Five dead, including gunman, in Tennessee military facilities shootings

[eddie]

4 Marines killed, by this nutjob, plus another Marine and Police officer wounded. Gunman was killed in a shoot out with police, glad the bastid is dead too. Don't have to waste money on a trial!

My heart goes out to the victims families, so stinking senseless!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/five-dead-including-gunman-in-tennessee-military-facilities-shootings/ar-AAd3U69

[Torplexed]

Chattanooga, Tennessee isn't exactly the first place you'd be expecting a terrorist attack but I guess these days that hardly matters. :hmmm: Thanks to internet recruiting and persuasion the globe is a battlefield.

IS leaders have called on their followers to launch attacks during the month of Ramadan, which comes to an end this weekend. Might be wise to act with a bit more caution in public.

[Rockstar]

IS leaders have called on their followers to launch attacks during the month of Ramadan, which comes to an end this weekend. Might be wise to act with a bit more caution in public.


IMO, that is what the meaning of Islamophobia is.

[Stealhead]

IMO, that is what the meaning of Islamophobia is.
How so exactly? Everything he stated is a fact and he never implied anything else beyond that.

[Torplexed]

IMO, that is what the meaning of Islamophobia is.

The Chattanooga Times newspaper reported that the shooter went to a local high school and competed on the wrestling team. He left this message in his school yearbook: "My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?"

Well, you can learn to take life's little setbacks with humor because there will be a lot of them. A shame he didn't stick to it.

[Oberon]

How so exactly? Everything he stated is a fact and he never implied anything else beyond that.

He's right in a way, but only in a manner in which if I had said it would have lead to instant claims of PC. :O:
Unfortunately in an incident like this it's human nature to be distrustful of something that isn't the same as us, I mean you're far more likely to be killed by a white guy driving a truck but no-one ever really thinks about it, a Muslim shoots up a Marine recruitment center and people get spooky around Islam.
It's not just an Islamophobia thing, if you had been in the UK around the 1960s-1980s, you'd have met people who would have expressed a not dissimilar sentiment about the Irish.
I remember when I took my first trip to London after 7/7, I was on the tube and there were people on there who were of darker skin than I (admittedly with my nerd-complexion that's not difficult) and they were carrying rucksacks...and you can be damn right that I was concerned. For all I knew they were probably Sikhs or even atheists, but because they were foreign looking and had rucksacks, little alarm bells went off in my mind. Of course, none of them exploded and aside from the usual delays there were no interruptions to my journey around the capital during that visit and the visits since.

In my opinion where it becomes real Islamophobia is when you encourage someone to take action against a person because of their religion. Torplexed stopped short of that, and did no more than what the speakers in your public transportation hub tell you on a regular basis, 'remain vigilent'.

Of course, unfortunately in this war, vigilence is a double-edged sword, many radicals who have since fled to Syria were only radicalised when someone thought they looked suspicious and called the police on them.
To come back to the gunman who took part in this attack, 'My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?', was the message written in his school yearbook. What are we to take from that?

Let me end this ramble in a thread that I was going to stay out of...but, like Corleone 'they pulled me back in', let me end it by stating that I don't believe for a moment that Torplexed is an Islamophobe, in fact there's probably only a couple of posters on this forum who I would say truly are, and I'm not going to start pointing fingers. He's just like the rest of us, still trying to make sense of what the world has become. :yep:

Finally, and most importantly, Semper Fi to the fallen, may they rest in peace.

[Torplexed]

I remember when I took my first trip to London after 7/7, I was on the tube and there were people on there who were of darker skin than I (admittedly with my nerd-complexion that's not difficult) and they were carrying rucksacks...and you can be damn right that I was concerned. For all I knew they were probably Sikhs or even atheists, but because they were foreign looking and had rucksacks, little alarm bells went off in my mind.

If I see any swarthy-looking guys on the bus with Confederate flag patches on their rucksacks, I'm really gonna freak. :D That could result in a matter-antimatter explosion.

[Betonov]

IS leaders have called on their followers to launch attacks during the month of Ramadan, which comes to an end this weekend. Might be wise to act with a bit more caution in public.

That's not islamophobia, that's stating a fact.

That guy is a muslim, arrest him now since all muslims are terrorists

That's islamophobia

A white man cannot execute a terrorist attack, since he is not a muslim and only muslims can be terrorists since all muslims are terrorists.

That is also islamophobia.

I hope that clears it.


IS is dangerous because unlike Al Quaida, that utilises organised cells, they have discovered a way to get lone wolfs to pop up anywhere.
But if all muslims were terrorists there would be more than a billion lone wolfs running around. Are they ?? Do we have a terror attack every second ??

[Jimbuna]

Only positive I can glean is the world is free of one more oxygen thief.

Condolences to all who have lost loved ones.

[Oberon]

That's not islamophobia, that's stating a fact.



