StringJunky Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 Just now, zapatos said: So based on these examples we should not target terrorist leaders? No. Just not at the earliest opportunity; at the most judicious time and manage the underlings in the meantime until the size and trajectory of their game plan is in hand, then pop 'em. 10 minutes ago, iNow said: A good point +1 Cheers.
zapatos Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Curious layman said: No, based on these examples, we know their ineffective. Can you explain to me why those two examples should cause us to not consider any contrary data? 9 minutes ago, StringJunky said: No. Just not at the earliest opportunity; at the most judicious time and manage the underlings in the meantime until the size and trajectory of their game plan is in hand, then pop 'em. Ah! So simple! And when is the most judicious time? Not a date and time of course, but what factors tell us what the most judicious time is? How do we 'manage the underlings'? How does knowing the size and trajectory of their game plan ensure we've reached the optimal time to kill the leadership?
StringJunky Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, zapatos said: Can you explain to me why those two examples should cause us to not consider any contrary data? Ah! So simple! And when is the most judicious time? Not a date and time of course, but what factors tell us what the most judicious time is? How do we 'manage the underlings'? How does knowing the size and trajectory of their game plan ensure we've reached the optimal time to kill the leadership? When we have what we want in sight. What we do know, from Iraq, etc is that regime change - taking out the leaders - does not work, hence, North Korea is being treated differently. Edited November 1, 2019 by StringJunky
zapatos Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, StringJunky said: When we have what we want in sight. What we do know, from Iraq, etc is that regime change - taking out the leaders - does not work, hence, North Korea is being treated differently. Sorry, I think we may be talking about two different things. I was referring to taking out the leadership of terrorist organizations, not regime change. 7 minutes ago, Curious layman said: Can you explain that to me please? Feels like you are calling me some kind of Trump supporting troglodyte.
Curious layman Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 Your being very hawkish, you sound like you think the American military is just going to kick ass, they won't. Believe it or not, there are other ways. It's been done before.
iNow Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Curious layman said: Your being very hawkish, you sound like you think the American military is just going to kick ass, they won't. This isn’t a fair representation of Zaps position. He, like me, is saying that it makes sense to go after these leaders, not that we should change regimes or bomb everybody or any other strawman-sequel hyperbole that’s been brought up here. The best counter argument to this stance came from SJ. He rightly points out that groups splinter when leaders are taken out and that could make it harder to track them or address the issues they create. I think there are ways to address those risks, and that their disorganization May on net be more of a good thing for us/bad thing for them, but it’s at least a quality and relevant response to the question I’ve been asking and not an emotional misrepresentation. Edited November 1, 2019 by iNow
zapatos Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, Curious layman said: Your being very hawkish, you sound like you think the American military is just going to kick ass, they won't. Believe it or not, there are other ways. It's been done before. It would make for a better debate if you would address the points I've made instead of making judgements about me.
Curious layman Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) Some news. I'm not trying to make a statement, it's just something related to the OP. Quote The Islamic State jihadist group, which has claimed several terrorist attacks in different African countries on Thursday confirmed the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and named his replacement as Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi. https://www.africanews.com/2019/11/01/is-names-new-leader-as-experts-assess-impact-in-africa/ Edited November 2, 2019 by Curious layman
Moontanman Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 (edited) Seriously, we had the entire leadership, practically the entire army of ISIS in one area, a single mirv could have taken them out completely! No one thinks that might have been a good idea? Hell I was surprised Saudi Arabia didn't catch a few MIRVs after 911 until I realized the agenda of the Gov had nothing to do with with who did it... 528 nuclear weapons have been detonated above ground, mostly in desert areas to minimise the fallout, why not a couple more? Scared of Russia? Really? Do you really think Russia would have retaliated for a few desert terrorists? Bush promised shock and awe and only delivered a second rate fireworks show... Don't make promises you can't keep... Edited November 2, 2019 by Moontanman
mistermack Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 In 1914, a Serb took out one of the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That calmed things down nicely.
iNow Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 35 minutes ago, mistermack said: In 1914, a Serb took out one of the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That calmed things down nicely. Are you suggesting it’s better to leave malevolent people alone and untargeted so they can continue to plot, plan, and execute mayhem and violence against innocents? It’s all well and good to point to anecdotal examples here and there throughout history where eliminating a leader made things worse, but there are far more examples where the opposite happened... where cutting off the head really did kill the proverbial snake. Funny how those counter examples never seem to make it into your posts.
mistermack Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 Killing Kennedy worked well for Castro. Or so I've read. -1
Curious layman Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 To be fair, Al-Baghdadi didn't seem like the negotiating type. ISIS are nothing like the IRA. It's like comparing a street gang to Loz Zetas, in reality, their in a different league. Much more dangerous. If their not willing to work towards peace, then there's not much else to do. Attack is the best form of defence, as they say. I don't think it's the best strategy long term, but there's only so much we can do if they insist on planning atrocities.
