http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...taken-for-isi/
US forces mistook them as IS fighters and droned them all. Tired of all these terrorists lately.
Printable View
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...taken-for-isi/
US forces mistook them as IS fighters and droned them all. Tired of all these terrorists lately.
You're playing a little rough with the specifics of the very article you cite.
Drones were not involved. Drones, by the way, are less likely to kill civilians by mistake because the stealth/loiter time gives them more time to assess targets. Mistakes still occur, of course, but the incidence is lower than for a pilot flying rapidly in a combat zone and concerned for her/his own safety. According to the article you cite, it was a aircraft attack and not a drone attack.
Saddening to see the wrong people harmed.
Reminds me of Hamas.Quote:
Many Isil fighters are still holed up in the city, and are preventing thousands of civilians from leaving, effectively using them as human shields.
I also enjoy the false equivalency people try to create by starting these threads. So deep bro, making me think real hard. The United States does not go out of its way to kill civilians, nor do they use human shields. When something like that does happen, and over the course of American operations, it certainly has, The perpetrators are dealt with using a very unsympathetic military justice system. Of course, this is opposed to the literal dogs they were trying to bomb who deserve nothing more than to be scourged from Earth.
Combat is nasty. People die. More often than not, the people who die have no stake in the outcome of the fight. The American media has done a fairly good job of whitewashing this fact. Seeing a smart bomb hit a target is so sterile, almost medical. The lead up to the war in Iraq talked a lot about bringing democracy but very little about a sectarian conflict whose cost would mostly fall on the shoulders of those with no voice.
Of course bringing democracy to these regions usually devolves into some sort of theocracy where the young men, with no job or marriage prospects are thrown into the meat grinder. It was easier dealing with the autocrats.
Your article says "nearly 60", not "85".Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Aside from that, there's a huge difference between the legendary stupidity of the USAF and ISIL's terrorists activities.
I'm going to take the same line as I did when that MSF hospital was hit - it'll be the pilot/aircrew that screwed this up. I was right last time (proved after a lengthy investigation) and I expect I'll be right this time. Such tragedies are usually avoidable, the result of badly thought out Rules of Engagement or failure to check intelligence before pulling the trigger.
These sorts of things will keep happening until there's a complete rethink by the US in how they use heavy weapons. Bombing people whoa re running away is roughly the same as shooting people in the back. In war it's necessary sometimes if you think they're liable to turn around and counter-attack but in the case of ISIL our Air-Dominance makes such considerations moot.
Didnt you and I have a huge argument last time about how British pilots are just as stupid?
I meant IS when I said terrorists. Just wanted to point out the typical incompetence you can expect from US forces in the middle east, not that they're just as much murderers as IS. The best thing for them to have done is leave it to the Syrian armed forces, because as of now it seems that they're dishing out just as much unintentional collateral damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For the South
We did, then the report came out and showed the USAF had achieved a new level of Top-Down fail (and irrc no one was punished).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Reams and reams have also been written on the general breakdown of basic UK doctrine in Iraq and Afganistan due to being chronically under-manned.
You have such a hard on for hating on US forces (despite the fact that British forces have just the same level of "fail" that you accuse US forces with) that you seem to have forgotten that people were punished for the Kunduz bombing. But hey, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Though this is a lot of lives in this one incident it is no where near as close to the damage done to Syrian civilians done by the Syrian army and air force. Bear in mind that same air power has protected kurds fighting IS, helped the Iraqis retake some of their cities and helped keep the expansion and free rein of IS in check, at least so much as can be without sending divisions of troops to kick them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
As for just as much murderers, the US doesn't do this intentionally or on the same scale as IS. We don't enslave women and children and them sell them as sex toys. We don't execute everyone who disagrees with us. We are as flawed as any military and when fighting dudes driving around in pick up trucks and limited military equipment taken from the Iraqis and Syrians it is very hard to tell what is a military target. Seeing as the coalition has done 450 airstrikes around the city since May they seem to have been mostly successful in avoiding civilian 'collateral.'
