US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria 478
Taco Cowboy writes The United States of America has launched airstrikes, along with some of its Arab partners such as Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar, against ISIL targets in Syria. ... Before the airstrike was officially announced to the press, a Syrian man living in Raqqa, Syria, tweeted about the bombings and the sounds of air drones all over Raqqa. ... Tomahawk missiles were launched from USS Arleigh Burke in the Red Sea. Stealth fighters such as F-22s were also involved in the strike.
I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Insightful)
'nuff said
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched that speech recently. If anyone in history could have his words called prophetic, it would be him, and those words would be that speech. For as radical and terrible as what he described was; the truth is he never dreamed the real extent of it. He had no way to see that the model he so rightly feared would be replicated and used again to create a permanent prison population..... do you think he had any idea that he was only a prophet of the tip of the iceberg?
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, it was already true in Eisenhower's day. Like I don't need to be prophetic to say people need to be concerned about corporations data mining them, and using marketing so targeted and manipulative that they start to lose personal agency. It'll probably be more true in 30 years, but it's also true now.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of good paying jobs in the US based on DoD. There's always gonna be bad guys, and running through inventory keeps people employed with good paying jobs restocking the shelves so to speak.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that every mushroom cloud has a silver lining?
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Bombs and guns and tanks don't contribute anything to society. They're necessary, yes, but they don't create wealth, they consume it. Every dime spent on defense and prisons is a loss to infrastructure and progress. It's just make-work.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Insightful)
He's falling for the common mistake that "job creation" is good for the economy, regardless of what that job is.
We could form companies that employed people to literally rob you in the street and some politicians would argue that they need a tax break "FER DA JERBS!"
The classic example is the broken window fallacy. [wikipedia.org] Just as breaking windows does not produce a net gain for society, "running through inventory" does not help society, even if a few people are paid to clean up the mess afterwards.
As assuredly as a rising tide raises all boats, the drain on society that the DoD represents sinks all boats. They are a burden bringing us down and, frankly, making us non-competitive with China. We need some defense, but not this much.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't even Keynesian. Well, actually kind of as he used WWII as an example in explaining his theory.
But damn, if we're going to have government make-work programs, have them do something constructive. Fix our roads and bridges. Build schools and hospitals. Make things that improve infrastructure, which improves our ability to trade. But you build a tank, and it just...sits there.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, actually, with the Federal govt, national defense is one of the few responsibilities enumerated to it by the US Constitution. Not much in there for infrastructure, most of that should likely be by the states.
Re: (Score:3)
Then do what the government typically does: give money to the states for infrastructure projects.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with ya on that one.
Let's cut out most all of the unconstitutional entitlements the Fed do now, let the states keep their money and power (as was the original plan for the US) and get things back in order. The federal govt shouldn't be "giving" money to the states...it is the states' money to begin with, and should stay in the states for them to help govern and cater to what their citizens want first and f
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, you are a citizen of your state first and a THEN a citizen of the United States.
Fuck the Governor! I'm backing my Mayor's god-given authority over man and we'll fight tooth and nail if the state troopers try and pry the hard-earned cash from our poor hungry neighbors. You've got to have community! You've got to stand up together and fight the oppressive gubernational tyrants! What do I care if some shmuck in a city way out over there has a tornado plow through his home, what's that to me? I don't know that guy. He's not my neighbor.
If those farmboys think they can get fat off of the hard-working city-man, then they have another thing coming! GOGO CITY POWER!
And pay no heed to these poor rabble-rousers that think groups of people WITHIN the city need representation. We either stand together under the mayor, or we all fall apart.
(SARCASM)
Re: (Score:3)
>> Remember, you are a citizen of your state first and a THEN a citizen of the United States.
This is how it was supposed to work. And it's the only way it can work well.
It also occurred to me that excess centralization of power is likely to be the driving force behind all the secessionist movements, such as what we saw with Scotland last week. If government were kept as local as possible, these kinds of problems wouldn't happen... or would be much less likely to happen. This is what the Founding Fa
Re: (Score:3)
This argument rings a bell for some reason, so should I take it from this we should plan to always be at war with Eurasia?
