The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

Skybird,
I didn't mean to imply on what side you are, I don't care in the end anyways, that is up to you.
I have a very simple point of view about all of this:
The deliberate killing of unidentified targets must not be a valid doctrine under any circumstances.

I'd expect this from North Korea, maybe, but not from a country (or rather an alliance of countries) that prides itself with lies about freedom, equality, democracy and humanity, quickly condemning the actions of other countries, while being responsible for an incredible - maybe even unimaginable - amount of destruction, pain and suffering for decades.

That's really it. *shrugs*

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Skybird,
I didn't mean to imply on what side you are, I don't care in the end anyways, that is up to you.
I have a very simple point of view about all of this:
The deliberate killing of unidentified targets must not be a valid doctrine under any circumstances.

I'd expect this from North Korea, maybe, but not from a country (or rather an alliance of countries) that prides itself with lies about freedom, equality, democracy and humanity, quickly condemning the actions of other countries, while being responsible for an incredible - maybe even unimaginable - amount of destruction, pain and suffering for decades.

That's really it. *shrugs*

I perfectly understood your view from beginning on. Obviosuly, you must admit that, yo7ur view collides with the events of reality, and I tried to explain why this is so. There is a n incompatability between the mode the world in Syria is working in currently - war -, and the set of morals by which you want war to be run.

War is war. And it is absolut ely nothign else than that: war. You have to expect barbaric acts happening in war. these are why you call it war, and not a picnic on the meadow. There is no and never was a way to run war with surgical purity and civilizational cream on top. Its the absence of these. Get dirty when playing this game of war. Else do not play at all. Just do not try to play this game nice. It does not work - never has, never will.

That's all.

You're German, you understand this translation of a Japanese poem:

Was zum Überfluß Worte machen,
was soll das?
Es steht die Sache
auf diesem Schwerte,
auf dieser Klinge allein.

Either this, or that - no in-between, that means.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Skybird,
I didn't mean to imply on what side you are, I don't care in the end anyways, that is up to you.
I have a very simple point of view about all of this:
The deliberate killing of unidentified targets must not be a valid doctrine under any circumstances.

I'd expect this from North Korea, maybe, but not from a country (or rather an alliance of countries) that prides itself with lies about freedom, equality, democracy and humanity, quickly condemning the actions of other countries, while being responsible for an incredible - maybe even unimaginable - amount of destruction, pain and suffering for decades.

That's really it. *shrugs*

I perfectly understood your view from beginning on. Obviosuly, you must admit that, yo7ur view collides with the events of reality, and I tried to explain why this is so. There is a n incompatability between the mode the world in Syria is working in currently - war -, and the set of morals by which you want war to be run.

War is war. And it is absolut ely nothign else than that: war. You have to expect barbaric acts happening in war. these are why you call it war, and not a picnic on the meadow. There is no and never was a way to run war with surgical purity and civilizational cream on top. Its the absence of these. Get dirty when playing this game of war. Else do not play at all. Just do not try to play this game nice. It does not work - never has, never will.

That's all.

No.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

No.

Doch.

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_5272565.html


Doesn't help.


Doesn't help either.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Doch.

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...d_5272565.html


Doesn't help.


Doesn't help either.

Nothing justifies the deliberate killing of civilians. End of story.

[Skybird]

Still its getting done. Justification yes or no.

Walk into the desert, find a lonely place all for yourself, raise your face to the heaven above and shout "I wish this world would be a better place."

Don't take the to be expected result personal. It was forseeable.

Meine Fresse!

I never said IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, I said it is WRONG.
That is all I said! I said it is wrong. End of story. Nothing more to it!
Seriously, it isn't rocket science what I said, is it now?
So save your funny pictures for a better opportunity, for now they suit yourself more than me because you go on and on and on about something no one asked for, including dramatic lectures about how gruesome war is.
Really now, Captain Obvious!?

Kopf -> Tisch.

[ikalugin]

As clarification, we do not kill civilians deliberately, we are just less tight about collateral losses. Another thing - one should not equate attacks on civilian infrastructure to murdering civilians deliberately, as such infrastructure can be seen as a valid target, i.e. every single strategic bombing campaign, including Kosovo.

[Skybird]

Infrastructure per se is a valid target in war, like all installations of dual usability that can be of use for civilian society and military as well. Bridges. Powerhouses. Powergrid. Civlian houses and institutions with ammo stores, weapon sites, troops concentrations. Heck, even farmland and crop before harvesting. In Vietnam they defoliated whole forests in a bid to deny the VC the forest's camouflage.

[mapuc]

I'm with Nippelspanner in this case-You shall do anything you can as possible to prevent hitting/bombing civilians

I do also agree somehow with ikalugin that a target, such as a civilian house is a legit target if there are terrorist hiding there.

It hurt my pacifistic heart to see civilian get killed mostly because the terrorist is going totally against any known ROE regarding civilians it also hurt my heart to see our bombers has no other choice to drop bombs on civilians target-if they do drop them, to get a terrorist.

I hope they will "jump forward" with those micro weapons.

Markus

[Oberon]

At least we've come a way from area bombing as a doctrine, I think in the case of Aleppo as ikalugin said, a lot of the damage is likely from months of artillery bombardment.
Certainly though, every effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties, especially in a war like this because every civilian casualty creates the possibility of radicalising the relatives of the deceased.
Unfortunately for us though, the enemy knows our ROE and has no qualms in using civilians as shields.

Catch-22.

[ikalugin]

I think that the Tu22M3 carpet bombing runs occurred over ISIS held territories only.

[Rockstar]

What tangled webs we weave.

I was reading a news artcle which claimed the Syrian government awarded a contract to to a company called Stroytransgaz to build a gas facility in Tuweinan back in 2007. In 2013 rebels fighting against the Assad regime took control of the facility and noted Russian engineers had fled the site before they had arrived. In 2014 the facility fell into the hands of the most evil and henious empire of ne'er-do-wells called daesh.

Fast foward too today. Stroytransgaz through a subcontractor Hesco is, with the Islamic States permission of course, working to complete the facility. Apparently there are deals like this everywhere in Syria

Aron Lund, editor of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s website Syria in Crisis, said that similar gas and oil arrangements exist all over Syria. “You have them between the IS and the regime, but also between IS and rival Sunni Arab rebels, between the Kurds and the regime, Kurds and rebels, the rebels and the regime, and so on,” he said. “You have lots of informal trade connections that emerge among armed groups, smugglers, or private business to fill the gaps between the various sides as the country falls apart, while national institutions, infrastructure, and much of the economy will necessarily remain shared.”

Keep them fractured, destabilized and fighting each other. While the West (which in my book includes Russia) reaps the rewards.

[vienna]

<O>