I don't hate US forces, I just think it's unhealthy to be in the same Theatre with them if you aren't waring Stars and Stripes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
It's a prejudice I inherited from the British Soldiers I grew up around.
Horrible, rip civilians
Well USA is just a rebranded Britian 2.0 from many outsiders perspective. Anglosphere and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
And we like you lot (and the Oz crowd) and think of you as the trustworthy allies....Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Makes you wonder what'd happen if we had to fight side by side with the French.
It's probably the regimental mentality at work. Your regiment, your country, your people, against the rest of the world. In reality the US military, being far bigger than ours, probably gets more opportunities to make more and bigger eff ups simply due to scale. We were pretty horrendous in the early days of mass warfare in WWI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
An inevitable consequence deriving from asymmetric conflict. You saw what happened the last time a conventional military went toe-to-toe with NATO in 1991. Even in 2003 for the reprise Iraq deployed Fedayeen from day one, limiting the "conventional" character of the conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Any opponent of NATO that chooses a conventional warfare approach loses hard and fast. Since they are NOT, on average, stupid, they tend to choose a non-conventional strategy when fighting NATO. Guerrilla (pronounced as /gwair - EE - yuh/ btw, not like the animal as most yanks do) tactics and terrorism are the tools of choice for asymmetric warfare. So, by design, our opponents are more or less always mixed into a larger mass of civilians, un-uniformed, and often posing as (or NOT posing as but actually being) civilians except when actively involved in an operation.
Such conflicts are necessarily more messy and a greater percentage of civilians die in the crossfire. This, for the faction having chosen asymmetric tactics, is actually a plus as there is propaganda/public relations value in dead civilians who lost their lives at the action of the conventional (NATO) power.
To limit civilian casualties, we should leave the hellhole that is the middle east to the :daisy:s who live there, trading only for resources we need, and limit or stop immigration from these countries. More people would die, but they'd die from the actions of their own, and would be nothing to do with us. Since people like Showtime are going to hate us anyway, we might as well leave them to their own devices. They'd still hate us, but it would be cheaper. And IIRC, Showtime comes from the middle east, but is currently living in the west, possibly the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
How much damage has the SAF done to civilians exactly? Western-backed opposition groups have done more damage than Assad. Recently the democratic forces who are funded by the UK too in northern Aleppo beheaded an 11 year old Palestinian boy for allegedly being a Syrian government spy. West funds brigades who do IS style killings, it’s no mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Thus proving my point. People like him hate us anyway, so we might as well save our money and keep out of that dump. Stop all movement between the west and the middle east. Nothing good comes out of the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
I'm nothing like you. I don't hate...
You don't see this coming out of my mouth. Too much contempt from you, I'd put you on ignore if I wasn't interested in reading the UK threads around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So are you claiming that Assad's forces have avoided civilian casualties?
No it's pronounced as /ger -ril - la/, lieutenant is pronounced as /Left - ten - ant/, Myanmar is pronounced as /Bur - ma/ and French is prounounced as /cheeze - eat - ing - sur - ren - der - mon - kee/.Quote:
Guerrilla (pronounced as /gwair - EE - yuh/ btw
We invented the language we get to say how it's words are pronounced
We're leery of you because of WWI, then WII, then Korea, then the Falklands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
~Sorry, you're like our number three lady.
Probably - but the Americans have historically had a problem with recognising other forces' vehicles. During the Iraq War I was told by serving soldiers that Americans were not routinely trained to recognise the silhouette of friendly NATO hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Then there's the Old Story about Patton threatening to turn his army around and assault the USAAF behind him if they didn't stop bombing his men.
Basically what I'm getting from SFTS and Seamus is that the people they're defending dropped a chandelier on a dancefloor full of people at a party they werent invited to. Is the presence itself of these forces and the lackluster coordination with the sovereign entity to bring justice to these bands not unconventional? And how w does that answer my question about why the US isnt better off letting SAR do their jobs?