Re: (Score:3)
do you think he had any idea that he was only a prophet of the tip of the iceberg?
He was the president of The United States. I think he was privy to all sorts of information, and that's why he said what he said. He knew that there were really smart people in places of power that seemed to care less than he did about civility, and more about growing a need to increase military spending. That was the point of his talk - to try to put into perspective what was going on behind the scenes.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:4, Interesting)
The theory is that this sort of military action makes a point in response to ISIL's activities.
Ironically, the Sunnis and Shia in the region were better kept in check under Saddam's former regime, than they ever will be in a post-invasion government. Western policy makers seem to have a difficult time understanding this, but there is no separation of church and state for these people.
Re:I'll just let my sig do the talking (Score:4, Interesting)
That is the big problem from North Africa to the Middle East: quelling sectarian unrest between all kinds of religions apparently needs a dictator.
Subject lines that serve as the body (Score:2, Funny)
How? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this tech news?
Re: (Score:2)
are some of the highest tech things around.
Especially when lifted into the stratosphere!
DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they based their state on what they divined from the Quran, right? That certainly doesn't make them Buddhist. Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries. Legitimacy is merely about how many people you can convince. It's not a thing you can measure with a multimeter or something.
That doesn't mean we're obligated to help them gain legitimacy by volunteering to use the name they want us to. Their goal is to be seen as a legitimate state representing all Muslims. They aren't and they don't. Also, "daesh" pisses them off, which should give all decent folk a twinge of slightly immature pleasure.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
The KKK are Christian. They aren't exactly representative of modern Christianity (or of Christianity back when the KKK was more substantial), although there was a big subset of the South who were sympathetic to them. The comparison is actually very apt. IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call them (I'd prefer Daesh as it is what the locals call them when they aren't pointing guns at them), is Islamic. It isn't representative of modern Islam, or even of Islam in the region. Thier theology is also a pretty piss poor interpretation of the source text of Islam, an argument you would be right to make, just like the KKK bastardised the Bible (note, I don't like the Quran and think it has some horrid ideas but it is pretty fucking clear that many of Daesh actions are reprehensible). But you cant ignore the fact that they appear to be sincere a fair chunk of the time when they say part of their motivation is religious.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I also call them "pigfuckers", since Islam is like Judaism in that both religions consider pigs "unclean" animals. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they based their state on what they divined from the Quran, right? That certainly doesn't make them Buddhist. Regarding the "state" part, State of Palestine is also considered to be a state by many countries. Legitimacy is merely about how many people you can convince. It's not a thing you can measure with a multimeter or something.
I don't know if you noticed, but these guys have been called "barbaric" by Al Quaeda, and by known extremist muslims in the UK. They are not muslims. They are f***ing bastards who like to kill people and found an excuse.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Insightful)
s/muslim/xian/g
This works for every ism out there. That's why the "no true scottsman" fallacy is such a fallacy. You can only ever judge something by what it produces. This includes the battle of Tours, the siege of Vienna, and ISIL.
They are "muslim enough" to take and hold half of Syria and half of Iraq without being ejected from either by the native population.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but they need Allah to back them up so they don't all dissolve into Western-style guilt trips and require Vitamin P to live with the inner demons they've created or themselves. It is sort of the Flip in Flip Wilson, i.e., Allah made me do it.
This Allah, he's a funny guy, never says squat, can only communicate through angels and then via dreams. Doesn't bestow riches or anything on this dirtball planet. Yet legions are running around claiming anything they do is because Allah wills it. Allah at this point is indistinguishable from Satan.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet legions are running around claiming anything they do is because Allah wills it. Allah at this point is indistinguishable from Satan.
There you go again, giving Satan a bad name.
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:5, Interesting)
They are Muslims, extreme and aberrant but Muslims, just as Phelps and crew are aberrant Christians (albeit not murderous). As for legitimacy, name them, make them a legitimate target and bomb them to oblivion. If you don't make them legitimate, some group of squealers will claim we're waging war against civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Would you be happy that people associate linux with terrorism ?
Well, I started with Linux by downloading Debian 0.93 by modem onto floppies (because the copyright situation for 386BSD was unclear at the time). I think this was the first official Debian release with dpkg and it was awesome!
