ISIS

[Quick Karl]

Frankly, I don't understand the big-picture morality issues involved in bombing campaigns (Why nukes ok, but not biological? Why ok Dresden or fire-bomb Toyko but then Muslims, being so much more "peaceful" than Germans or Japs, need such selective, targeted strikes? What difference morally between land-based or submarine nukes? And if you are going to kill lots of people why science methods helping to target are worse: like neutron-bomb, targeted biological, or chemicals, and are those more evil than any type of bombs or just plain throat-cutting civilians? And the whole-thing about hollow-points and dum-dums being illegal in war but DU rounds etc are ok? I can shoot deer with a hollow-point, or a robber, but not some enemy in an actual war trying to kill me?)

There was no flaming pussy demographic back in the WWII days...

[Yorkshire pud]

Five predomanently Sunni Arab countries involved against an extreme Sunni terrorist group. This has taken some seriously softly softly behind the scenes negotiations. Isn't Obama a Sunni Muslim? Allegedly. It's also interesting that Assad has pretty much been disregarded in this. He hasn't asked for this the way the Iraqi's requested assistance. Next few days will frame the next few months. WW3 is a possibility and will please the hawks no end. Careful what you wish for.

[Yorkshire pud]

Not quite as "cool' as the original Gulf War (recall watching that a bar and all those cruise missiles coming in. Wow. Or even as Gulf II: The Revenge-Shock and Awe.) But, I imagine less "imbedded" reporters with cameras to show the scene. I hope they kill them all. Let Allah, peace be upon him, sort them out. I say also let Assad take more action, it is, after all, still his country legally. (Though I won't be surprised if an errant missile goes wrong to help take care of that little foreign policy problem. Recall Clinton bombing the Chinese Embassy during the opposite campaign in Serbia? Siimilar anti-Soviet motives- in that case supporting the most radical Islamic elements and criminal gangs. whereas here we at least seem to be against the most radical Islamic elements, though Obama's pledge to arm some rebels and radicals is indeed worrying. Recall KLA, Al Qeada, his Muslim Brotherhood support, etc. )

Frankly, I don't understand the big-picture morality issues involved in bombing campaigns (Why nukes ok, but not biological? Why ok Dresden or fire-bomb Toyko but then Muslims, being so much more "peaceful" than Germans or Japs, need such selective, targeted strikes? What difference morally between land-based or submarine nukes? And if you are going to kill lots of people why science methods helping to target are worse: like neutron-bomb, targeted biological, or chemicals, and are those more evil than any type of bombs or just plain throat-cutting civilians? And the whole-thing about hollow-points and dum-dums being illegal in war but DU rounds etc are ok? I can shoot deer with a hollow-point, or a robber, but not some enemy in an actual war trying to kill me?)

Because since WW2 the UN has been formed and international law formulated. Look it up; I can't be arsed to explain all the details.

[VtaGeezer]

I hope there won't be an orgy of reprisals by the ISIL butchers tomorrow. 

[albrecht]

Because since WW2 the UN has been formed and international law formulated. Look it up; I can't be arsed to explain all the details.

Are you a complete idiot or just misinformed? DUM-DUMs, the stuff you lot used to use in various colonial campaigns (and also hollow-points) were banned by the Hague Convention in 1899 (one of several Hague Conventions, I admit, but still for a supposedly educated man you are quite stupid on many occasions. Those later conventions and protocols also banned chemical (though violated in WWI, as you should know) but many years prior to the vaunted UN you like so much! The UN didn't even exist then! And those conventions were even before the First or Second World War (you will, no doubt, recall the United Nations fought the AXIS in the Second one and out of this comes the UN and why it was designed as it was.)  But, again, laws and protocols broken, by both sides even in WWII but especially by the NAZIs and Soviets (but also by us to an extent)- so much for conventions and protocols! (Yes, there were later Hague Convention, like the Apostile one, -which I bring up because Obama's documents do not comply with it.) But you keep mentioning Geneva? That was AFTER the Second War and simply responded and amplified the original conventions and protocols (but, like even post-Geneva, nobody really was respecting them. Still.)

