Islamic Terrorism

[meazza]

 

And then what happens when Turkey invokes NATO Article 5?

 

He doesn't usually think that far ahead.

[truth on hold]

 

And then what happens when Turkey invokes NATO Article 5?

Same thing we did when Israel slaughtered 9 Turkish aid activists in international waters: nothing.

 

And in this instance they're not only supporting al nusra affiliated terrorists, they're targeting US backed forces! How the &@+# are we obligated to support them?

 

"Turkey shelled positions held by a U.S.-backed Kurdish militia in northern Syria for a second day on Sunday."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/opposition-activists-say-turkey-shelling-kurds-in-syria/2016/02/14/0e8407f6-d300-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html

[starrymessenger]

Same thing we did when Israel slaughtered 9 Turkish aid activists in international waters: nothing.

And in this instance they're not only supporting al nusra affiliated terrorists, they're targeting US backed forces! How the &@+# are we obligated to support them?

"Turkey shelled positions held by a U.S.-backed Kurdish militia in northern Syria for a second day on Sunday."https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/opposition-activists-say-turkey-shelling-kurds-in-syria/2016/02/14/0e8407f6-d300-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html

Why wouldn't we just take out Assad instead. Its what should have happened a long time ago. He and Putin are the ones responsible for the suffering of the Syrian people. Since when are Russia and Iran our allies? They are not. They are our ideological and geopolitical enemies.

Of course we wont take out Assad, but thats only because our foreign policy is gutless. I understand that we are all afraid of Russia, but giving them a free hand is more likely to cause everybody to piss blood than standing up would.

Actually its probably too late in thelife of the current administration to do anything and thats maybe a good thing. The greatest threat to world peace is probably Obama belatedly finding a spine.

[keepthefaith]

Why wouldn't we just take out Assad instead. Its what should have happened a long time ago. He and Putin are the ones responsible for the suffering of the Syrian people. Since when are Russia and Iran our allies? They are not. They are our ideological and geopolitical enemies.

Of course we wont take out Assad, but thats only because our foreign policy is gutless. I understand that we are all afraid of Russia, but giving them a free hand is more likely to cause everybody to piss blood than standing up would.

Actually its probably too late in thelife of the current administration to do anything and thats maybe a good thing. The greatest threat to world peace is probably Obama belatedly finding a spine.

Middle East is a !@#$ing mess and mostly not worth our efforts to save IMO.

[starrymessenger]

Middle East is a !@#$ing mess and mostly not worth our efforts to save IMO.

You're right about it being a mess but unfortunately it is also a theater of tremendous strategic importance. Its where the world's supply of the cheapest oil is. Its also the location from which millions of refugees are flooding into Western Europe and destabilizing our important allies there. The world is too small a place for the preeminent world power not to have strategic interests there, as well as elsewhere - pretty much in every important geography actually. All we had to do was to impose a no fly zone in Syria and follow through on our red line and that would have sufficed to bring Assad down. Instead the intrepid Obama outsourced the problem to the Ruskies, who probably couldn't believe their luck. Now things have pretty much turned 180 degrees against us in a perfect storm of mixed incompetence and weakness.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're right about it being a mess but unfortunately it is also a theater of tremendous strategic importance. Its where the world's supply of the cheapest oil is. Its also the location from which millions of refugees are flooding into Western Europe and destabilizing our important allies there. The world is too small a place for the preeminent world power not to have strategic interests there, as well as elsewhere - pretty much in every important geography actually. All we had to do was to impose a no fly zone in Syria and follow through on our red line and that would have sufficed to bring Assad down. Instead the intrepid Obama outsourced the problem to the Ruskies, who probably couldn't believe their luck. Now things have pretty much turned 180 degrees against us in a perfect storm of mixed incompetence and weakness.

 

The Russians have been propping up Assad since the beginning. Obama didn't outsource the problem to Russia.

[starrymessenger]

The Russians have been propping up Assad since the beginning. Obama didn't outsource the problem to Russia.

The Russians moved into the vacuum created when Obama refused to enforce his red line and accepted their "compromise". He could have and should have acted independently of them. Only thereafter did they move to support Assad with the air power now being used out of Latakia (and a new base currently being developed). Its that air power that is turning the tide in Assad's favour.

Edited February 15, 2016 by starrymessenger

[Deranged Rhino]

The Russians moved into the vacuum created when Obama refused to enforce his red line and accepted their "compromise". He could have and should have acted independently of them. Only thereafter did they move to support Assad with the air power now being used out of Latakia (and a new base currently being developed). Its that air power that is turning the tide in Assad's favour.

Again that's not accurate. The Russians were ALWAYS there, they didn't move in when Obama showed weakness. Obama showed weakness BECAUSE the Russians were propping up Assad and he didn't want to risk open conflict w Russia. Instead he chose for a proxy war, sending money and weapons to radicals (including ISIL) on the ground in Syria to fight the Russians and Assad.

