Terrorism Thread: It's Not Just Muslims. That's What They Want You to Think.

[Salodin]

Sounds like you think we shouldn't bomb terrorist training camps.

[Spicyryan]

But if we do nothing these people will go on to attack us, and train others to do the same.

I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying doing nothing about this is as bad as doing something. It's a shitty situation were in but they've been killing infidels for millennia and an arm chair activist suddenly saying "but what about the innocents!" isn't gonna change that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I don't believe this. Understanding motivation isn't that complex either.

The number of people that want to take over the world in order to force their beliefs upon it are dwarfed by the people who don't. These people end up aiding said cause though due to being personally effected, provoked, etc.
You don't have to believe in a movement to be a part of it in order to forward your own goals. The enemy of my enemy sort of deal.

A global war of terror against terror only creates more terror. It be like trying to beat domestic violence out of existence. Certainly you can try, and that bitch better have dinner on the table by the time I step in the door if she doesn't want a black eye, but it won't happen.

In essence the harder America tries to "prevent" being attacked at home by attacking other's homes. The stronger and more frequent the responses from the disaffected will be. Who does a global war really benefit anyway? It sounds like a pretty important question. Aside from just the greed in chasing bloated government defense spending.

Often times too this is a great way to cover up or excuse the use of military force in order to forward an agenda such as a foreign policy goal. If you believe a new government in the region will be beneficial, allow american companies in, etc. Well, then maybe there are terrorists operating in the region and we need to strike. If they are anti-American, well then maybe they are a state sponsor of terrorism or just problem that needs to be taken care of so the "world can be safer".

9/11 for example, was motivated and caused by decades of American involvement/presence in Middle Eastern affairs. From installing puppet governments (Iraq, Iran, etc), to using "freedom fighters" as pawns before pulling the rug out (Afghans, Kurds, etc), supporting the religious state Israel, and so on.

Then the obvious blow back to Americans is sold as "they hate our way of life" or the "sinister terrorists threaten our very lives" to scare people into perpetuating a cycle.

Would terrorism happen in America regardless? Sure would, but that would be like asking if gun violence would occur if guns were banned and confiscated. It sure would, but a fuck ton less.

The only impossible answer is how to handle the entire human history of violence, war, and murder. When it comes to stoking terrorism, America just won't change anytime soon though which is the only immediate answer I can think of. It simply isn't going to suddenly change how it interacts with the rest of the world.

So yes, doing "nothing" would have been a better than people killing each other, soldiers losing limbs and living with mental anguish, innocent lives being bombed out of existence, etc.

The scales will never balance this way regardless.

[NynJa]

Because you don't read my fucking posts.

Lets pick one out, the most recent one that has "fair reporting"
January 10th 2018: (S1508) غرانيج Granij, Deir Ezzor governorate, Syria
Summary: Between 2 and 20 civilians were said to have died in alleged Coalition airstrikes on Granij, according to some local media. The high end claim appeared to have originated with ISIS.
Coalition position: On January 9th-10th, the Coalition reported: “Near Abu Kamal, 26 strikes engaged 25 ISIS tactical units and destroyed three ISIS vehicles, a fighting position and a logistics center.”
On January 10th-11th: “Near Abu Kamal, 19 strikes engaged 10 ISIS tactical units and destroyed an ISIS supply route, four ISIS vehicles, three control and command centers, a recoilless rifle, two logistics centers, an indirect fire weapon and a VBIED.”


So, explain this to me because "I dont read"
26 air strikes took out 25 ISIS tactical units, 3 ISIS vehicles, a fighting position and a logistics center, and then 19 strikes engaged 10 ISIS tactical units and destroyed an ISIS supply route, four ISIS vehicles, three control and command centers, a recoilless rifle, two logistics centers, an indirect fire weapon and a VBIED, am I getting that correct? However, nowhere in these 45 strikes do they point out how many terrorists got killed, however they mention the widely varying number of known civilian casualties, between 2 to 20...with the higher number having been reported from ISIS themselves.