And, what is worse, from a maritime island you think that the UN and WWII caused international law and treaties? You don't even know your own history and especially of maritime law, treaties, and history etc (heck, they developed before much Common or Civil Law even and MUCH before your loved UN, EU, or even WWII!)

I know you EU lot seem to think all of Europe, and apparently the UK included, are just one big-whole country but you don't even know the difference between the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, Geneva Protocol, and the HAGUE CONVENTIONS, both of which have several! At least you should know from the CITY name that they are different. No wonder you lot no longer make your own laws and regulations but have people in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg decide them for you! Magna Carta, Common Law, be damned. Let the Eurocrats decide, after all if a supposedly educated person doesn't know difference between Geneva or The Hague! Or between different wars and treaties and international organizations (or even a BASIC timeline at least!?) Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with their own affairs like voting, law, and regulation.

ps: But, frankly, I doubt many Americans would know (though ones though the university or older should know, or at least determine by CITY NAME and TIMELINE the basic course of events in war treaties.) And, at least for now though, we refused the first round of the internationalist scheme in LON and still have some decent political opposition to the UN (even though it is, unless until very recently, an Anglo-American vehicle in many ways) and have not, yet, given away our democratic process to foreigners.

[Yorkshire pud]

Are you a complete idiot or just misinformed? DUM-DUMs, the stuff you lot used to use in various colonial campaigns (and also hollow-points) were banned by the Hague Convention in 1899 (one of several Hague Conventions, I admit, but still for a supposedly educated man you are quite stupid on many occasions. Those later conventions and protocols also banned chemical (though violated in WWI, as you should know) but many years prior to the vaunted UN you like so much! The UN didn't even exist then! And those conventions were even before the First or Second World War (you will, no doubt, recall the United Nations fought the AXIS in the Second one and out of this comes the UN and why it was designed as it was.)  But, again, laws and protocols broken, by both sides even in WWII but especially by the NAZIs and Soviets (but also by us to an extent)- so much for conventions and protocols! (Yes, there were later Hague Convention, like the Apostile one, -which I bring up because Obama's documents do not comply with it.) But you keep mentioning Geneva? That was AFTER the Second War and simply responded and amplified the original conventions and protocols (but, like even post-Geneva, nobody really was respecting them. Still.)

And, what is worse, from a maritime island you think that the UN and WWII caused international law and treaties? You don't even know your own history and especially of maritime law, treaties, and history etc (heck, they developed before much Common or Civil Law even and MUCH before your loved UN, EU, or even WWII!)

I know you EU lot seem to think all of Europe, and apparently the UK included, are just one big-whole country but you don't even know the difference between the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, Geneva Protocol, and the HAGUE CONVENTIONS, both of which have several! At least you should know from the CITY name that they are different. No wonder you lot no longer make your own laws and regulations but have people in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg decide them for you! Magna Carta, Common Law, be damned. Let the Eurocrats decide, after all if a supposedly educated person doesn't know difference between Geneva or The Hague! Or between different wars and treaties and international organizations (or even a BASIC timeline at least!?) Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with their own affairs like voting, law, and regulation.

ps: But, frankly, I doubt many Americans would know (though ones though the university or older should know, or at least determine by CITY NAME and TIMELINE the basic course of events in war treaties.) And, at least for now though, we refused the first round of the internationalist scheme in LON and still have some decent political opposition to the UN (even though it is, unless until very recently, an Anglo-American vehicle in many ways) and have not, yet, given away our democratic process to foreigners.

Oh I was answering the 'big picture' question. Not just dum dum bullets.

[Yorkshire pud]

I hope there won't be an orgy of reprisals by the ISIL butchers tomorrow.

Likely. But as some on here would say; you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs. I suppose it kicks Obama's  'no war'  policy into the weeds. As well as the Nobel peace prize. Bit of a dichotomy. Good guy with a gun V bad guy with a gun.

[albrecht]

Five predomanently Sunni Arab countries involved against an extreme Sunni terrorist group. This has taken some seriously softly softly behind the scenes negotiations. Isn't Obama a Sunni Muslim? Allegedly. It's also interesting that Assad has pretty much been disregarded in this. He hasn't asked for this the way the Iraqi's requested assistance. Next few days will frame the next few months. WW3 is a possibility and will please the hawks no end. Careful what you wish for.