Airbrush Posted November 3, 2019 Posted November 3, 2019 (edited) On 10/31/2019 at 8:59 AM, zapatos said: I of course didn't know al-Baghdadi but I'm guessing from your description neither did you. This sounds like you got your information from a very biased "news" station. Reality is always more complex than caricatures. What makes you think he was not constantly on the run, or carrying his gun everywhere, or wearing a suicide vest under his clothes? The last photo of him shows his AK leaning on the wall within reach. I heard in the news he wore his suicide vest constantly. What makes you think he was not a manipulative genius? How else do you get a bunch of rebels, murderous thugs, to dedicate themselves to you and die for you? Edited November 3, 2019 by Airbrush
zapatos Posted November 3, 2019 Posted November 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Airbrush said: What makes you think he was not constantly on the run, or carrying his gun everywhere, or wearing a suicide vest under his clothes? The last photo of him shows his AK leaning on the wall within reach. I heard in the news he wore his suicide vest constantly. What makes you think he was not a manipulative genius? How else do you get a bunch of rebels, murderous thugs, to dedicate themselves to you and die for you? You should reread the first six words of my post that you are responding to.
Airbrush Posted November 4, 2019 Posted November 4, 2019 (edited) At the start of this YouTube video of the Baghdadi raid it shows a dozen or more people with a dog and then a dozen bombs explode all around and among them. This video is never explained. That dog should be dead. What exactly happened? It looks to me like the US soldiers and their dog were hit by a dozen bombs within a few seconds. Friendly fire? They should be mostly dead or injured by shrapnel. Anyone know what happened here? Edited November 4, 2019 by Airbrush
Airbrush Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) I posted the video above 4 days ago. It was shown on cable news many, many times. In the beginning of the video it shows what looks like soldiers with their dog. Then bombs explode all around them. The bombs explodes in such quick succession they could not have been IEDs or mortars, or RPGs. They could only be US munitions. It looks like an airstrike. The narrator mentions choppers at the moment of the explosions. Reports said only a few ISIS members were killed in the raid. This video shows either a dozen soldiers or ISIS fighters (with a dog?) getting blown up. Still nobody can answer my question. Edited November 8, 2019 by Airbrush
Curious layman Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 They could of been https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade, special forces generally use these in operations like this to disoriente the enemy, or a similar type of non lethal weapon. I can't see the US using an airstrike in this situation, it would be far too dangerous, like the video shows, they would of wiped them out.
iNow Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 Yes. They were either exploding the locks off the doors and/or using stun grenades as CL mentions. The largest explosion of the day was the suicide vest on Baghdadi
mistermack Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 What these countries are like now, makes the previous era of the Asad and Gadafi seem like the good old days. https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/ Those pictures should be labelled "before and after Obama". Anybody else want liberating ?
Curious layman Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, mistermack said: What these countries are like now, makes the previous era of the Asad and Gadafi seem like the good old days. https://petapixel.com/2016/08/02/26-photos-show-war-changed-syria/ Those pictures should be labelled "before and after Obama". Anybody else want liberating ? Don't you mean before and after Bush and Blair. It's these two that started this in the first place with the Iraq invasion. You can't dump this on Obama, he might have handled it poorly, but he's not responsible.
mistermack Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Curious layman said: Don't you mean before and after Bush and Blair. It's these two that started this in the first place with the Iraq invasion. You can't dump this on Obama, he might have handled it poorly, but he's not responsible. I think you need to re-check your dates.
Curious layman Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 Nope. I put this war on terror and all the stuff connected to it on those two. Not all but the biggest culprits are these two. So it was Obama then, nothing to do with Isis, Russia, UK, Al Qaeda, as well as several other terror groups and probably more. It was just Obama, of course it was.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now