No. Though its hard to believe that countless gangs with nato funds have done less damage than a figure like Assad, who transformed himself to some sort of benign figure to cling to whatever he has left. Its not working at all because of neoliberal idealists of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Why is that hard to believe? The Syrian army was quite considerable in strength, especially when you factor in air power, which the rebels had almost none. And for what its worth, the group Physicians forHuman Rights claims that the vast majority of attacks on doctors and hospitals were by the regime (over 90%) but who knows really. I havent been able to find a hard breakdown of who is killing who so I suppose you are going to believe one thing and Ill believe another. Personally, I think both sides are complicit in the deaths of civilians in this conflict. I just happen to think that the regime's use of air power tips the balance in his favor. Also the whole gas attack thing doesnt paint a pretty picture either.
Except probably 80% of the English language is loan words from other languages. That's why you have beef and cattle, pork & pigs, houses and bungalows...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You're missing the most important bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
We weren't invited to the party. So whatever happens at the party, we shouldn't be there in the first place. If we weren't there, then the party floor dancers can brawl as much as they like. It would result in way more casualties. But the key point isn't the casualties. The key point is our presence at a party we weren't invited to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Well this party had the equivalent of a public Facebook invite to it when the belligerents started bombing people outside the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If you don't want to invite the cops best to keep a low profile and not go waking them up in the dead of night.
If there was political or security cooperation with that government more of this information would have been known to us. especially with these various rebel groups having a history of spreading misinformation like the many offsprings of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't doubt all slides exaggerate reports. One reason it’s hard to believe is if you look at life in Damascus and the more demanding lifestyle in rebel-occupied territories. Many sources claim the gas attack was carried out by a dissident, and is possible considering it’s the dumbest thing the government could have done to undermine its legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
There would not have been more casualties. You'd know that if you started talking to people and learn something instead of talking at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And? Our language is the best because it picks up the best of the other language and leaves behind the dregs that make them inferior, thus we get to choose to we call the people between france and poland "Germans", "Deutsche" or "those Nazi twats".Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The genesis of the English language allows us to have such descriptive place names as Torpenhow Hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
From tor meaning hill, pen meaning hill, how meaning hill, and hill meaning hill.
It's how we vertically rotate, my fellow of african descent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pron...lish/guerrillaQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
All wrong, it's a Spanish word and Seamus is closest or nails it, depending on how you pronounce the phonetic writing. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/tr...rrilla-warfare
Listen to the two examples here, I prefer the Latin American one.
From my limited knowledge of Latin languages, would "gaireeya" be closest to the mark? And IIRC it comes from the Spanish insurgency against the French invaders during the Napoleonic wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm still pronouncing it ger - illa
I'm not one to ask about phonetic writing/spelling, for Germans it would be "Gerrija" or "Gerriya", but then again when I actually speak, I always struggle with the very pronounced "r" in Spanish myself because where I come from, we hardly pronounce any r... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The guy in my link pronounces it very well though, it's just whatever you write, different people will say it in a different way depending on their native language and accent I guess. I found a German youtuber who just said "gorilla" (same in German and English) and sold that as the correct pronunciation, but that's just wrong.
The double "L" in Spanish is always pronounced like a "y" or "j" in English and German. So Mallorca is pronounced "Mayorca" and guerrilla is like "geriya" (the "u" after the g is silent and only serves to make the g a hard sound instead of a soft one) and so on. :dizzy2:
Majorca is pronounced madge-orca.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
OH, be fair at least! We're just about as likely to 'blue-on-blue' ourselves as we are you lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
A number of points to understand about the Western Mindset on Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.
2. Many have said that we should have intervened in syria earlier, particularly to destroy Assad's ability to cripple his own country's infrastructure. We should have destroyed his Air Power.
3. Against this other have said we should just leave the Syrians to it, even if we can reduce casualties we are morally obliged NOT to help a people overthrow their Tyrant, they have to do it themselves. The debate between this and point 1 is at least as old the sons of the Athenian Tyrant Peisistratos, i.e 6th century BC.
4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.
At the bottom of all of this is the Western Belief in the superiority of our Constitutional arrangements and our form of government - essentially it's a belief in our cultural superiority based on hard practical observation.