As far as I know, yet, France, the USA, and Britain have not called themselves Muslim, or even Sunni, exclusively. Though one would be hard-pressed to know if one visited certain city suburbs. The others Sunni-states as you call them- I think Qatar didn't actually strike. Just "support." Of course, if these various "royal" states simply helped stop funding radical schools, terrorist groups, money laundering, etc this situation would not happen at all. And it is not like they don't have planes and weapons to burn considering the amount of money we send them (and then make them buy our matériel with it.) Or give nice personal kickbacks to do get them to buy our planes and arms! Finally, they are using it! We can sell them more where that came from.

As for Obama. Certainly he seems more sympathetic to the Sunni side (is that his bizarre upbringing in Indonesia or the simple carry-over policies of the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, Bushes, Neo-Cons, etc who see Russia, and therefore Iran and Syria as the "big threat"? Who knows?) Either way it is odd how he keeps insisting on arming Sunni "rebels" (even though some have even signed treaties with ISIL) and our long experience with blow-back. And certainly it was odd how long he waited to get involved-- almost seemingly had no problem when Christians, and others, and certainly Shites were being killed by ISIL, ISIS, SI in Syria or Iraq. Until that proto-Zoroastrian group Yazidis got stranded and massacred and it started making international news. And the progress of his rebels against Assad stalemated did Obama, suddenly, seem to care.)

[Yorkshire pud]

I think he's played a blinder. His delay is pretty obvious. To get SA, UEA, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordon on side, this way it can't be accused of being a US only bully boy tactic. No-one can really accuse him of being a pacifist now. Quite the opposite; it could get really really terrible.

[albrecht]

Oh I was answering the 'big picture' question. Not just dum dum bullets.

Then let us address that "big picture", though details, history, and time-lines matter, despite what modern education might say. I mentioned the morality of the differences between various types of killing people and even populations. Throughout time societies, leaders, religions, etc have done same. (Sanctuary cities, Papal Peaces, Treaties, Conventions, Protocols, Laws, Books detailing Blood-Feuds (Albanian one very interesting and detailed) etc.) What is the difference aside from killing innocents (of course, that raises the question who is innocent especially in an elected government or in a case in which the civilian populace, even children, participate in attacks or defense?) Simply an international Treaty? Usually made up by victors? Usually made up for alternative purposes to take a strategic advantage? All of our modern countries have had some very suspect policies and developed some amazing weapons. (Thankfully, due to morality, policy, mistakes, or diplomacy avoided their usage--mostly. But still have/had official policies for things like "first strikes", "deadman switches", and, supposedly, "Doomsday" or "Sampson Options.")

(Use my example: DUM-DUMs and modern Hollow-points are SAFER, actually (especially with modern weapons avoiding damage to gunner shooting them.) Why do hunters and police use them? If hit, they kill target. Usually not pass-through, usually fragment better if a miss. Modern war bullets, especially DU stuff, go through many things (and people.) As we learned in Vietnam that was the goal! Not to kill outright but our lighter, tumbling caliber bullet make more causalities (more important in a campaign than outright kills, usually.) French liked their flechette rounds for same purpose. So steel-core or off-weighted bullets, flechette rounds, and now DU rounds "legal" in war but not rounds intended to just kill a proper target? Because of one of The Hague Treaties? Is that moral, or even logical? Or just a nice little provision if, say, a "rebel" group starts something up with their weapons? Or because it is easier and cheaper for a multinational to produce a DU munition (nice way to get rid of some nuclear plant waste though not radioactive) or a more basic bullet design with a solid core and easier to manufacture, mass produce, and store?

[bateman]

F22s finally get to go out & play.

[FightTheFuture]

I applaud the President for doing the right thing by pulverizing ISIL's Syrian-based assets. It's a big step in the right direction. I also applaud the president for cobbling together the surrounding Arab states into an effective coalition.

I still believe ground troops will be necessary, but...tonight is a good night and President Obama deserves a lot of credit.

[albrecht]

F22s finally get to go out & play.