[starrymessenger]

Again that's not accurate. The Russians were ALWAYS there, they didn't move in when Obama showed weakness. Obama showed weakness BECAUSE the Russians were propping up Assad and he didn't want to risk open conflict w Russia. Instead he chose for a proxy war, sending money and weapons to radicals (including ISIL) on the ground in Syria to fight the Russians and Assad.

Outside of the Black Sea its their only warm weather port so of course the Russians already had a limited presence there. They had no war planes though and that is what has turned the tide. And of course Obama showed weakness because he feared a confrontation with the Russians. Thats what he does after all. And some proxy war indeed, where he fails to supply his putative allies, as in Ukraine.

[Deranged Rhino]

Outside of the Black Sea its their only warm weather port so of course the Russians already had a limited presence there. They had no war planes though and that is what has turned the tide. And of course Obama showed weakness because he feared a confrontation with the Russians. Thats what he does after all. And some proxy war indeed, where he fails to supply his putative allies, as in Ukraine.

Again, you should do more research if you think Obama hasn't been supplying the Ukraine in their fight against Russia. There is even a case to be made (if you ask JTSP) that it was the west who provoked the situation in Crimea, not the other way around.

 

I'm not arguing that Obama's foreign policy is sound, just that your facts are wrong. Russia is, and always was, the reason the US has been hands off w Assad. We never outsourced the job to Russia, Russia was always there -- fighter jets or no. We've been engaged actively in a proxy war against Russia in two theaters for over two years now. These proxy wars are most assuredly being funded by the west.

 

With Saudi and Turkey mobilizing troops and tanks and planes to go into Syria now it's probably time to stop referring to it as a civil war and call it what it is.

[starrymessenger]

Again, you should do more research if you think Obama hasn't been supplying the Ukraine in their fight against Russia. There is even a case to be made (if you ask JTSP) that it was the west who provoked the situation in Crimea, not the other way around.

I'm not arguing that Obama's foreign policy is sound, just that your facts are wrong. Russia is, and always was, the reason the US has been hands off w Assad. We never outsourced the job to Russia, Russia was always there -- fighter jets or no. We've been engaged actively in a proxy war against Russia in two theaters for over two years now. These proxy wars are most assuredly being funded by the west.

With Saudi and Turkey mobilizing troops and tanks and planes to go into Syria now it's probably time to stop referring to it as a civil war and call it what it is.

Yes, we are supplying Ukraine - with meals, blankets and night goggles lol! And the non-Jihadist moderates in Syria are being financed and equipped, albeit probably inadequately, by other Sunni powers of the region - Turkey and Saudi Arabia. When we actually did supply the Afgan rebels in their bunfight with the Russians, they had surface to air missiles that helped counter Russian airpower. The moderates in Syria dont have that, as you may have noticed by the results.

Of course the war in Syria is a civil war, to the extent that we give any credence to great power drawn political divisions (which have endured since the early 20th century, however imperfectly). And of course the struggle has a supranational aspect i.e. Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc...).

Edited February 15, 2016 by starrymessenger

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes, we are supplying Ukraine - with meals, blankets and night goggles lol! And the non-Jihadist moderates in Syria are being financed and equipped, albeit probably inadequately, by other Sunni powers of the region - Turkey and Saudi Arabia. When we actually did supply the Afgan rebels in their bunfight with the Russians, they had surface to air missiles that helped counter Russian airpower. The moderates in Syria dont have that, as you may have noticed by the results.

Of course the war in Syria is a civil war, to the extent that we give any credence to great power drawn political divisions (which have endured since the early 20th century, however imperfectly). And of course the struggle has a supranational aspect i.e. Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc...).

If you think we are not giving arms to the Ukraine then again you should do some more research.

 

If you think the Saudis are financing non Jihadists (or the US for that matter) in Syria then you should do more research.

 

If a Russian fighter gets shot down w a US supplied SAM and you don't think there will be fallout you should do more research.

 

If you think the war in Syria is just a civil war, then you're willfully ignorant.

[starrymessenger]

If you think we are not giving arms to the Ukraine then again you should do some more research.

If you think the Saudis are financing non Jihadists (or the US for that matter) in Syria then you should do more research.

If a Russian fighter gets shot down w a US supplied SAM and you don't think there will be fallout you should do more research.

If you think the war in Syria is just a civil war, then you're willfully ignorant.

And you should read my post.

We are not arming the Ukrainians, not even with only defensive weapons. I don't know where you get the idea that we are. The Brits gave them 20 or so small broken down army surplus armoured cars. Thats it. Maybe you should do more research.

The Turks are supporting Turcic fighters indiginous to Syria. The Saudis are financing non Jihadist fighters and, unofficially, Jihadist fighters in Syria. All Sunnis.

One of the consequences of untimely inaction is that the stakes are raised. A more assertive and timely foreign policy can help avert dangerous escalation. Our surface to air missiles shot down lots of Russian planes and helicopters in Afganistan. An important result was that this contributed significantly to the implosion of the Soviet Union. Not a bad thing.