I have found myself questioning if our constitutional arrangments and forms of government is even transferable to those without a specific historical and cultural imperitive to maintain it.
Can democracy really be sustained by a people lacking at least some history of self instigated revolution?
All the British soldiers I've spoken to about Iraq and Afghanistan have all said the same thing. That American soldiers are trigger happy, clueless and a danger to everyone around them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Maybe those are the only ones you want to talk with. I know a few Dutch soldiers who were there and they don't say these things at all, all the more that American (and Ausie) soldiers are too reluctant to shoot
We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Gorilla is a hamophone of guerrilla. It sounds almost the same, and it's animal related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Heresy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Aren't you just repeating what he said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
No. Hamophone is something I never heard about. Probably has something to do with smoked meet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Smoked meet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.
You're right about the way it's pronounced, it's pretentious to try to pronounce is in a Spanish accent unless you actually speak fluent Spanish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
They aren't exactly homophone though because guerrilla and gorilla are pronounced with different vowel sounds in the syllable.
Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla
http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla
They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.
Heresy! :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
In German we also call the Belgian city of Liège Lüttich, even though it's not hard to say Liège.
This could all have been solved with Esperanto, or was it Espresso?... :dizzy2:
I don't see why we should spread democracy. If the people want democracy, they can get it themselves through their own effort. Why should we get involved? We as part of the UN support self determination, which involves self and which involves determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Hamophone is something that's almost the same, and which involves animals. It's a tight definition and rarely used, which is why I've just invented the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I sat it like, "görilla". :rolleyes:
Even in western thought it isn’t totally justified. Also, I'm sure you’re familiar with the Melian dialogue, where democratic Athens had similar pretexts to invasion of Melos but their designs over the land were more important all the same in the realist sense. In order to truly understand the western mindset you have to acknowledge the geopolitical reality underlying its liberal agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFH
But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.Quote:
4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.
Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803
This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.
Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.
Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Islamism is inherent in that Muslim societies want political leaders to be spiritual leaders, and vice versa.
That is why the West cannot defeat Islamism other than by offering a direct alternative - in other words, state theology. And that would be difficult.
Explain. What Muslim societies want their leaders to be spiritual leaders? Are you saying they prefer clerics or conservatives over monarchs or army veterans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No. Islamism is modern and progressive. It believes that Islam in its religious institutions and its spiritual principles must permeate political organization and action, among other things. Do not refer to it in terms of Church and State; both are only a subset of Islamic life.
This is what most modern Muslims want or welcome. This new and inclusive ideology - or at least its ideal - is exactly what so many Western Muslims identify with, and ultimately why so many find purpose in anti-Western commitments.
To spell it out (now I'm speaking more directly to the issue of Islamist violence):
"Radical terrorists", native to the Middle East, attack the West because obviously the West usually would act to counter their influence.
"Disenfranchised Muslim youth", native to Western states, attack the West because they have found their identities outside the West AND in particular (for those who favor the most violent approaches and factions) because they recognize the capacity and obligation for it.
Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.
And before you get pedantic, let me clarify: the perception and promise of and from heritage, which amounts to the same.Quote:
Those who compare "radical Islam" to international Marxism are correct, in a way, but even they likely don't quite recognize how much more powerful and unifying ancient heritage is than economic grievance.
In American, perhaps, but not in English which I shall now call "Commonwealth English".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You're right, Germany and Japan don't deserve democracy - neither does the Arab world. Today, now more than ever, states have tools that allow them to suppress their own populace so long as they have a few men willing to operate them. Today dictators have air forces, to defeat them you need one of your own Air Force. It's not like outside help for rebels is a new thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I think I acknowledged that it's not the only Western philosophical strain - it is none the less an important one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Arab miss-trust of the Western "Liberal Agenda" is miss-placed. It comes, I think from a basic miss-understanding of how a Liberal Democracy works. I have observed, from the Arab Spring, and now in Turkey that authoritarian Muslim governments are primarily concerned with retaining power. This fundamentally different to Western governments which are primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The reason for this is that Western governments are necessarily transient they will be voted out of office, usually in a decade or less.
