skinnay 0 #1 January 20, 2017 I am curious to hear some of the rationale of those who support Trump's hardline views on radical Islam. To me it seems pretty certain that a divisive and antagonizing approach against a group of people would simply brew more anger and extremism. Do the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? I believe he's going to create a terror problem like we've never seen before, and sadly it won't be the Trump voters who pay the price. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/trump-we-will-eradicate-radical-islamic-terrorism/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 January 20, 2017 It will be impossible to stop ISIS via any campaign of bombing. The best it can do is be a high explosive version of whack a mole; a game that also can't ultimately be won.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #3 January 20, 2017 Is this why the muslim religion had zero representation today in all the jesusing that went on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #4 January 20, 2017 QuoteDo the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do they really expect him to follow through on having any plan whatsoever, let alone the best one?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #5 January 21, 2017 skinnayI am curious to hear some of the rationale of those who support Trump's hardline views on radical Islam. To me it seems pretty certain that a divisive and antagonizing approach against a group of people would simply brew more anger and extremism. Do the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? I believe he's going to create a terror problem like we've never seen before, and sadly it won't be the Trump voters who pay the price. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/trump-we-will-eradicate-radical-islamic-terrorism/ Do you think 506 drone strikes by Obama didn't stir up some anger and extremism? Obama’s Embrace of Drone Strikes Will Be a Lasting Legacy http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy QuoteMore consequential than the growth in drone strikes, is the Obama administration’s efforts to institutionalize and normalize the practice. Three years into office, Obama took the meaningful step of acknowledging supposedly “covert” strikes in Pakistan, something that his predecessor had never done. Subsequently, he and his senior aides provided carefully scripted language that served as the policy framework and legal basis for lethal counterterrorism operations. These purported “reforms” were formalized by President Obama in a May 2013 speech and accompanying presidential policy guidance. However, there is no evidence that most reforms were ever implemented, and officials emphasized that they did not apply to C.I.A. drone strikes in Pakistan, where roughly 40 percent of all nonbattlefield drone strike have since occurred. Bolding mine.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #6 January 21, 2017 It's true. Drone strikes continued under Obama. In some drone strikes (maybe even in a lot of them) some innocent bystanders were killed. That said, drone strikes are one of the most accurate ways of bombing an enemy ever known to man with considerably less collateral damage than dropping bombs from manned aircraft. This is due to the extremely long loiter time and the ability to spend hours over the target checking it out to minimize collateral damage. 506 drone strikes over 2,920 or so days is also a reasonably low rate compared to approximately 4,845 bombs dropped just in the few weeks of the "shock and awe" campaign. http://www.statisticbrain.com/iraq-war-statistics/ Also see... http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/07/29/century-data-and-destruction-chronicled-air-force-officer/5m2HK2CP9UcwwJzMhtdQOO/story.html?camp=pmquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #7 January 21, 2017 QuoteDo the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? My point isn't about the accuracy of the weapon. Skinnay seems to think we aren't already involved in an aggressive bombing campaign. I'll submit that we are.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 January 21, 2017 airdvrQuoteDo the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? My point isn't about the accuracy of the weapon. Skinnay seems to think we aren't already involved in an aggressive bombing campaign. I'll submit that we are. Aggressive is subjective. We were in a bombing campaign under Obama for sure, but it was specific. Trump has indicated he's going to be far less specific and more prolific as well. I don't think that's a step in the right direction.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 61 #9 January 21, 2017 quade***QuoteDo the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? My point isn't about the accuracy of the weapon. Skinnay seems to think we aren't already involved in an aggressive bombing campaign. I'll submit that we are. Aggressive is subjective. We were in a bombing campaign under Obama for sure, but it was specific. Trump has indicated he's going to be far less specific and more prolific as well. I don't think that's a step in the right direction. ^This^ Every time one of those bombs kills an innocent civilian, Trump is going to create a martyr for the radical islamist cause who wil become a rallying cry and recruiting poster for the terrorists. I'm not saying it didn't happen under Obama but indiscriminate bombing is only going to make it worse.Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #10 January 21, 2017 rifleman Aggressive is subjective. We were in a bombing campaign under Obama for sure, but it was specific. Trump has indicated he's going to be far less specific and more prolific as well. I don't think that's a step in the right direction. ^This^ Every time one of those bombs kills an innocent civilian, Trump is going to create a martyr for the radical islamist cause who wil become a rallying cry and recruiting poster for the terrorists. I'm not saying it didn't happen under Obama but indiscriminate bombing is only going to make it worse. Agree with the idea that drone strikes or bombs must be sized and targeted appropriately. AFAIK many bombers are returning to carriers and airfields because of the need to reduce collateral damage. US and NATO aircraft have different tasking orders than Russian and Syrian AC where civilians and hospitals are targets. Most US drone strikes use hellfire missiles which have low explosive yield and blast radius. http://abcnews.go.com/International/bombers-strike-isis-camps-libya/story?id=44882627 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #11 January 21, 2017 I am all for defensive actions with targeted accuracy to defend what we see as our enemies. Those that intend or have actually brought harm to our country or allies. That being said, unless your drone/bombing program is accompanied by an effective propaganda campaign to deliver a message, then the perception that we are bombing 'Islam' is difficult to deflect, because you certainly can be sure that those that were bombed are perpetuating that message. The message needs to be that we are bombing these 'murdering fucks' and portraying them for what they are. Not sure that message is getting anywhere. So how do we do it? I have no idea, but I am certain that we have done it in the past....Japan after WWII https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction - we dismantled their military - we occupied their country, probably 100's of thousands of people in that country at a time. - we installed a democratic system, along with many socialist policies, removing the wealthy from control - we poured in billions in aid, food, education etc - we built their economy for them - it took seven years minimum Now we have a strong ally who does not hate us for nuking them in catastrophic oblivion (quite a feat when you think about it)...and yes there is still some hatred on both sides, however, it is pretty small. Why can this not happen again? Because we are not willing to invest the people, money and time to make it happen, that is why. Not saying either that it is a guaranteed success, there are vast societal differences between Japan in 1944-45 and Afghanistan or Iraq today... The bombing campaigns and drone campaigns may very well be keeping us 'safe at night', but there is, and will be no end unless we do something different from what we are doing today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,121 #12 January 21, 2017 One big difference is that in WW2 everyone was at war against countries, not political groups. Countries have geographic boundaries that are accepted as being somewhat fair game. Social and political are harder, because then we have to target them, and not the whole country. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #13 January 21, 2017 tkhayesI am all for defensive actions with targeted accuracy to defend what we see as our enemies. Those that intend or have actually brought harm to our country or allies. That being said, unless your drone/bombing program is accompanied by an effective propaganda campaign to deliver a message, then the perception that we are bombing 'Islam' is difficult to deflect, because you certainly can be sure that those that were bombed are perpetuating that message. The message needs to be that we are bombing these 'murdering fucks' and portraying them for what they are. Not sure that message is getting anywhere. So how do we do it? I have no idea, but I am certain that we have done it in the past....Japan after WWII https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction - we dismantled their military - we occupied their country, probably 100's of thousands of people in that country at a time. - we installed a democratic system, along with many socialist policies, removing the wealthy from control - we poured in billions in aid, food, education etc - we built their economy for them - it took seven years minimum Now we have a strong ally who does not hate us for nuking them in catastrophic oblivion (quite a feat when you think about it)...and yes there is still some hatred on both sides, however, it is pretty small. Why can this not happen again? Because we are not willing to invest the people, money and time to make it happen, that is why. Not saying either that it is a guaranteed success, there are vast societal differences between Japan in 1944-45 and Afghanistan or Iraq today... The bombing campaigns and drone campaigns may very well be keeping us 'safe at night', but there is, and will be no end unless we do something different from what we are doing today. Don't disagree. But thats called nation building. It takes time, money and really only works with a population in a target country where the population is homogeneous, with a shared national identity. That really doesn't exist in the Arab region as a Sunni - Shia divide is expanding. In addition most Arabs more strongly identify with a tribalism mentality. Than a national identity. Perhaps Egypt as an exception. Putting Iraq back together now would be an impossibility with Iranian meddling as they have only Shia interests in mind. The Kurds have a homeland and independence a goal. The Sunni have been burnt by a central government in Baghdad a couple times in the last two decades. Rightly or wrongly President Obama wanted to get out of the whole mess. President trump has a isolationist posture, abet with a "bomb the hell out of IS" objective. IMO nationbuilidng is off the table for the next four years. General Mattis would likely not disagree with you. But i don't think he will get too far with President trump when the costs and time lines are explained to him. In addition nation-building in Iraq, Syria would have to be accompanied by a similar effort in Libya(and possibly Afghanistan) if IS were to be eliminated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #14 January 21, 2017 Just stop supplying them weapons, aid and training. And stop turning a blind eye to their stolen oil trade. Isis are done, they are no more than a proxy