So among the 35 ISIS tactical units, 7 vehicles, 3 logistics centers, three control and command centers, and the other things...how many terrorists were killed?

In that same event:
Montaked, who appears to be an activist, also put the claimed death toll at 20 with 30 others wounded, blaming Coalition warplanes. However, a reply to Montaked’s tweet by an account called ‘The Pride of Shaetat’ [an area in Deir Ezzor] denies the news, saying that no civilians were killed. Damascus News Network also denied reports of civilian casualties, saying that “no air operations had been seen”.

[Salodin]

"We don't win by killing what we hate, we win by saving what we love", wtf is this? people talking like if only we didn't secure our national interests we could have avoided decades of war. That's not life, thats fantasy. America not interfering in world affairs doesn't mean those world affairs won't affect us, negatively at that. Some real naivety goin on here.

There is no overnight end to this. It's going to take decades or centuries of work to make would be terrorists realize theyd be better off not being terrorists. That includes diplomacy, negotiations, and yes sometimes bombing the shit out of them when they go too far. We are def not moving in the right direction considering the state department isn't even fully staffed, but you're naive if you think we shouldn't be bombing the shit out of terrorist training grounds.

[Spicyryan]

"We don't win by killing what we hate, we win by saving what we love", wtf is this? people talking like if only we didn't secure our national interests we could have avoided decades of war. That's not life, thats fantasy. America not interfering in world affairs doesn't mean those world affairs won't affect us, negatively at that. Some real naivety goin on here.

There is no overnight end to this. It's going to take decades or centuries of work to make would be terrorists realize theyd be better off not being terrorists. That includes diplomacy, negotiations, and yes sometimes bombing the shit out of them when they go too far. We are def not moving in the right direction considering the state department isn't even fully staffed, but you're naive if you think we shouldn't be bombing the shit out of terrorist training grounds.

Putting our national interests over the well being anyone else in the world is the exact problem.

If you think that you will beat the terrorism out of terrorists then you are more naive than you think I am.

The way you frame bombing "training camps" leaves much to be desired as it isn't black and white.
Is this bombing a violation of the sovereignty of a nation? Are all those in the vicinity actually military targets directly participating in hostilities against us? Do these targets represent a clear and immediate threat to us beyond that they are armed people that don't like us? You can't just bomb people because you say they are terrorists.
Why stop at bombing some camp, why aren't we bombing threats that are clearly greater than enemy combatants in the Middle East?

[shepardG]

Stop acting like an abused snowflake and explain it then.

abused snow flake? *insert Capt. Picard gif*

I'm simply saying your chiming in on a subject with little to know ACTUAL information on how that subject actually functions. (A bombing mission, drone strike, targeting process, etc.)
Mistakes happen in everything, and they happen with drone strikes and bombing missions also, but you seem to think it's a common occurance, and that DT would have any sort of valuable say in the matter on if we should or shouldn't launch a hellfire at some guy.
Trump saying "Hey military you do you boo, I got no actual knowledge of what you do so me weighting in on a subject I know nothing about benefits no one." IS THE SMARTEST THING HE COULD FUCKING DO!
I can't tell you half the shit the Intel community does to track and locate bad guys, cause that shit's classified, but I can tell you that, LIKE 90 PERCENT of the fucking internet, your chiming in on a subject in a manner that makes it sound like you know exactly how it works, when in fact, you haven't a clue. Not being a dick (well maybe I guess, but don't take it like an abused snowflake if I come across that way) but i'm simply addressing the fact that you're probably falling into that internet trap.

[Zetanio]

People can't just go on the Internet and tell lies, dude.

It's illegal.

[shepardG]

Problem is it's not a lie Zet, they read a single opinion/article about a subject, and their swayed.