So what do the "Liberal" Western governments want in the Middle East? Just the same - peace and prosperity - peace in the Middle East means peace in Europe and prosperity means trade.
Previously there was a third concern - containing Communism - and this led the West to support Tyrants as the lesser of two evils. By keeping Tyrants in power we ensured a degree of peace and Prosperity in the Middle East at the expense of some freedoms, and we kept the Communists out. Now the imperative to "hold the border" against the "Red Menace" has receded. The Middle East is now no longer a major proxy battleground and we have had time to reflect on the consequences of our policy.
The reality is that we don't want Tyrants, we want Democratic governments we can partner with, governments that are also more concerned with maintaining peace and prosperity than holding on to power.
So, yes, there is a degree of self-interest but Western Powers are entirely sincere when they say they want democracy in the region because democracy will benefit us over the long term and will not do us serious harm in the short term, for the aforementioned reasons.
As I recall he was in exile in Iran until we overthrew Saddam and he has always been in favour of attacking British and American troops. We could walk around without weapons handing out bread and milk and so long as we wore uniforms he's call on his followers to shoot us.Quote:
But then these forces would find themselves in the same dilemma they were stuck with in Iraq. Although Islamists pride themselves in being post-colonial freedom fighters, they would like nothing more than the direct presence of western forces.
Here: http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/shia...nvaders/614803
This man is the most prominent Arab Shia cleric. He now believes that fighting the west is more important than fighting Daesh.
Like Greyblades pointed out, who knows if you can spread these ideas in a place that has zero tradition of democracy. Best thing to do for both side's sake is to stay away from each other until the middle east sorts itself out.
Behold - the reason we don't always support democracy in the Middle East, apathy. Not malice.Quote:
Well, you're wrong. Islamism or even conservative Islam is not inherent across the board in the Arab world. Although you'd like to think so, so there's no point in explaining.
You can suppress an army with an air force, but not a "populace".
I feel this is a strawman. How exactly are you addressing what I said about Islamism not being inherent all over? Again, there are a handful of societies that are over this "promise." You're saying that Islamism is what people ultimately aspire to. If I'm being pedantic, your claims are way too broad. I don't disagree with your comparison to the effects of Marxism, but you're presenting a narrow view pitting Islamism with a western alternative when the alternative already exists in that world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Still, this presents its own problems as elected western officials have little experience in foreign policy as opposed to the lifelong middle eastern presidents who have shown better compliance to international laws and peaceful complacency. Adventurist attitudes and impulsive actions have not made things better.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFH
Again, this does not show in the policies chosen so far. It's one way of looking at it through some constructivist lens. The west often endorses torture methods by these regimes by sending terrorists there to carry out methods that are illegal in the west, constantly fund the Islamism they are supposed to be combatting, and break bread with dictators. I find it mind-boggling that nobody here wants to admit that western policy conflicts with the liberal vision they're supposed to encompass.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFH
Agree to disagree at this point. There's some whitewashing here as if the west safeguards international laws and doesn't regularly violate them.
That was directed at him personally. Not all people from the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by PFH
You missed out the all-important first step before we established Germany and Japan as working liberal democracies. As a preliminary step to refashioning them in our image, we first obliterated them. We left them with no working society whatsoever, on the brink of starvation unless they took whatever we offered them, political as well as economical. And they starved at first as well, hammering home the lesson that they're dead unless they followed whatever we dictated to them. Then we rebuilt them from ground up, knocking aside anything we didn't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Are you willing to do that with any of the Arab states?
If rebels can't topple dictators who have air forces, why is it any problem of mine?
