution and basic human rights. So, as such, it is recognised as a political statement from a political party that doesn't respect the Constitution so is not legal.
See, it is easy. Common sense and no hypocrisy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think most countries do this, I just wasn't aware of whether it change their behavior a lot when you go to the country anyway.

Well, can a government really abandon someone because they travelled to a particular part of the world? Not really, not unless you want to accept the principle that yyou citizens are, in effect, only citizens within your borders.

Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose.
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.

Your apology is accepted.

[Myth]

http://www.conflictarm.com/publications/

Plenty of US weapons. Some assault rifles have "Property of the US government" on them. What is this?

[rory_20_uk]

Given the Iraqi army (financed and supposedly trained by the USA) ran away abandoning pretty much everything I'm hardly surprised.

[Viking]

According to this article, coalition airstrikes are killing 1 000 IS fighters a month:

Overall, Operation Inherent Resolve (the U.S.-led combined joint task force in Iraq and Syria) is killing about 1,000 ISIS fighters a month. The death toll roughly matches the number of new recruits ISIS is able to field each month, effectively capping its manpower strength at about 30,000 to 40,000 fighters.

That sounds rather extreme. But if it is true, and IS fighters also happen to have lower empathy levels and higher psychopathy scores than average, it would in effect be a eugenics program.

[Crandar]

According to [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/hunting-isis-were-killing-1000-fighters-month-[/URL]

Stupid numbers. On the one hand, they claim that ISIS has 30,000 fighters and on the other, they pretend that the Kurds and their aristrikes kill several thousands of them.
It's a typical contradiction of an overblown propaganda, if it was true, the half of Iraq would be controlled by a couple of patrols.

Never trust the participants to give you an accurate casualty figure. The world has improved since Arrian and his Persian genocide, but not much.

[Viking]

Doesn't look like you read what it said. They say IS recruits ~ 1000 new fighters a month, and that their airstrikes kill ~ 1000 IS fighters a month; so those numbers add up. Verifying them is another matter. The core of the statements seems to be that they think the number of IS fighters is currently about constant.

[Crandar]

The problem is that ISIS is also fighting against Syria, Iraq, the Kurds, AQ, various islamists, Hezbollah and Soleimani. And according to them, they lose some hundreds of men in every battle.
They all lie, from the Americans to the Iranians and a claim that 30 ISIS soldiers die on a daily basis is simply absurd and misleading.

[Greyblades]

Oh I don't know, I could see it averaging out to that considering how many fronts they are fighting.

[Montmorency]

Crandar, I'm afraid I don't see the crux of your argument. As far as I can tell, you are saying that we shouldn't take those particular figures seriously because "they all lie".

But that would be a very crude and jejune approach, so I must be mistaken. What are you saying then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He's saying that if the Coalition was likking 1,000 IS fighters a month then their numbers would be falling - he seems immune to the idea that we're underestimating the numbers they are recruiting.

It's likely all IS's enemies "round up" kill and "round down" IS recruits.

900 is "about a thousand" for a given value of 1,000.

[Montmorency]

Do recall also that, out of the tens of thousands of sorties flown by the coalition, a large proportion act as close air support for Syrian rebels, Kurd militias, and the like. Honestly, the reported numbers are embarrassingly-low if accurate. What it translates to is, if taking an arbitrary flight mission composed of 10 warplanes, that mission only kills a single IS fighter on average. I mean jeez, even if we weren't coordinating with ground forces in many cases, that would be a doleful figure. I'm pretty sure 1915 fighter-craft got better results strafing trenches...

[Viking]

So, Russia's heavy intervention in Syria starts. The US and activists claim that the struck areas were not controlled by IS, but by other rebel groups.

[Husar]

So, Russia's heavy intervention in Syria starts. The US and activists claim that the struck areas were not controlled by IS, but by other rebel groups.

So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Tuuvi]

So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Well there are some moderate rebels within the opposition, and I hate to see the Assad regime get propped up by Russia which is I think their biggest motivation for getting involved.

[Fragony]

So it's not okay to strike the other nasty Islamist groups then? Not to forget that the US are already striking hard against the IS, no? If they want to hit the same people, they probably have to coordinate their attacks anyway.

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

I think they are more interested in the FSA

[Crandar]

Well there are some moderate rebels within the opposition, and I hate to see the Assad regime get propped up by Russia which is I think their biggest motivation for getting involved.

FSA (islamists with a media-friendly name) is pretty much inexistent in Homs, as the region is mainly infested by Al-Nusra, the Syrian department of AQ, which is not as evil as the rest of AQ, because they're allied with our islamist allies.
Off course, it has also been reported that ISIS has a presence in Rastan, the region that was bombed by the Russian Airforce, so ISIS members could have potentially been bombed..

America, on the other hand, focused her bombing and spying campaign, strictly against ISIS... The hypocrisy of the media is outstanding.

[Gilrandir]

Seems like Russia is taking a far more active role in the fight against Islamic terrorism, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Russia uses this involvement as a smokescreen to divert the world's attention from Donbas/Crimea and as a bargaining chip to exchange its "crackdown on terrorism" for the Crimea and solution of the Donbas crisis. Plus turmoils in the Arab world are likely to keep oil prices higher which is also good for Russia.

[rvg]

Never thought I'd be cheering on the current Russian regime, but yeah, go Russkies! I have no love for Bashar, but this sonuvabitch just won the lottery by becoming a useful pawn for Putin.

Now for the situation at hand, most likely first victims:

1. Al Nusra. A bunch of islamist scumbags, much smaller than ISIS, thus much easier to bomb into smithereens, have Assad's tanks roll all over them, producing tons of PR for Putin. If Putin is serious about making Syria a publicity showcase, these guys are screwed.

2. FSA. The "moderate" opposition. Moderate, my ass. I don't trust them one bit. Likely to get their clocks cleaned right after Al Nusra. Good riddance. Potentially problematic if some Einstein from the DoD decides that giving these guys AA capability would be a good idea. While we're on the topic of FSA, it's time to stop the CIA gravy train. These guys are finished.

3. ISIS. I think Russians will do a showcase coordinated bombing run against these guys every once in a while, just to show that Russia is helping the overall fight against them. Mostly they'll stay away for two reasons:
1. An anti-ISIS campaign would be long and expensive.
2. We're already there, and it's best to stay out of each other's way.

4. The Kurds. The only ones in this entire conflict who at least partially resemble the good guys. I doubt Russia will touch them at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm gonna put money on the Kurds getting crushed HARD because ethnically based dissident movements, especially secular and democratic ones, are more dangerous to Putin than IS.

[rvg]

I'm gonna put money on the Kurds getting crushed HARD because ethnically based dissident movements, especially secular and democratic ones, are more dangerous to Putin than IS.

I disagree. Kurds, while very willing to secede from Syria, have absolutely no interest in dethroning Assad. They mind their own business and stay in Kurdish areas. Since they are no threat to Assad's regime, Russia is unlikely to touch them.