[Fiye]

abused snow flake? *insert Capt. Picard gif*

I'm simply saying your chiming in on a subject with little to know ACTUAL information on how that subject actually functions. (A bombing mission, drone strike, targeting process, etc.)
Mistakes happen in everything, and they happen with drone strikes and bombing missions also, but you seem to think it's a common occurance, and that DT would have any sort of valuable say in the matter on if we should or shouldn't launch a hellfire at some guy.
Trump saying "Hey military you do you boo, I got no actual knowledge of what you do so me weighting in on a subject I know nothing about benefits no one." IS THE SMARTEST THING HE COULD FUCKING DO!
I can't tell you half the shit the Intel community does to track and locate bad guys, cause that shit's classified, but I can tell you that, LIKE 90 PERCENT of the fucking internet, your chiming in on a subject in a manner that makes it sound like you know exactly how it works, when in fact, you haven't a clue. Not being a dick (well maybe I guess, but don't take it like an abused snowflake if I come across that way) but i'm simply addressing the fact that you're probably falling into that internet trap.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/u...ids-rules.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.7eeb2ce31558

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...deaths-n733336

He's the commander in chief. He sets rules on the what the military can and can't do. He sets the requirements and can wipe Obama's rules with his ass and shit can them as he pleases. This is my point.

Intelligence is gathered. Intelligence is interpreted. That interpretation can be wrong and has been wrong and that feeds into Spicy's post above.

[shepardG]

Wait, are we pretending that the Taliban is a threat to the US on US soil, or just that they're still fighting the Afghan central government for control like they have been for, what, 40 years now and that's bad because without central Afghan government control the Taliban creates safe spaces for terrorist groups that do want to attack the US on US soil?

Spoiler: show

we aren't going to sufficiently stabilize the Afghan government control to prevent there being lawless areas for Al Queda, we've been trying for 15 fucking years now

This that real talk. I ... don't know anymore. I'd honestly like a situation to develop where the Taliban take control, but that would be like letting cancer take over your fucking spleen and not trying to get rid of it. I know you've seen Afghanistan in the 70's and then Russia came along and the Taliban fought back and won over the people and then took control of the government and let AQ chill out in their back yard.
It's a convoluted mess to be honest, but I agree, we would literaly need to put 300k US troops on the ground in that country to rebuild it in a manner that comes close to what happened in Iraq (which wasn't the best either) That shit ain't happening.

[Spicyryan]

Intelligence is gathered. Intelligence is interpreted. That interpretation can be wrong and has been wrong and that feeds into Spicy's post above.

<Movie Annoucer Voice> In a world where people say they can't trust the government to run <insert program here>. Watch as those same people trust that same government to mark who lives and who dies.

[Salodin]

Putting our national interests over the well being anyone else in the world is the exact problem.

If you think that you will beat the terrorism out of terrorists then you are more naive than you think I am.

The way you frame bombing "training camps" leaves much to be desired as it isn't black and white.
Is this bombing a violation of the sovereignty of a nation? Are all those in the vicinity actually military targets directly participating in hostilities against us? Do these targets represent a clear and immediate threat to us beyond that they are armed people that don't like us? You can't just bomb people because you say they are terrorists.
Why stop at bombing some camp, why aren't we bombing threats that are clearly greater than enemy combatants in the Middle East?

If you think we're within a lifetimes grasp of solving violence in the middle east you're just as naive as I think you are. If you don't think we should be doing everything we can to make sure terrorists have as hard a time as possible training new recruits you def are as naive as I think you are.

[Spicyryan]

If you think we're within a lifetimes grasp of solving violence in the middle east you're just as naive as I think you are. If you don't think we should be doing everything we can to make sure terrorists have as hard a time as possible training new recruits you def are as naive as I think you are.

Yes, bomb all our perceived enemies, that will fix everything. If we get bombed, it just means we didn't bomb hard enough to stop it.

[Salodin]

Were not bombing everyone. Were bombing terrorist training centers. If they want to house their women and children in a place where they train to kill Westerners then that sucks, but we're not going to send troops to stop the center when we can just safely bomb from the air.