Against, although we don't know the extent of the amount of materiel, taken or given to them by the various "rebels" and Iraqis we supplied, a force that uses some older tanks, small arms, knives, brute force, and intimidation (and most importantly people fleeing) to forward their advance shouldn't have anything to deal with the F22s etc. Somehow I doubt if it turns to Iran, Ukraine/Russia etc that we will be as happy. Hopefully it will not get to that. I hope we get rid of this ISIL/ISIS/SI and get back to small proxy-wars, blustering at the UN, and various and sundry sanctions back-and-forths without as many civilians and minority religion massacres.

[Yorkshire pud]

I applaud the President for doing the right thing by pulverizing ISIL's Syrian-based assets. It's a big step in the right direction. I also applaud the president for cobbling together the surrounding Arab states into an effective coalition.

I still believe ground troops will be necessary, but...tonight is a good night and President Obama deserves a lot of credit.

The several US congressmen, former advisors, strategists etc on BBC news agree on that; however they're also in fairly broad agreement it will be Arab troops. The moderate anti Assad rebels are apparently being trained in SA but won't be ready to take on Assad for another year or so. Weird. Assad and ISIS seem to be the common enemy; it makes sense. Both upset the equilibrum.

[albrecht]

Both upset the equilibrum.

Call me too cynical if you wish, but is this always our (to use the "royal" we) goal in that region? Instability? Granted it has been effective in the past- considering cynical goals: proxy cold-war balancing, arm sales to all sides, disruptions (with benefits and costs) to energy prices, and Israeli and various Bedouin and Arab "royal" interests in some countries run by, basically, despotic elites. And, of course, hedging Russian influence, from what seems like time immemorial.

Sorry, if I don't buy that we simply want to defend ancient cultures or sites (too little, too late, or even Christians, Jews, and quasi-Zoroastrians (We don't seem to mind Christians or ancient relgions being killed in Africa or Asia.) So call me a cynic or even a liberal-socialist but maybe it is time to take care of our own, stop the funding, stop the meddling, stop our men dying over there? Sure, throw a cruise missile or a sanction and sure let the folks who bought our weapons (often with our own money due to treaties and infamous kickbacks and corruption) bomb and fight each other but, more importantly, secure our own borders, take out our Fifth columns, fix our immigration and foreign policy funding (and security services policies who often fund the wrong "rebels") and find our own energy sources (green if you can make it profitably, even.)

[SciFiAuthor]

Are you a complete idiot or just misinformed? DUM-DUMs, the stuff you lot used to use in various colonial campaigns (and also hollow-points) were banned by the Hague Convention in 1899 (one of several Hague Conventions, I admit, but still for a supposedly educated man you are quite stupid on many occasions. Those later conventions and protocols also banned chemical (though violated in WWI, as you should know) but many years prior to the vaunted UN you like so much! The UN didn't even exist then! And those conventions were even before the First or Second World War (you will, no doubt, recall the United Nations fought the AXIS in the Second one and out of this comes the UN and why it was designed as it was.)  But, again, laws and protocols broken, by both sides even in WWII but especially by the NAZIs and Soviets (but also by us to an extent)- so much for conventions and protocols! (Yes, there were later Hague Convention, like the Apostile one, -which I bring up because Obama's documents do not comply with it.) But you keep mentioning Geneva? That was AFTER the Second War and simply responded and amplified the original conventions and protocols (but, like even post-Geneva, nobody really was respecting them. Still.)

And, what is worse, from a maritime island you think that the UN and WWII caused international law and treaties? You don't even know your own history and especially of maritime law, treaties, and history etc (heck, they developed before much Common or Civil Law even and MUCH before your loved UN, EU, or even WWII!)

I know you EU lot seem to think all of Europe, and apparently the UK included, are just one big-whole country but you don't even know the difference between the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, Geneva Protocol, and the HAGUE CONVENTIONS, both of which have several! At least you should know from the CITY name that they are different. No wonder you lot no longer make your own laws and regulations but have people in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg decide them for you! Magna Carta, Common Law, be damned. Let the Eurocrats decide, after all if a supposedly educated person doesn't know difference between Geneva or The Hague! Or between different wars and treaties and international organizations (or even a BASIC timeline at least!?) Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with their own affairs like voting, law, and regulation.

ps: But, frankly, I doubt many Americans would know (though ones though the university or older should know, or at least determine by CITY NAME and TIMELINE the basic course of events in war treaties.) And, at least for now though, we refused the first round of the internationalist scheme in LON and still have some decent political opposition to the UN (even though it is, unless until very recently, an Anglo-American vehicle in many ways) and have not, yet, given away our democratic process to foreigners.

