Obama decides to bomb his terrorists

Glaucus said:
Well, the Kurds of Kobani are cheering the US airstrikes, and commanders from within Kobani are urging for more air strikes. Ultimately it's their infrastructure and to me it seems the only complaint they have is that there aren't enough strikes.
Click to expand...
We are not striking the infrastructure of Kobani. We was trying to strike ISIS units. If we were knocking out Kobani infrastructure the Kurds would be upset. You generally don't bomb the infrastructure of your friends and keep them as friends.
 
By the way, funny how we call the place Kobani instead of Ayn al-Arab, isn't it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
We are not striking the infrastructure of Kobani. We was trying to strike ISIS units. If we were knocking out Kobani infrastructure the Kurds would be upset. You generally don't bomb the infrastructure of your friends and keep them as friends.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Here's an article that states the following:
- The Kurds in Kobani are now coordinating air strikes with the US.
- 16 buildings were targeted and hit.

ISIS fight: Airstrikes on Kobani get more accurate with help from Kurds

mideast-crisis.jpg


Sounds to me like infrastructure is being targeted and the Kurds are the ones making the call. So it turns out that bombing infrastructure is a friendly thing to do when that infrastructure is occupied by common enemies. You have a lot to learn Fluffy.
 
Glaucus said:
So it turns out that bombing infrastructure is a friendly thing to do when that infrastructure is occupied by common enemies. You have a lot to learn Fluffy.
Click to expand...
Wow. You really schooled me with that cherry you picked. I'm not sure if I should assume that you know that wasn't what I was talking about or if you think this is some kind of slam dunk. Anyway, when the Kurds start calling in airstrikes on electricity substations, water pumping stations, sewage treatment etc, so as to deny those things to ISIS, let me know - because that would mean that the Kurds had conceded the town to ISIS and have no hope of reclaiming it.

Buildings are assets, not infrastructure. A dictionary might be a good place to start.
 
Well, electricity substations, water pumping stations and sewage treatment facilities are buildings too... But the article doesn't specifically say what buildings, so I'll give you that. I did read in an article a few days ago that they bombed a hospital, does that count? I tried to find that article but searching for kobani and hospitals turns up results about Kurdish victims treated in hospital after being bombed. By Turkey.

I propose we kick Turkey out of NATO, carve out chunks of Syria, Iraq and Turkey and call it Kurdistan and make them instant members of NATO. The Kurds have acted more like allies than our allies. I say we stop shitting on them.

But still, Kurdish infrastructure in the hands of ISIS is no longer of any use to the Kurds. It's better to blow it all up and when things get better, if ever, we pay to rebuild it.
 
Glaucus said:
I did read in an article a few days ago that they bombed a hospital, does that count?
Click to expand...
Yes, hospitals would fall under the infrastructure category generally since they are important for maintaining a population. That is why it is a war crime to bomb them.
I propose we kick Turkey out of NATO, carve out chunks of Syria, Iraq and Turkey and call it Kurdistan and make them instant members of NATO. The Kurds have acted more like allies than our allies. I say we stop shitting on them.
Click to expand...
And that, my armchair general, is what makes it so easy to kill people without a thought for them. Now please stop claiming to care about people.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And that, my armchair general, is what makes it so easy to kill people without a thought for them. Now please stop claiming to care about people.
Click to expand...
Hmm... Not sure what you're talking about. probably doesn't matter....

As for the bombed hospital, not likely it was being used as a hospital at the time. At least not by Kurds. Thankfully almost all of them are in Turkey as refugees. Not much of a life for them there, but they'll live. They'd like to go back home one day but that's not likely any time soon. They're surrounded by enemies. In fact, they're a lot that other group of displaced people, the Palestinians, but more secular and more socialist in nature but still branded as terrorists by some. Too bad they're cheering on US air strikes, you'd probably like them otherwise.
 
Glaucus said:
I'm sure you'll continue with your anti-US nonsense which only help the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Hilariously absurd, sound-bitey nonsense which I'm beginning to think might be part of some elaborate wind up.
 
