ISIS leader al-Baghdadi killed

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How active have the IRA been, since the Good Friday Agreement ?  

So, you also are arguing to simply ignore these leaders? If so, maybe you can expand on how that helps reduce the issues they create? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want it to. 

[zapatos]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How active have the IRA been, since the Good Friday Agreement ?  

This is twice now you've dragged a red herring across the path. It's getting old.

[MigL]

9 hours ago, Curious layman said:

At no point in this war on terror has killing our 'enemy' done anything but make them more determined to fight.

Somebody should tell them that.

[mistermack]

The same argument applies in reverse to the opponents. They can argue that it's fine to take out our leaders, it gets the job done. 

Maybe that's true as well. 

In reality it's a grey area. Sometimes it has the desired results, sometimes the opposite, as in the case of the Easter Rising. And it's unpredictable, what the outcome will be. 

Watching soldiers go in makes great television, so that's why you're seeing it happen. Nothing to do with care for civilians. It's all about votes from morons. 

 

[MigL]

You seem to forget the number of civilians ISIS murdered, raped and displaced from their homes before the world decided to do something about them.
I would have paid for your flight to Syria so you could use these same arguments to convince them to stop.
( maybe you could have brought up the Good Friday Agreement )

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Nothing to do with care for civilians. 

 

Red herring #3.

[MigL]

I really dislike the use of demerits to make an argument.
Stop being dishonest and make a valid argument.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I really dislike the use of demerits to make an argument.
Stop being dishonest and make a valid argument.

Mistermack has a consistent habit of that. He did it to me over here, too: 

 

[rangerx]

23 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That in no way makes al-Baghdadi less of a coward.

To you, me and most of the western world perhaps.

Not to defend suicide, but to a jihadist, it's a noble thing to sacrifice one's life for their ideology.  I suppose, if anything it takes guts to blow yourself up.

Trump didn't actually see the incident and is a compulsive liar about pretty much everything else, so I take his comments with a grain of salt.

Not directed at you, but if Trump said al-Baghdadi was wearing a pink tutu at the time of his death, his minions would parrot it as gospel.

Just saying.

[mistermack]

Barak Obama kicked off all these "Arab Spring" confrontations with a nod and a wink from the CIA to malcontent groups in the various countries. Like loads of people around the world, I was really impressed when he won the Presidency, but he's been a disaster and the direct cause of mayhem and slaughter around the middle east. The ISIS creation evidence leads straight back to his door. 

His administration is at the root of the disaster that is Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and the more recent violence in Iraq. And the only place where the Arab Spring actually went anywhere is Tunisia. 

And after encouraging and supplying opposition groups, and stirring up a hornets nest, the US has walked away from the people who they talked into rebelling, virtually everywhere. 

In a lot of ways, Trump has got it right when he says "we shouldn't be involved". Shame he wasn't there instead of Obama.  

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In a lot of ways, Trump has got it right when he says "we shouldn't be involved". Shame he wasn't there instead of Obama.  

You've omitted the Bush/Cheney part. WMDs, greeted as liberators, last throes of the insurgency sort of stuff.

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Barak Obama kicked off all these "Arab Spring" confrontations with a nod and a wink from the CIA  <snip>

His administration is at the root of the disaster that is Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and the more recent violence in Iraq.

Revisionist history, much? And here I thought this was a nonfiction site. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

So, you also are arguing to simply ignore these leaders? If so, maybe you can expand on how that helps reduce the issues they create? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want it to. 

Btw. You ignored this. Unsurprised, just reminding you. 

[MigL]

Regardless of 'who did what' in the past, the situation we have to deal with is the current one.
ISIS has, and continues to, kill, rape and displace a large number of their own people.
Are you suggesting we stand by and let the organizers and influencers of this madness continue, Mistermack ?

To put it in perspective, in 1948 250-300,000 Palestinians were displaced by the creation of the state of Israel.
The UN estimates that 2 % of the pre-war Syrian population ( about 400,000 ) died in the civil war, and several million were displaced into neighboring countries.

[rangerx]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

To put it in perspective, in 1948 250-300,000 Palestinians were displaced by the creation of the state of Israel.
The UN estimates that 2 % of the pre-war Syrian population ( about 400,000 ) died in the civil war, and several million were displaced into neighboring countries.

Not to mention the Kurds, who can't seem to catch a break in this fiasco either.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Revisionist history, much? And here I thought this was a nonfiction site.

In most cases, it's the official US version, that you greedily gobble up, that turns out to be the fiction. And it's been happening for a very long time, since the days of an undercover government push to exterminate the "redskins", long before they became "native Americans". 

Usually, the truth only trickles out after thirty to fifty years, in dribs and drabs, unless somebody really messes up, like Ollie North. 

When the Ukraine was taken over by force, by a non-elected criminal gang, it was clearly being orchestrated by the CIA in the background. Nobody ever found out who started the shooting, but witnesses at the time spoke of mysterious Americans lurking just before, and that the shooting could not have come from the direction of the government forces. In about forty years time, you will probably find out that it was orchestrated and initiated by Agents of the CIA. Probably with a sprinkling of former Ukrainians. It seemed pretty obvious at the time, but now, the record seems to have been effectively wiped, and everybody repeats the official line.

