ISIS leader al-Baghdadi killed

[Moontanman]

My mention of a nuclear strike was in jest, sort of, well before ISIS was anything but a pissing contest in a very small area I suggested on another forum that a real shock and awe attack would cure the problem. At this time ISIS wasn't much more than a side note. Having paid attention to how these things work I was sure ISIS was going to be a much bigger problem unless some was done now and that something has to be extreme. On "another forum" I suggested this scenario. A nuclear attack sub was submerged in striking range of the ISIS stronghold. Most if not all leaders of ISIS were there. a simple launch of a 500 kiloton war heard would be enough to wipe out ISIS and shock and awe anyone else who was thinking of bad things. The desert was a perfect place to target, little fallout would occur, and the effect would save hundreds of thousands of live if not millions of live.   

I was nearly kicked out of the forum such a suggestion even though It was only a discussion of a possibility. Much to my dismay ISIS was allowed to spread and stopping then resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and military not to mention the rape and enslavement of women and pillage of the area in ways that will never be recovered from. 

War is never an idea that should be taken lightly and always results in unexpected casualties but sometimes a decisive strike can prevent a war that kills millions, an armed intervention would have taken months and resulted in the lives of thousands being lost. A nuclear strike in the desert would have resulted in a crater or a few square kilometers of glass and a few hundred humans who were a waste of skin being killed not to mention real shock and awe of the rest of the people who were thinking of taking over...

 

[Curious layman]

Whack-a-moles great, don't get me wrong, theirs a certain satisfaction knowing we can take them out, and Delta Force are pretty badass aren't they? SEAL team six and the SAS too. I just think it might be better to be abit more selective with who we whack.

A nuclear strike - I would secretly look forward to watching that.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

 I just think it might be better to be abit more selective with who we whack.

So, someone other than the founder, leader, and most important figurehead?

[Curious layman]

Yes, the people just under him, his lieutenants, his money men, cut off publicity, Invest more money in infrastructure in those areas, take his support away.

[MigL]

Thousands of years of military strategy turned on their head by Curious Layman...

[Curious layman]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thousands of years of military strategy turned on their head by Curious Layman...

Care to elaborate?

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Yes, the people just under him, his lieutenants, his money men

So, back to my original reply: Why not both?

[MigL]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

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. 

This is what I was referring to as "Off topic".
And if my reply to this is off topic, then so is the post that prompted my reply, and deserving of a similar warning, Strange.
Not to mention all the others he has brought up that are similarly off topic.

By all means, enforce the rules, but do it equitably.

[Curious layman]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, back to my original reply: Why not both?

Who you going to negotiate with? If you take out the entire leadership you'll just end up with a situation where you have several dozen smaller terror groups, all with different agendas, and ideologies. It will make it more difficult.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

This is what I was referring to as "Off topic".
And if my reply to this is off topic, then so is the post that prompted my reply, and deserving of a similar warning, Strange.
Not to mention all the others he has brought up that are similarly off topic.

By all means, enforce the rules, but do it equitably.

WTF...

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Who you going to negotiate with?

We don’t negotiate with terrorists, so this point seems moot. 

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thousands of years of military strategy turned on their head by Curious Layman...

Attrition.

[Curious layman]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

We don’t negotiate with terrorists, so this point seems moot. 

Your being delusional. Do you actually think you can win? Has history taught you nothing? 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Curious layman

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, back to my original reply: Why not both?

Killing leaders can cause splintering and then you are being attacked from more independent fronts instead of one. I read this might be happening now with the death of Bagdhadi.

[Curious layman]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Attrition.

Was that to me?

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Care to elaborate?

Love to. You are making the assumption that the replacement is as effective as the original leader. There is usually a reason the one who is in charge has that position; it is because of their ability. Underlings are typically NOT as good as the person they replace, or they would be in charge in the first place. That is of course not always the case but in the military very few lieutenants could step in for the generals and be as effective.

An example, in WWII the Americans decided to kill Isoroku Yamamoto despite the fact that by killing him the allies risked the Japanese discovering that their encryption code had been compromised. Yamamoto was immediately replaced but no one else was able to achieve similar results.