Some more civilians die but it's a small price that WE are willing to ... well, sometimes we say "pay" but we are clearly not the ones paying - except for the considerable the price of the bombs.
 
A blogger at Scientific American opines - the bombs that built ISIS won't stop ISIS.

It's strange how we know that violence breads violence and that children raised in violence and war become inured to violence and are more likely to be violent and solve their grievances with violence - yet we figure that can be fixed with MORE violence.
 
Here's a bunch of Syrians that we have been fighting against - we hate them because they are a bunch of hippie freaks who want less bombing and more peace - you know the type, "moderates", and plus they are women.

Sorry, I'm kidding of course. The real reason we hate them is because, if they were able to succeed and create lasting ceasefires and long term political arrangements the war would grind to a halt and the country would be run by a wide range of parties, NONE OF WHOM would be under our control. We need to keep whipping up war (and it's attendant death and suffering and privation) as long as it takes to topple Assad - and never mind how many women and children it takes, "it's a price we are willing to pay"!!
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Here's a bunch of Syrians that we have been fighting against - we hate them because they are a bunch of hippie freaks who want less bombing and more peace - you know the type, "moderates", and plus they are women.
Click to expand...


These are the women to support in their "negotiations" with IS

B0MpQsUCEAAnCmm.jpg


they are in Kobane now, the comander in Kobane is a woman ( Nalin Afrin )
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Here's a bunch of Syrians that we have been fighting against - we hate them because they are a bunch of hippie freaks who want less bombing and more peace - you know the type, "moderates", and plus they are women.

Sorry, I'm kidding of course. The real reason we hate them is because, if they were able to succeed and create lasting ceasefires and long term political arrangements the war would grind to a halt and the country would be run by a wide range of parties, NONE OF WHOM would be under our control. We need to keep whipping up war (and it's attendant death and suffering and privation) as long as it takes to topple Assad - and never mind how many women and children it takes, "it's a price we are willing to pay"!!
Click to expand...
I think you've gone completely insane. First of all, this article is all over the map but it mostly paints these women mostly as anti-Assad and only secondary as anti-Islamic extremism. It starts off a paragraph with: “Oppression is the incubator of terrorism,” which is true as Assad has been a terrible oppressor, then goes on to say she was imprisoned, presumably by Assad's forces. Then ends that paragraph with: “We cannot fight ISIS except through a political approach.” True, but doesn't that make the case that we should not only attack ISIS but Assad as well? And didn't I already make such a statement recently? This sounds to me like someone cherry picked some comments which are likely true but taken completely out of context. ISIS is tolerated by the Sunnis because they judge Assad's forces to be the greater evil. By negating Assad's oppression ISIS would be forced to negotiate with the Sunnis. And this happened in Iraq years ago when the Sunnis were revolting against the Iraqi government and the US government negotiated with the Sunni leaders and then they decided to do away with ISIS. But then Syria happened. This does prove that the Sunnis can and will get rid of ISIS when it no longer suites them. But they won't do that so long as Assad is in power.

But what I find more interesting about the article is how little it has in terms of details. First it talks about Syrian women as if they are one homogenous group and then refers to "women leaders" without actually mentioning their name. Also, the one suggestion made to bring about peace, negotiations, sounds amazingly over simplified. First of all, there aren't just two sides in Syria fighting each other. There aren't just three sides. Not 4 or 5 or 6. There are countless fractured groups all with their own agenda and goals. And then you'd need to take into account the foreigners in Syria enjoying a long stint of terror tourism. Negotiations might at some point be how peace is restored but before that can happen the many factions must be reduced to a more manageable amount and in Syria that's only gonna happen by killing them off and killing off the predominantly foreign group known as ISIS should be first on the list. But ya, I also agree with what ever women it was that Assad's oppression is an incubator of terrorism. So long as he's in power there will never be peace in Syria. Take him and ISIS out and then maybe negotiations can happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top