So I remember when Linux started to get media attention very well. What people associated Linux with was Communism. My reaction at the time was that people who did that were hysterical idiots, and history has proved me right.
As for Islam, it's not going away. It can't be "defeated",
Re: (Score:3)
Don't grant these pigfuckers undeserved legitimacy by calling them an "Islamic State". They are neither Islamic, nor a legitimate state. They are a gang of murderers and rapists, nothing more.
They are a gang of Islamic murderers and rapists. Of course that doesn't say anything about *other* Muslims, any more than Hitler being a Christian tells us about Christians or Stalin being an atheist tells us about atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DAESH, not ISIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler's religion had nothing to do with his goals or implementation.
Yeah, it's not like he was drawing upon a rich [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org] of persecution [wikipedia.org] against the Jews [wikipedia.org]. This doesn't sound the least bit familiar to you in this context?
The penalties for Jews accused of defiling hosts were severe. Many Jews, after accusations and torture, "confessed" to abusing hosts, and the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews in the community, as happened in Beelitz in 1243, in Prague in 1389, and in many German cities, according to Ocker's writings in the Harvard Theological Review. According to William Nichol in Christian Antisemitism, "over 100 instances of the charge have been recorded, in many cases leading to massacres."
Hitler's attempt to scapegoat the Jews was primed for success by European Christian society.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor have I seen any Budist or Jews or Christians or Athiest or Hindu actually attack schools full of children like what happened in Beslan.
You want Buddhists torching schools and killing children? Here you are. [3news.co.nz] All religion is fucked up, no exceptions.
Re: (Score:3)
The west was won by murderers and rapists. That's the path to legitimancy since the days of Ghegis Khan or the Vikings. Just ask General Custer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point will the political-correctness stop?
Either there is a not-so-small extremist element in Islam, or a silent majority who refuses to do anything about it.
What kind of a message are we supposed to get when tens of thousands protest in the streets when the West attacks their extremists but barely a handful Muslim protesters after each time Islamic terrorists kill innocents?
If their moderates truly outnumber their extremists 10:1 we should expect to see 10x more protesters after each terrorist atta
When does the willfully ignorant racism stop? (Score:3)
First, the same sort of idiots were making this same idiot claim after the 911 attacks. Just because you can't be bothered to read about denuciations of terrorism [about.com] doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
Second, you do know that the only reason ISIS exists is because Assad's enemies - chiefly the United States and Saudi Arabia - have been funding and arming the very "radicals" you are now complai
Re: (Score:3)
I see the answer to my question is "not any time soon". The people in the Middle East would like nothing more than to be left alone, but western powers have been actively fucking with them for over a hundred years.
How, exactly, is your average shmoe living in Yemen or Saudi Arabia supposed to "take responsibility" in the face of drone attacks and western support for brutal dictatorships?
Okay, no problem. It's all our fault. Sorry for our ignorant imperialist way. Sheesh.
Hint: There were no drone attacks in Syria nor US support for the rebels when Assad's own people tried to rebel against him and he proceeded to gas them. When we attempted to help them, you labeled us "imperialistic pigs". So you know what? Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.
The Syrian rebellion is not one cohesive group. You can hardly fault us for trying to help the original group only to have some of the arms fall into
Re: (Score:3)
So reciprocally you don't have any objections to the U.S. just utterly annihilating Syria and Iraq, right? Hey, it's total war, right?
Re: (Score:3)
This. FINALLY someone points out that these people are doing this because of what they BELIEVE. People are always talking about how these people are psychopaths and they just want power...and no one seems to want to point out that these people believe a book that TELLS THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
I have a secret fantasy, which is that one day, in an argument on Fox or CNN or MSNBC, some talking head will actually quote the relevant verses from the Quran that these DAESH guys use to justify thei
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that "Daesh" omits the "Islamic" part of the name.
Either way, it seems to piss off the mujis when they hear themselves being referred to under that name, to the point that any local heard using it in the areas controlled by them is punished. Given that they clearly hate it, I'm all for using it on that basis alone, regardless of what it means.