Worth noting Albrecht that Britain didn't even need an active war to circumvent the Hague Convention. They developed the Mark VII .303 cartridge specifically to deform and pitch violently on impact creating a full metal jacket bullet that behaved like a hollowpoint in 1910 for no real reason other than more effective killing rather than maiming in whatever war might come along.

I don't particularly care that they did that in light of the modern world where "killing terrorists" is what we're supposed to be doing. It would be much more effective if we used hollowpoints, so I think the Hague Convention is outdated. That said, the Mark VII cartridge and the Hague Convention was definitely not an area where the British can lecture everyone on standards and conventions. 

[FightTheFuture]

Victory by any means. You do what you must. Period.

[Little Hater]

Victory by any means. You do what you must. Period.

Yes. It's always struck me as strange that there are 'rules' in war.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes. It's always struck me as strange that there are 'rules' in war.

Because in the 21sts century, civilisation has decided that dressing up the annihilation of over 100000 civilians as simply collateral damage makes better PR. They're still dead and many more 1000's are catastrophically and permanently injured and disfigured, but as long as we have 'rules' that avoid killing civvies officially, it's fine to kill them unofficially.

[FightTheFuture]

That`s ol` Jooooooooooeee




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw6I7MWYKV4

[albrecht]

Worth noting Albrecht that Britain didn't even need an active war to circumvent the Hague Convention. They developed the Mark VII .303 cartridge specifically to deform and pitch violently on impact creating a full metal jacket bullet that behaved like a hollowpoint in 1910 for no real reason other than more effective killing rather than maiming in whatever war might come along.

I don't particularly care that they did that in light of the modern world where "killing terrorists" is what we're supposed to be doing. It would be much more effective if we used hollowpoints, so I think the Hague Convention is outdated. That said, the Mark VII cartridge and the Hague Convention was definitely not an area where the British can lecture everyone on standards and conventions.

Yes, I know. What is so odd is that this British guy didn't even know the differences between major treaties or even a basic time-line of events. They like the UN so much over there they think the UN invented and drew up every treaty, protocol, or agreement. Strange.

ps: one used to be able to find, quite commonly, good surplus Enfields over here but I haven't seen them around in a decade or more. Shame. Fun gun but heavy! Now all one still sees in the cheap surplus market are various and sundry Mausers (still decent weapons depending on mfg.) But I recall bunches of Enfields for, as I recall, $60 covered in cosmoline, sight unseen. My friend got one and I think we spend more money degreasing- and then buying .303 ammo- than it cost for the gun. But it was fun to shoot, but can't imagine carrying that around in the field for weeks! Heavy.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, I know. What is so odd is that this British guy didn't even know the differences between major treaties or even a basic time-line of events. They like the UN so much over there they think the UN invented and drew up every treaty, protocol, or agreement. Strange.

How did you draw the conclusion 'this British guy' (Presumably you meant me) didn't know? Basically I couldn't be arsed as it was a wall of text I didn't want to wade through. And even if I could be arsed you'd have picked holes in it, so is there any point? No, no really. Tomorrows chip paper. 

ps: one used to be able to find, quite commonly, good surplus Enfields over here but I haven't seen them around in a decade or more. Shame. Fun gun but heavy! Now all one still sees in the cheap surplus market are various and sundry Mausers (still decent weapons depending on mfg.) But I recall bunches of Enfields for, as I recall, $60 covered in cosmoline, sight unseen. My friend got one and I think we spend more money degreasing- and then buying .303 ammo- than it cost for the gun. But it was fun to shoot, but can't imagine carrying that around in the field for weeks! Heavy.

I got my RAF marksman badge with a Le Enfield. 11 pounds without magazine as I recall. Still the basis for the British sniper rifle.