I have no problems admitting that western policy conflicts with the liberal vision that we're supposed to encompass. I also have no problems with the self determination and mind your own business doctrine that's often thrown back at us. So my solution, bearing everything in mind, is to respect liberalism and self determination. I want a liberal democracy in the UK and the west, which we're used to. But since the Muslim world isn't used to liberal democracies, they can have whatever the hell they want, as is their right in the principle of self determination. And equally inherent in the principle of self determination is our right not to have anything to do with them. We shouldn't meddle in their affairs, and that is their right, and they shouldn't meddle in our affairs, and that is our right. And in enforcing our right, we shouldn't accept anyone moving from Muslim countries. They don't have the right to move here; it is a privilege which we can grant as we wish, and we can equally withhold it as is our right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
I'm trying to peg "Islamism" more precisely, really. There have been discussions (as here) of the need or possibility of Reformation within Islam. Islam has been in a (very roughly analogous) state to Christian Reformation for generations now, and the various Islamists movements are what largely make it up.Quote:
I feel this is a strawman. How exactly are you addressing what I said about Islamism not being inherent all over? Again, there are a handful of societies that are over this "promise." You're saying that Islamism is what people ultimately aspire to. If I'm being pedantic, your claims are way too broad. I don't disagree with your comparison to the effects of Marxism, but you're presenting a narrow view pitting Islamism with a western alternative when the alternative already exists in that world.
Sometimes reformations don't always turn out the way you want them.
The sensible thing to do is support and arm the strongman. Democratic movements in the near east end up in hilarious Islamism 9/10 times. Rebels demand support and then complain when the support is not total and unquestioning.
The near east simply doesn't have the base of liberals to make supporting democracy a worthwhile endeavor. Why should the west empower them with the vote when it will just allow them to martial more resources against us?
They already are arming the strongman. Not where it’s needed of course. The west is equally obsessed with the middle east as it is with failing in it. Democratic movements in the near east end up badly because the west chooses to arm Islamists that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar think they can buy off enough to be moderate. Westerners go with that solution because radicals have a higher success rate (ie Iraq, Lebanon) while democratic movements are easily put down.
Everybody know the west either cow tows for oil money and basing deals or forfeit their gains over Islamists while funding them in a never-ending circle jerk. There's no actual commitment to democracy from western leadership.
What would actual commitment look like to you? If actual commitment ended up with Islamists in power, why should the west bother helping?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Unfortunately that's because democracy in the middle east does not have checks and balances and usually ends up being the feared tyranny of the majority. I look at what's happening in Turkey right now and that's exactly what it's steering toward too. Yes, he's the elected leader but he'll use that majority support to make himself president for life if possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
As for your earlier points on it not being a party we were invited to that's a yes and no truth. The West has been intricately tied into the middle east since Ottoman Empire started to weaken. That's when the French reserved the right over the Russians to be the guardians of christians in Lebanon and Syria and so on. Once we broke the Ottoman Empire apart the West has never really left. The Arab infighting led to colonialism instead of tolerating anarchy in syria and mesopotamia, we've been closely involved ever since. While yes, we weren't specially invited to this fight in Syria by their government we have always had an interest in what happens there and will probably continue to try and get 'our' side whatever that is into power.
I actually wish we would fight IS proper and go in on the ground in a big way before handing it back to Syria/Iraq/Kurdistan or perhaps carving out a Sunni Arab Republic(liberal dictatorship) of Upper Mesopotamia or something. But seeing as we are mostly just in the air we will continue to have all problems of differentiating between IS targets or civilians when relying on local intel, aerial imagery and very very limited SOF as forward observers.
Actual commitment would have been staying in Iraq and not leave it to the local scavengers Iran and Saudi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Islamists come to power in failed states. There are more stable states that can be pressured but there is a lack of commitment due to economic interests. If the west can't help, it shouldn't bother. It's funny because everyone would be better off this way, yet here we are.
So there's no need to obey UN charters? For historical reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
This is a myth, and it threads throughout the various causal and conceptual confusions.Quote:
Islamists come to power in failed states.
Islamists have the most difficult time in "failed states" - which is why IS has surprised so many. IS wants to build its own institutions, rather than relying on existing ones as Islamists have historically done.
No, they really have a more difficult time in stable countries. It's pretty clear they thrive in failed states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No. First, failed states, failing states, and unstable states are not all the same thing.Quote:
No, they really have a more difficult time in stable countries. It's pretty clear they thrive in failed states.