Overkill? (Score:2)
Doesn't this sound like using an elephant gun to try to kill a fruit fly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know that dropping bombs and launching missiles would be an effective response against a plague of locusts either.
Re: (Score:2)
Napalm is quite effective against locusts.
The crops, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it destroys the crops very effectively too.
Why is this on Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless they bombed a data center, I fail to see the relevance.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they blew up Muhammed's (no, not that one) shoebox full of thumbdrives, if that counts..
Re: (Score:3)
tl;dr: If war planes have a purpose it's to bomb assholes like them.
Re: (Score:3)
Dur wut? Obama is the one who caused this by creating, funding and arming ISIS in the first place. There would have been no war in Syria for the last 3 years if the United States and it's pals Qatar and Saudi Arabia weren't sending a steady supply of guns and fighters. The Saudi Arabia that chopped off the heads of at least 8 people last month.
I'm not political... (Score:5, Insightful)
My only question... (Score:5, Funny)
Do you think I could start a business with protest signs?
I mean, since the Left was so prolific in producing "war monger" and "the president is a war criminal" signs from 2001-2007, and they don't really seem to use them anymore, I bet I could buy them cheap and sell them to the Right, who apparently need them now?
Re: (Score:3)
From the glimpses I've seen of what the folks on the Right (of the Fox news variety), they are upset at Obama for not launching these strikes sooner and/or not launching a bigger offensive. So they're not "pro-peace" as much as they are "more pro-war."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My only question... (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and the fact that he is not obtaining or even seeking to obtain congressional authority to do so, unlike his predecessor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My only question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well sure and I had no real issue with Bush Sr. going into Iraq at the invitation of neighboring Arab countries. We went in with a clear objective and when that was complete we withdrew, told Saddam what he had to do to keep us from coming back and left with the approval of the international community. And whatever anyone's feeling on Saddam was he was the recognized sovereign leader of his country, not a terrorist leader announcing the creation of a new state in other countries' territory. He was an evil man and I was not sorry to see him go but my and others' emotions toward the man are not legal justifications for war.
The second time around the initiative was predicated on lies and innuendo about terrorism and Bush's "bring Democracy to the desert" was obviously not well defined or planned, thus the situation we have now. Both democrats and republicans have plenty of blame to share when it comes to F'ing up in the ME but I stand by my statement that what Obama doing now is not really comparable to what Bush Jr. did then.
Re: (Score:3)
told Saddam what he had to do to keep us from coming back and left with the approval of the international community
Which Saddam never did. You get that, right? He kept building/importing long range missiles. Kept shooting at the aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that were set up to keep him from continuing his ethnic slaughter in the north and south, kept starving people as he skimmed aid money to rebuild his guard and more palaces, continued to play cat and mouse with UN inspectors, never disclosed what he did with all of the VX that the UN inspectors originally saw, and so on.
He never did any of what he agreed
Aggression in practice, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone convince me that in the absence of a specific invitation by the legitimate Syrian government, which is the case this time, this [US] action cannot be defined as aggression?
IS/ISIS/ISIL is the aggressor, slaughtering thousands of people for being insufficiently Islamic, etc.
Hitting their command/control and training operations, from which tens of thousands of them are directed and supplied, is DEFENSIVE, not aggressive. That they happen to be running their little shop of horrors out of towns they've captured in Syria simply means that that's where some of the defensive action has to take place.
Like this is any mystery to anybody, right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sovereignty has to be meaningfully exercised to be considered legitimate. If you claim sovereignty over some territory, but in practice there is a hostile militant group there that's on a murderous rampage for several months now, your claim is not particularly strong.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you don't think cutting off funding to them is better than going to war?
You're right. We'll use a time machine to undo the hundreds of millions in cash they stole when they knocked over a bank (you have been paying attention, right?), and then we'll take steps to make oil no longer a commodity that places like Russia and China buy, so that we can dry up the millions a week that they're earning on the black market. Then we'll force Europeans and others to stop sending them millions of dollars in ransom money for the hostages they keep taking.
Let me guess, you were thinking a
Re: (Score:3)
If kidnapping, extortion, and good old fashioned robbery were so profitable, the everybody would be doing it.