[albrecht]

How did you draw the conclusion 'this British guy' (Presumably you meant me) didn't know? Basically I couldn't be arsed as it was a wall of text I didn't want to wade through. And even if I could be arsed you'd have picked holes in it, so is there any point? No, no really. Tomorrows chip paper. 


I got my RAF marksman badge with a Le Enfield. 11 pounds without magazine as I recall. Still the basis for the British sniper rifle.

Good for your service and marksmanship. Seemed heavy to me but and, ignoring ammo costs and initial cleaning, a fun gun. Haven't seen them in a while around, though. Maybe surplus has dried up?

My point was that you claimed it was the Geneva Convention, and even weirder the UN, that banned DUM-DUMs (and other expanding bullets) when anybody, at least if stating an opinion, should know they were banned in warfare by far earlier treaties- made in a different city even- and much prior to the UN!! I know you lot love the UN, EU, etc but don't try to claim they accomplished every treaty, protocol, or law! Usually they just expanded earlier ones. If you don't know facts, than don't make random, uninformed comments.

[Yorkshire pud]

Good for your service and marksmanship. Seemed heavy to me but and, ignoring ammo costs and initial cleaning, a fun gun. Haven't seen them in a while around, though. Maybe surplus has dried up?

My point was that you claimed it was the Geneva Convention, and even weirder the UN, that banned DUM-DUMs (and other expanding bullets) when anybody, at least if stating an opinion, should know they were banned in warfare by far earlier treaties- made in a different city even- and much prior to the UN!! I know you lot love the UN, EU, etc but don't try to claim they accomplished every treaty, protocol, or law! Usually they just expanded earlier ones. If you don't know facts, than don't make random, uninformed comments.

Oh I'm sorry, I'm honestly so fucking sorry, I'm so sorry I could fart. 

[VtaGeezer]

I'm lost.  Someone please draw an association between ISIS, F22 airstrikes and .303 Enfields for me.  I may need it for Trivial Pursuit 2014.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm lost.  Someone please draw an association between ISIS, F22 airstrikes and .303 Enfields for me.  I may need it for Trivial Pursuit 2014.

I wish I knew. It's all to do with various conventions, treaties, protocols and such....anyway, if you look (Cont pp94)

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I'm lost.  Someone please draw an association between ISIS, F22 airstrikes and .303 Enfields for me.  I may need it for Trivial Pursuit 2014.

Not sure.  F22s are the wrong planes to deal with ISIS.  They must just be using the opportunity to make it look like all those tax dollars were worthwhile.

[bateman]

Once again, this is somehow the GOP's fault. The refusal to take responsibility is (almost) shocking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/tim-kaine-war_n_5868302.html

[albrecht]

I wish I knew. It's all to do with various conventions, treaties, protocols and such....anyway, if you look (Cont pp94)

Because part of the issue is the legality of the strike, especially inside Syria and without a Congressional declaration of war (recall the Bush criticisms.) And why, using the same rational and reasoning, someone- say Russia, could be criticized for military strikes in other countries (which at least are nearby.) And regarding the "rules" for engagement, use of different types of weapons, and the possibility/necessity of killing civilians anytime one goes to war (or "police action" or whatever euphemism is used.)

These are covered by our own laws and policies as well as international laws, protocols, and various treaties. Now whether we, or anyone (clearing the Muslims do not) obey or abide by them is another matter. If Obama doesn't, of course, it doesn't matter because he already won the Nobel Peace Prize and is "the One."

ps: don't get me wrong. We should've dealt with ISIL/ISIS/SI long before this and not given, or at least allowed, them to get arms. And we should arm more "rebels." And allowed the countries involved, including Syria, to deal with them properly- instead of sanctions and arming them.

[Uncle Duke]

Not sure.  F22s are the wrong planes to deal with ISIS.  They must just be using the opportunity to make it look like all those tax dollars were worthwhile.

F-22s probably flew strike CAP to protect the attack a/c from Syrian or Iranian fighters, although the WSJ claims the F-22s did drop ordnance.  Doesn't make much sense to risk the world's most advanced air-to-air aircraft to hit ground targets when there were plenty of legacy strike a/c available.