I said the Syrian conflict was a civil war. It is. I also said that it was a regional conflict aligned along religious lines. It is. I think we can add to that by saying its also a global geopolitical conflict, one that Russia is winning.

[B-Man]

Burqa bans are spreading across Africa. Why? http://econ.st/1POtRCN

 

[....lybob]

And you should read my post.

We are not arming the Ukrainians, not even with only defensive weapons. I don't know where you get the idea that we are. The Brits gave them 20 or so small broken down army surplus armoured cars. Thats it. Maybe you should do more research.

The Turks are supporting Turcic fighters indiginous to Syria. The Saudis are financing non Jihadist fighters and, unofficially, Jihadist fighters in Syria. All Sunnis.

One of the consequences of untimely inaction is that the stakes are raised. A more assertive and timely foreign policy can help avert dangerous escalation. Our surface to air missiles shot down lots of Russian planes and helicopters in Afganistan. An important result was that this contributed significantly to the implosion of the Soviet Union. Not a bad thing.

I said the Syrian conflict was a civil war. It is. I also said that it was a regional conflict aligned along religious lines. It is. I think we can add to that by saying its also a global geopolitical conflict, one that Russia is winning.

We haven't sent very many arms first hand and what we have sent has kinda been outdated trash but we have paid Poland, Hungry, Bulgaria and some other countries money to send arms to Ukraine - which makes sense because American weapons systems are both very expensive and generally more complicated and require more training.

[starrymessenger]

We haven't sent very many arms first hand and what we have sent has kinda been outdated trash but we have paid Poland, Hungry, Bulgaria and some other countries money to send arms to Ukraine - which makes sense because American weapons systems are both very expensive and generally more complicated and require more training.

Yes. There is no lack of small arms. Small arms is not what they need if they are to defend themselves.

Of course the West has not entirely backed off against Russian aggression in Ukraine. There are sanctions, loans, training and if by "we" the West is Intended, there is the recently negotiated agreement between the EU and Ukraine providing for the freer movement of people and goods. That in particular is important. And of course the US has also given them Victoria Nuland lol.

Edited February 16, 2016 by starrymessenger

[/dev/null]

Yes. There is no lack of small arms. Small arms is not what they need if they are to defend themselves.

 

What is this about Muslims having small arms? Is this some kind of racial stereotype like Jews have big noses, Asian people can't drive, and Polish people have trouble with light bulbs?

[Chef Jim]

Found a new band to follow.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/eagles-of-death-metal-frontman

 

FTA

“Did your French gun control stop a single !@#$ing person from dying at the Bataclan? And if anyone can answer yes, I’d like to hear it, because I don’t think so. I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I’ve ever seen in my life charging head-first into the face of death with their firearms.

“I know people will disagree with me, but it just seems like God made men and women, and that night guns made them equal,” he said. “And I hate it that it’s that way. I think the only way that my mind has been changed is that maybe that until nobody has guns everybody has to have them.

“Because I’ve never seen anyone that’s ever had one dead, and I want everyone to have access to them, and I saw people die that maybe could have lived, I don’t know.”

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Middle East is a !@#$ing mess and mostly not worth our efforts to save IMO.

Patently retarded. Consider the words Middle and East.

 

Forget Oil for a second. How do you propose we, or anybody else, ship our goods to the east, wihout going through the middle of it? The F'ing Barbary Pirates understood this one, long before anybody cared about crude oil. Don't tell me you can't read a map.

 

Free trade stops war and fixes poverty. Despite all the lies to the contrary, it does exactly those 2 things. And, even if it didn't, trade, period, brings $ into this country, because we have and can make more stuff than we can consume. Often we are the only ones who can make what we have. But, you're telling us that we should leave the Middle East to whomever? Guess what's next? We have to pay a toll to them. F that. That's like giving a weakling your lunch money, when you can just squish him instead. Jefferson tried the lunch money thing with the Barbary Pirates. It didn't work. In the end we had to squish them anyway.

 

Aside: what we currently have with China is not free trade. We are subsidizing their standard of living improvments(ripping us off) by allowing them to get away with backhanded tariffs, the dumping of cheap goods, child labor, and environmental destruction...in the name of someday, somehow, becoming a free state. This is folly.

 

However, the Middle East is the crossroads of the world, and, if we need to setup road blocks and check IDs, or worse, deploy weapons and build defenses at that crossroads...then that's what we have to do. You can't tell me you're worried about American jobs, but then tell me we don't have to ensure access to world markets, and/or, allow one of the most important markets, oil, to be constantly at risk.

 

ALL American jobs depend on the stability of the oil MARKET. This is why the "No blood for oil" people were/are F'ing children.

Edited February 17, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Huge blast at a military building in Ankara. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35599323

 

5 dead and more injured. Numbers sure to rise, being called a terror attack already.

Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QjWgYA0rSI