What happens when John Doe's dad dies in the Spicy raid of 2018, and grows up to hate brownies because they took his dad away. He joins the military, gets promoted, and now leads the military in action against those that harmed his family. The shit is no different, were going through the same cycle that they are with us killing them wanting to kill us so we kill them back. Diplomacy is your only solution, but until then action needs to be taken because they're not going to stop because Spicey stood in the middle of the road to protest these actions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Were not bombing everyone. Were bombing terrorist training centers. If they want to house their women and children in a place where they train to kill Westerners then that sucks, but we're not going to send troops to stop the center when we can just safely bomb from the air.

What happens when John Doe's dad dies in the Spicy raid of 2018, and grows up to hate brownies because they took his dad away. He joins the military, gets promoted, and now leads the military in action against those that harmed his family. The shit is no different, were going through the same cycle that they are with us killing them wanting to kill us so we kill them back. Diplomacy is your only solution, but until then action needs to be taken because they're not going to stop because Spicey stood in the middle of the road to protest these actions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

"That sucks" in this case is actually a war crime.

Are you just choosing to ignore how we cause our own backlash because it is logically convenient? Or do you just enjoy picturing me as some hippy activist with a sign in the middle of the freeway because you want to be cute?
I don't get involved in that nonsense at any rate. It doesn't mean though that I can't say "being the barbarians to stop the barbarians is retarded". Just like you can in turn go "NAIVE!" when presented with that reasonable sentiment.

Only to go "WELL WE CAN'T JUST DO NOTHING" like things are so simple that those are the choices, kill them or doing nothing.

[Salodin]

Oh ok, I'll make sure to sign that petition that says we shouldn't go bombing terrorist training grounds, especially cause they like to house their women and children there. Next time we'll ask that they house families off base so we can avoid this dilema.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Oh ok, I'll make sure to sign that petition that says we shouldn't go bombing terrorist training grounds, especially cause they like to house their women and children there. Next time we'll ask that they house families off base so we can avoid this dilema.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

You keep saying "terrorist training grounds" as if that means something. You are creating a scenario in your mind with an obvious answer. In reality it isn't that black and white. We are bombing villages, cities, towns, markets, etc.

That you are arguing for committing war crimes by targeting unarmed civilians that aren't participating in the conflict. No, simply living in a "training ground" isn't a justifiable use of force. Otherwise that would literally translate to killing anyone because they are in a war zone even though they aren't participating. And, what is this, the fucking Real IRA? People are just off in the woods in camps and bunkers training? It is that simple?

'Well, if the hospital didn't want to be bombed then they shouldn't have been giving treatment to terrorists'

[Salodin]

Keep making those scarecrows buddy. Feel free to keep overlooking the fact that you'd rather play laissez-faire then bomb terrorist bases before they go out and bomb us. Leaving them alone won't suddenly make them peaceful, but if you think so then I guess we're done here lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Keep making those scarecrows buddy. Feel free to keep overlooking the fact that you'd rather play laissez-faire then bomb terrorist bases before they go out and bomb us. Leaving them alone won't suddenly make them peaceful, but if you think so then I guess we're done here lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Bases is incredibly misleading.

Why is leaving them alone the only alternative? Leaving a trail of bodies in our wake as we try to get individual targets is exactly the problem, do you dispute that?

Do you think these people just hate America for no reason?

[arus2001]

But did you see the hijab that girl was wearing? She was totally asking for it.

More seriously, this is the unfortunate consequence of war, collateral damage, and people trying to use well-meaning policies against us. It'd be great if it didn't have to happen, but it's going to continue as long as money and religion are prominent factors of humanity. War isn't a bunch of peasant dudes standing opposite each other on the battlefield and eventually running at each screaming and flailing weapons anymore. It's people attacking from afar with guns, bombs, and missiles. It's villains hiding behind women and children. It's (mis)information to stir the masses, placate, and obfuscate. Cool as it'd be for us to just pull our guys out from everywhere and let the world fend for itself, we've basically become the babysitters of the planet over time. Which means the hard decisions are that much more likely to fall on us. Is saving tons of innocents worth a few dying? Is answering no really worth the risk? Leadership isn't easy, but that's part of the package.