If you swallow the official US line on any of these events, you are being incredibly gullible. 

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you swallow the official US line on any of these events, you are being incredibly gullible. 

You're probably right. It sure is a good thing that's not what I do. Now, as for that question you keep evading...

 

15 hours ago, iNow said:

So, you also are arguing to simply ignore these leaders? If so, maybe you can expand on how that helps reduce the issues they create? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want it to. 

 

[mistermack]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, you also are arguing to simply ignore these leaders? If so, maybe you can expand on how that helps reduce the issues they create? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want it to. 

I feel no obligation to reply to things that I haven't written. That seems to be your constant debating tool. Change or invent your own version of what somebody says, and then argue against it.

If you look back over the thread, you will find plenty of stuff that I DID write. It's easy, no need to bend and twist and invent your own.  

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I feel no obligation to reply to things that I haven't written. That seems to be your constant debating tool. Change or invent your own version of what somebody says, and then argue against it.

If you look back over the thread, you will find plenty of stuff that I DID write. It's easy, no need to bend and twist and invent your own.  

It's just one excuse after another with you, just so your never wrong, this isn't a blog site (in case your confused) it's a discussion site.

[MigL]

Off topic, but why would the US gain from orchestrating a 'hot' war between the Ukraine and Russia ?
The Ukranians are no angels ( corrupt government ) but they were moving away from the Russian sphere of influence, towards Western integration ( after much needed government reforms ) and possibly even into NATO.

Then Russia destabilized and took over the Crimean peninsula ( they needed a seaport for access to the Mediterranean so they can retain their status as the European boogey man ). And you think the Americans started the hot war in eastern Ukraine ?
What, so the Ukraine can take over Russia ?????

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

feel no obligation to reply to things that I haven't written. <...> If you look back over the thread, you will find plenty of stuff that I DID write. I

Quite right. Let's do that. Zapatos was interacting with Curious Laymen about whether or not we should target these leaders. I was engaged in that exchange, too. We all agree we must be careful not to take steps to drive recruitment into terrorist networks, but the question is what we should do instead if we don't target these leaders... just leave them alone to continue pulling the puppet strings like marionettes?

You then replied to Zap who'd just made a comment about attacks decreasing because we have been "killing the enemy." You brought 1916 Ireland into the discussion and referenced how the British put some of their people on their knees and killed them via firing squad. You said this made things worse for Britain. Perhaps you have a point, but it's not what was being discussed.

Then there was some irrelevant waffling about the IRA and bin Laden being the one to take out the towers even though he didn't formally control any territory, but the original point was still open for discussion:

You seem to support the idea that killing the leaders of these organizations makes things worse. That's inherent in the arguments you made, even if you didn't explicitly state it. Since there was some ambiguity, I asked you to clarify. You refuse and keep attacking me personally. I really don't care, but it shows you're not here in good faith.

So... Do you think we should target the leaders of these terrorist networks or not? If not, why not and what do you recommend we do instead? This isn't (doesn't have to be) hard.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

what do you recommend we do instead? This isn't (doesn't have to be) hard.

What you are demanding to know, is how I would sort out a mess that I would never have made. I don't see why I should engage in that. 

It's like shitting on my kitchen floor, and demanding to know how I'm going to clear it up. 😠

[iNow]

Do you think we should target these leaders, yes or no?

[Strange]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Off topic, but why would the US gain from orchestrating a 'hot' war between the Ukraine and Russia ?
The Ukranians are no angels ( corrupt government ) but they were moving away from the Russian sphere of influence, towards Western integration ( after much needed government reforms ) and possibly even into NATO.

Then Russia destabilized and took over the Crimean peninsula ( they needed a seaport for access to the Mediterranean so they can retain their status as the European boogey man ). And you think the Americans started the hot war in eastern Ukraine ?
What, so the Ukraine can take over Russia ?????

!

Moderator Note

This is, as you say, off topic. 

If you want to discuss this, it should be done elsewhere. There is already a thread on Ukraine and Russia; it might be a better fit there (but I haven't been following it, so don't blame me if it turns out to be off topic there, too!)

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117160-ukraine-and-russia/page/4/

 

[Curious layman]

Ok, sorry about the delay, I've got stuff going on,

should we target the leaders? 

It depends what we're trying to accomplish, has killing this guy actually done any harm to them, from what I've read, no, they had a new leader within 24 hours ( 'the destroyer'), he's already promised revenge. Short term good, we got one, medium to long term, pointless, this 'destroyer' will have different ways of doing things, we have no idea where he is, he will most likely change the leadership around. It hasn't harmed them at all. It's like the drug war in Mexico, it just changes things, usually making it worse and harder to stop.

If we knew where the other guy was, would it not of been better to use this to our advantage, put him under surveillance, and to take out his most important people, making him ineffective and more likely to negotiate?

The point of the IRA and FARC, and Israel and Palestine too, was whether we like it or not, the military, nor their bombings, is going to win this war. At some point we're going to have to negotiate with each other, and like with the IRA and FARC, its will have to include letting them get away with crimes they've committed. We can't do that if our strategy is to kill their leaders.

If we keep killing their leaders, it will be never ending.

[iNow]

Thanks for the reply. My concern is if we stop playing whack-a-mole, then the mole just keeps getting bigger and stronger.