You should really consider who thrives where, and what it means for a street gang to thrive in the looting as opposed to a governing ideology or organization. One thing that might help is to notice that if Islamist groups are more likely to produce combatants in times of outright conflict, then that does not mean they are thriving at that time or that they were not thriving before the conflict.
I agree 100% we should have stayed there. The way each administration can change our foreign policy and how we treat or stand by 'allies' is a major weakness with our government. Having served there and heard from friends there now the state its in is really disheartening for the waste of lives on all sides. Especially when guys like al Sadr still want to kill us in the minor role we're playing now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
As you said if the west can't help it shouldn't but it certainly can help. The major problem and weakness though is that no western country has the will to go all the way and help. Libyan anarchy could have been avoided and the dilemma in Syria should have ended years ago but the half measures applied to look like something is being done instead of bold, dangerous, and expensive action isn't done. That said, Islamists also come to power in in non-failed states. They may be lighter on the stoning of women etc.. but that doesn't mean that isn't their end game.
UN charters are of course useful but power always wins out as you well know. China is building islands because it knows the UN has no fangs to stop it. Russia doing it's power plays in the Ukraine and Crimea. Unfortunately the rules often don't apply to the big powers so in crucial areas like Syria the big powers will continue to play games. Russia won't be stopped and neither will the US. Doesn't make it right but wishing the world otherwise won't stop it either.
Proper names are a story apart so it is gonna be a long lecture. To avoid it in a few words:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Toponyms are not neccessarily borrowed from a source language - they may have their counterparts in the target language - especially in places with ethnically/linguistically mixed background (Wroclaw vs Breslau, Lemberg vs Lviv, Danzig vs Gdansk).
This is a weird argument to make. They are imprisoned or put to death in virtually every other non-Islamist country. In unstable environments they get the opportunity to have a steady income from foreign benefactors, have their ranks gain experience, and carry out illegal operations since they don't have to worry about legitimacy yet. They also have an easier time governing because of the tribal politics and patronage systems they excel at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Chaos creates space for Islamists. They may come to power on other occasions but it's obvious where they undergo rapid growth. AQ in Yemen, for example, have come a long way and are the second most powerful now.
Russia is there legally. The US has made too many (illegal) mistakes to be compared to Russia in the middle east.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Although it is not in the open I'm sure there is back door agreement with the Syrian government allowing the coalition to bomb ISIS in their territory. The US has been coordinating their strikes with the Russians since the middle of last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Because of the all the bluster by Obama against Assad and his government there is no way that his administration could in the open work with the 'evil regime' against ISIS. I'm sure that the Syrian government will continue to allow/tolerate so long as the US never actually enforces any sort of no fly zone against them.
The US can be compared the Russia though in regards to Syria and Iraq, yes the US has made far more mistakes. For the greater region though, Russia/USSR and the PRC too has made no shortage of mistakes; usually in the supplying 'friendly' rebels to whatever cause with far too many AKs and RPGs making rebellion a little too easy for any slightly weak government which certainly aided the Islamist movements. Just look at Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Somalia/Eritrea, and of course Africa too.
It's one of the reason I'm for arming the Kurds but not the FSA. Our pro-democratic rebels always lose in every civil war in Africa, Middle East, or South America. They just lack the brutality that marxist/maoist and islamist rebels can and will impose on civilians that win wars against governments.
This isn't the correct causal chain. Islamists thrive until harshly targeted by military leaderships, which is only a short-lived arrangement at best. Where central governments collapse outright, violent Islamists can simply hope to emerge as the largest and most cohesive groups in the territory. Notably, this hasn't worked out well in Libya. In Afghanistan, the Taliban could achieve some kind of hegemony and thus stability, but Libya is so large and full of competing powers that no single group can take over. Libya is currently a great place for hiding out, training, and black market enterprise, but not at all if you're hoping to govern land and people.Quote:
Chaos creates space for Islamists. They may come to power on other occasions but it's obvious where they undergo rapid growth. AQ in Yemen, for example, have come a long way and are the second most powerful now.