for the entities that want Syria overthrown. They are mercenaries, nothing less. You don't see the same fancy snuff videos or fleets of brand new Toyota pickups anymore... ever wonder why? It was all going so nicely, if it wasn't for those pesky Russians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #15 January 21, 2017 Royreader8812Just stop supplying them weapons, aid and training. And stop turning a blind eye to their stolen oil trade. Isis are done, they are no more than a proxy for the entities that want Syria overthrown. They are mercenaries, nothing less. You don't see the same fancy snuff videos or fleets of brand new Toyota pickups anymore... ever wonder why? It was all going so nicely, if it wasn't for those pesky Russians. "Russia is fighting in Syria for at least some of the following reasons: protecting an ally; diverting attention from or increasing its leverage in the Ukrainian peninsula; protecting its access to a naval resupply depot in the Mediterranean; seeking to be taken seriously as a global player; fighting Islamists; and interrupting a perceived Western-led regime change campaign in Europe and the Middle East. All these motives have in common a need to preserve Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Assad is the aforementioned ally: He shares Russia’s opposition to Islamists; is no less hostile to and far more threatened by Western-led regime change; and is highly unlikely to challenge Russia’s access to strategic assets in Syria. Indeed, Russia’s refurbishing of the Hmeimem air base and the Tartous port facilities and development of other outposts throughout the country aim to grant it a long-term regional foothold. Military and intelligence ties between the regime and Russia are also as strong as ever. Russian support for Assad is therefore quite logical. Put simply, Assad is far more likely to serve these Russian interests than any plausible alternative. That is why Russia will not take the steps necessary to impose a political settlement on Assad (assuming Assad would yield to Russian pressure). With only minor exceptions – when Russia suggestedAssad step down, which acted more as delaying tactics legitimizing Russia’s negotiation efforts without moving peace talks forward – Russia has unwaveringly protected Assad in tangible ways while framing the conflict as a war on terrorists." https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/community/2016/11/01/lessons-from-russias-intervention-in-syria Above website review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Deeply "News Deeply is an online journalism and technology company, based in New York City, specializing in single-issue news websites. Its flagship site, Syria Deeply, was by Lara Setrakian and Azeo Fables in 2012 to cover the Syrian Civil War. ... In 2013 it won a National Press Foundation award for 2013 Excellence in Online Journalism.[7] Mashable called it "one of the go-to resources for information and context on the growing conflict".[3]" and how the US use of airpower props up Assad: https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/articles/2016/10/31/long-read-the-u-s-has-intervened-in-syria-but-not-in-the-way-you-think Which has freed up the Syrian air-forces and Russian air-forces. To bomb the FSA, civilians and hospitals in Allepo, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #16 January 21, 2017 Lol, so the fleets of brand new Toyota's being delivered to IS and the massive convoys of oil tankers heading over to Turkey were unnoticed by 'the coalition' for years... until Russia came along and stopped it. There are ample 'news' sites suggesting that Assad was bombing hospitals... meanwhile those same news sites give Saudi a free ride in Yemen... IS are done, Obama fed them, Russia destroyed them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #17 January 21, 2017 Royreader8812Lol, so the fleets of brand new Toyota's being delivered to IS and the massive convoys of oil tankers heading over to Turkey were unnoticed by 'the coalition' for years... until Russia came along and stopped it. There are ample 'news' sites suggesting that Assad was bombing hospitals... meanwhile those same news sites give Saudi a free ride in Yemen... IS are done, Obama fed them, Russia destroyed them. This Yemen? https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack The same rebels attacking US and UAE warships in international waters? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran-idUSKCN12K0CX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #18 January 21, 2017 quade***QuoteDo the people who support Trump really expect that Trump will defeat ISIS? Do you really think this problem will be solved with an aggressive bombing campaign? My point isn't about the accuracy of the weapon. Skinnay seems to think we aren't already involved in an aggressive bombing campaign. I'll submit that we are. Aggressive is subjective. We were in a bombing campaign under Obama for sure, but it was specific. Trump has indicated he's going to be far less specific and more prolific as well. I don't think that's a step in the right direction. So if you're specific it's not being aggressive? The two aren't mutually exclusive.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,911 #19 January 21, 2017 QuoteTrump has indicated he's going to be far less specific and more prolific as well. Trump has only been shooting his mouth off like the loud mouthed schnook that he is. Only time will tell what he will really do from the options he is given to choose from.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royreader8812 0 #20 January 22, 2017 Sounds like they forgot about the part where the civilians being starved to death and schools and hospitals are being bombed... ... by US and allied weapons/'aid'. The Saudis are 'interfering' with the Yemenis government, just like we all are doing in Syria...And failing. Military intervention for the purpose of regime change is against international law... no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