In places without the rule of law, everybody (with the muscle) IS doing it. That's why it's a major industry in certain parts of Africa, Central America, and the Middle East. Which of course you know, but would rather ignore.
If you think they can do all this damage without continued aid from the US/Europe (Saudi, especially them. You are so barking up the wrong tree), Russia, China, whoever is competing for the territory, then I'll have to assume you own several bridges and the Haney Farm...
This sentence is impossible to parse.
But I'll take a guess. You think that 30,000 guys armed with millions of dollars, fanatical recruits, and huge numbers of weapons abandoned by fleeing Iraqi forces, are unable to walk into village and towns and kill people? How complicated do yo
Re: (Score:3)
This BBC article may help. There are a number of theories regarding international law and the legality of the U.S. led actions in Syria. Defense of neighboring states (Iraq, Jordan, etc.) and humanitarian aid being the two that make the most sense (IMHO).
the Syrian government has lost all control over the parts of Syria held by IS.
Indeed, until very recently, it has made no attempt to dislodge it, leaving this task instead to the armed opposition groups. Damascus is manifestly unable or unwilling to discharge its obligation to prevent IS operations against Iraq from its own soil. Syria cannot impose the costs of its inaction or incapacity in relation to IS on neighbouring Iraq.
Hence, under the doctrine of self-defence, the zone of operations of the campaign to defeat IS in Iraq can be extended to cover portions of Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government.
And...
Finally, it would be possible to base a claim for action on the activities of IS in Syria itself.
The Syrian government is under the obligation to secure its population from crimes against humanity committed on its territory. Clearly, it is unable to do so, having lost control over areas occupied by IS.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that in the areas affected, there is no "legitimate Syrian government." Syria is in civil war and these areas are completely overrun and out of Syria's control.
Re: (Score:2)
That's convenient.
Step 1: Create an uncivil war with foreign fighters and money, trained and armed by the CIA and Saudi Arabia.
Step 2: Declare areas to be "lawless" due to the war you created, and use that as a reason to make more war with bombs.
Brilliant!
Re:Aggression in practice, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ukrainians weren't cutting heads off or systematically slaughtering entire towns for being the wrong religion, so no, it's not "exactly as justified." Not even close.
Re:Aggression in practice, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't help but feel like there are three very important words you've ignored: "under international law."
You can argue which is more justified from a humanitarian point of view, but under international law, we're invading Syria in exactly the same way Russia invaded Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
So when are you signing up to invade Saudi Arabia? They, along with the CIA, created ISIS in the first place to fight Assad. Saudi Arabia, where they chopped the heads of 8 people last month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So ISIL are threatening to kill people in western countries that it considers "disbelievers"
Forget about that believer/disbeliever nonsense. All these guys want to do is rape and kill. Sometimes they may come up with something to "justify" what they are doing, but that's just to spread confusion so they have more time to rape and kill.
south park called it years ago (Score:5, Funny)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They can. But more than likely they were used to paint targets with their "mini AWACS" onboard. Its the only reason I could see them using raptors instead of a true bomber.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. (Score:5, Insightful)
The locking clamps disengage from the ordinance hugging configuration. Gravity is at fault for everything that happens from that point forward.
Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's never the fall that kills you. It's always the sudden stop at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deceleration Overdose
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help though if an explosion/bomb/sudden stop/fall makes all your blood fall out and not reach your brain.
Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. (Score:4, Funny)
Now I want to see wood veneer completely covering every outer surface of a fully functional F-22. That combined with a low capacity fuel tank would make it a sporting aircraft. Maybe paint the nose orange so people know it's a hobby plane, not a fighter when it's invading your airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that was essentially Wernher Von Braun's attitude about the rockets he was building; he's quoted as saying something to the effect of, "My job is to make the rockets go up, where they fall is London's problem."
I'll just leave this right here: (Score:2)
Yes they do (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They must have some pretty shitty developers then.
Re:Points of interest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree.
I know.
It is less "conspiracy theory" than it is objective analysis as it all comes from verified facts on the ground,
If you are talking about chemtrails, then once again, you're completely out there. You might as well start talking about how the moon landing was faked.