Al Qaeda is doing rather poorly in Yemen this year. They miscalculated in a big way there. There are indeed a number of small-time Islamists groups still making a piece of the pie for themselves. Nevertheless, Al Qaeda won't see much of it. I would also point out that Al Qaeda only achieved the (anachronistic) prominence you have in mind while there was not such "chaos".
There is no political or security cooperation with the Syrian government. Backdoor agreements are of course necessary to prevent confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Who has destroyed three separate Arab states to the point of no recovery? Not Russia. There's a difference between arming rebels and destroying a country's infrastructure through airstrikes.Quote:
The US can be compared the Russia though in regards to Syria and Iraq, yes the US has made far more mistakes. For the greater region though, Russia/USSR and the PRC too has made no shortage of mistakes; usually in the supplying 'friendly' rebels to whatever cause with far too many AKs and RPGs making rebellion a little too easy for any slightly weak government which certainly aided the Islamist movements. Just look at Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Somalia/Eritrea, and of course Africa too.
It sounds like you're repeating what I'm saying. They're able to function in places like Libya where in less hopeless countries they are imprisoned, executed, or deported. Their parties can be shut down by despots easily, this has happened a lot this year. I admit I can't keep up, don't understand what you're saying half the time. My English isn't that good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You know I'm referring to AQAP. Why do they have their moments? Because of Yemeni factionalism and interventions that had targeted their enemies.Quote:
Al Qaeda is doing rather poorly in Yemen this year. They miscalculated in a big way there. There are indeed a number of small-time Islamists groups still making a piece of the pie for themselves. Nevertheless, Al Qaeda won't see much of it. I would also point out that Al Qaeda only achieved the (anachronistic) prominence you have in mind while there was not such "chaos".
No argument from me on these points. I will caveat that with Libya the US administration actually intended to just sit it out and watch but Sarkozy essentially forced NATO into by striking the Libyan army on the march east. Syria and especially Iraq have been colossal mistakes in intent and then follow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Nice piece on the Afghanistan theater from the US Army War College, August 1: The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing Taliban
Quote:
2015 was a bad year for the Afghan National Security Forces. They ended the Western calendar year badly battered, like a punch-drunk prize fighter on the ropes. At least 5,500 of them died in 2015, the worst annual casualty toll since American involvement in Afghanistan’s civil war began in 2001. By the end of Western calendar year 2015, the 215 Corps based in Helmand had virtually disintegrated, with perhaps only 35 percent of its table of organization and equipment strength still present and able to fight.1 For comparison, U.S. Army doctrine considers an infantry unit to be “combat ineffective” if it suffers 30 percent casualties. Continuing the steady 12-year long pattern, about 35 percent of the Afghan Army and the Afghan Police deserted in 2015. “Ghost policemen” and “ghost soldiers” were reported by Afghan officials with credible accounts suggesting as many as 3 policemen out of every 10 now receiving pay (from U.S. taxpayers) do not actually exist, or are no longer alive. The ANA’s 10,000 commandos, who are good solid troops, were literally exhausted from being shuttled from one firefight to another all over Afghanistan, often pausing between battles just long enough to throw some more ammunition onto the helicopters.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not explored above is simply the possibility that the Taliban are satisfied with a long view (partly by Maoist terms) and do not feel the need to actively fight to militarily occupy all the territory, even if there will be opportunistic or strategic-propaganda offensives on a sporadic basis. A split-state plus persistent low-level conflict may just be what would lend the Taliban administration institutional strength and space to develop, while the Western-backed rump always needs to struggle just to avoid dying on the vine. Sort of like the situation with the FARC today, just inverted in some key respects (e.g. local penetration, geography occupied, relative demographic proportions, commercial links to region and world). Also, it's a good way to mitigate the odds of getting your clock cleaned all over again once Syria, Ukraine, etc. no longer require as much attention. Common 4X strategy.
A complementary, more straightforward and immediate explanation could be that the ISIS franchise/splinter Taliban are causing too many problems for the core, and dealing with them is for the moment a higher priority than launching flashy offensives at the G-Men, who serve as a fixed quantity anyway.