Quote

Operation Vengeance was the American military operation to kill Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy on April 18, 1943, during the Solomon Islands campaign in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Combined Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy, was killed on Bougainville Island when his transport bomber aircraft was shot down by United States Army Air Forcesfighter aircraft operating from Kukum Field on Guadalcanal.

The mission of the U.S. aircraft was specifically to kill Yamamoto and was based on United States Navy intelligence on Yamamoto's itinerary in the Solomon Islands area. The death of Yamamoto reportedly damaged the morale of Japanese naval personnel, raised the morale of the Allied forces, and was intended as revenge by U.S. leaders who blamed Yamamoto for the attack on Pearl Harbor that initiated the formal state of war between Imperial Japan and the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Was that to me?

No. MigL. The idea is weaken them by attrition.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Your being delusional. Do you actually think you can win? Has history taught you nothing? 

 

I'm curious what version of history you are reading. What do you think is so magical about terrorists that they cannot be defeated. They are people, just like everyone else. I think it is perhaps you who is being delusional.

Quote

The most common single explanations for the end of terrorist group activity are repression by the authorities (military or police) and the arrest or killing of a group’s leaders and top echelon. “Targeted killings,” by the Israeli government for example, or the arrest of such key terrorist luminaries as Abimael Guzman in Peru and Abdullah Ocalan in Turkey, have been criticized on the grounds that they only infuriate a group’s members and cause them to escalate violence. Yet, there should be a distinction between motivation and capacity. The desire to raise the level of terrorism may increase in these instances, but the ability to do so declines. Terrorist groups are rarely democratic organizations. New leaders may not possess the skills or allure of their predecessors—as followers of Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi in Iraq and Chechen followers of Shamil Basayev discovered. 

https://ctc.usma.edu/app/uploads/2010/08/CTCSentinel-Vol3Iss2-art6.pdf

Edited November 1, 2019 by zapatos

[Curious layman]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry?

Iraq and Afghanistan were both disasters, It's been 18 years since 911 and there are more terror groups attacking us now than there was then. 

Yeah, were really kicking there ass. They won't do this again. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry?

Iraq and Afghanistan were both disasters, It's been 18 years since 911 and there are more terror groups attacking us now than there was then. 

Yeah, were really kicking there ass. They won't do this again. 

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the sum total of global terrorism. Keep distorting the facts if you wish but you are arguing from ignorance.

[iNow]

The fight must occur on multiple fronts.

Sometimes, people are actively plotting mayhem and violence and bloodshed and beheadings against the innocent. Those people must be stopped with bullets and bombs (and the occasional banking restrictions). 

Bullets and bombs, however, don’t kill bad ideas. Sometimes, they even make bad ideas worse and more common. A balance must be found so problems aren’t made worse.

Bullets and bombs can’t be the ONLY way we fight. They can’t be the only front for attack. There’s more happening here than everything looking like nails because all we have are hammers. We have a full tool shed available to us.

We must ALSO battle for hearts and minds and for the spread of better ideas.

It’s just silly to me to suggest we don’t in parallel work to stop the mayhem and violence being plotted against innocents by taking out those who plot it and who are themselves anything but innocent. 

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by iNow

[Curious layman]

 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

The fight must occur on multiple fronts.
 

Sometimes, people are actively plotting mayhem and violence and bloodshed and beheadings against the innocent. Those people must be stopped with bullets and bombs (and the occasional banking restrictions). 

Bullets and bombs, however, don’t kill bad ideas. Sometimes, they even make bad ideas worse and more common. A balance must be found.

Bullets and bombs can’t be the ONLY way we fight. They can’t be the only front I’m for attack. There’s more happening here than everything looking like nails because all we have are hammers.

We must ALSO battle for hearts and minds and for the spread of better ideas.

It’s just silly to me to suggest we don’t in parallel work to stop the mayhem and violence being plotted against innocents by taking out those who plot it and who are themselves anything but innocent. 

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

Wish I'd said that...

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the sum total of global terrorism. Keep distorting the facts if you wish but you are arguing from ignorance.

They are examples.

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Killing leaders can cause splintering and then you are being attacked from more independent fronts instead of one. I read this might be happening now with the death of Bagdhadi.

A good point  +1

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They are examples.

So based on these examples we should not target terrorist leaders?

[Curious layman]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So based on these examples we should not target terrorist leaders?

No, based on these examples, we know their ineffective.