That's islamophobia



That is also islamophobia.

I hope that clears it.


IS is dangerous because unlike Al Quaida, that utilises organised cells, they have discovered a way to get lone wolfs to pop up anywhere.
But if all muslims were terrorists there would be more than a billion lone wolfs running around. Are they ?? Do we have a terror attack every second ??

Well said.
It is an awkward situation that we face in this new war, because our very efforts to maintain our safety creates further threats to our safety. :/\\!!
I would say that AQ has also encouraged their own fair share of lone wolves, the Boston bomber for example did his work before Daesh was big on the block, but mostly the reason is that we've managed to defeat a lot of the attempts, so they don't get the press that a successful attempt would do. See this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United _States_post-9/11

Most of the time though, Daesh and AQ attack in the Middle East and Africa, so we're in the strange position that Daesh and AQ are doing more damage to Muslims than they are to us. :doh:

If I see any swarthy-looking guys on the bus with Confederate flag patches on their rucksacks, I'm really gonna freak. :D That could result in a matter-antimatter explosion.

No, no, you have to look away, and look away....

That reminds me, I really need to continue that AAR...

[Rockstar]

Everyday there are reports of shooters on the highway, hate crimes, rapists, murderers. My brother who is in the know once told me what we read about in the news doesnt even come close to the horrifying things that happen in society we never hear about.

Heck we even have a growing muslim population in a nearby housing development. Maybe one day our little town will make national news. But I don't hide in my house or go underground out of fear of an attack, robbery or assault. IMO doing so could lead one to go batshiat crazy.

I do take precautions and have means available to defend my home from intruders, but even that isnt at the forefront of my mind. Going to work, travel and recreation is.

[Armistead]

Saw a video the other day of a woman being beheaded on the streets with help of the police of course. I think it was her family that did the beheading. It's amazing we live in a world where a religion still lives in the dark ages.

[em2nought]

My reality show idea "Spin the Wheel of Islam" would solve all of this for us. If we can get the Enola Gay airworthy. :D

[Oberon]

My reality show idea "Spin the Wheel of Islam" would solve all of this for us. If we can get the Enola Gay airworthy. :D

And who would you nuke and where? How many civilians would you slaughter? :hmmm:

[Betonov]

terror attack ---> retaliation bombing ---> dead civilians ---> mourning survivor --->

---> radicalisation from the fact that one has nothing to loose and all the anger ---> terror attack --->

And the wheel of Islam goes round and round, round and round...

Put some brains instead of bombs up front when trying to find a soution. Just might work.

[em2nought]

terror attack ---> retaliation bombing ---> dead civilians ---> mourning survivor --->

---> radicalisation from the fact that one has nothing to loose and all the anger ---> terror attack --->

And the wheel of Islam goes round and round, round and round...

Put some brains instead of bombs up front when trying to find a soution. Just might work.

It worked with the Japanese. :know: As a side benefit it might reduce global warming as well. Better than the rest of the world getting the idea that nuking the USA is the solution to global warming.

[em2nought]

And who would you nuke and where? How many civilians would you slaughter? :hmmm:

It's pretty clear that there are no civilians. So I guess the answer is as few as possible to get the job done. There was a time when we got the job done, now it seems like wars are just a reason to keep the military industrial complex running. No need to finish one, let alone win one.

[Oberon]

It's pretty clear that there are no civilians. So I guess the answer is as few as possible to get the job done. There was a time when we got the job done, now it seems like wars are just a reason to keep the military industrial complex running. No need to finish one, let alone win one.

So you advocate killing Muslim women and children?

[Betonov]

now it seems like wars are just a reason to keep the military industrial complex running. No need to finish one, let alone win one.

So the solution is to nuke the region 6500 miles west of the middle east :hmmm:

[Frömmler Vogel]

It worked with the Japanese. :know: As a side benefit it might reduce global warming as well. Better than the rest of the world getting the idea that nuking the USA is the solution to global warming.

What an astounding piece of reasoning. Do they have a Nobel Prize for bigotry?

[Armistead]

We all know it's just a matter of time until we're back in Iraq in force. Eventually some nation will get hit hard by a terrorist attack or the smaller attacks will keep happening until we've had enough. Instead of all the pussy footing around, we need a president that says to the military, take the gloves off and get the job done.

It all goes back to why I was against the Iraq war to start with. It does take a radical dictator like Saddam to run and control a nation like Iraq.

[Oberon]

The President who signs the order to put troops back into Iraq might as well use the same pen to write his resignation letter. Heck, maybe Obama can do it on the day before he leaves office.
People think of Iraq, they think of coffins with American flags on them, they think of over a decade of car bombs, suicide bombers, IEDs, and they look at the complete mess that the original invasion made.
It would take someone who is a real smooth-talker to be able to convince the American public that they need to put forces back into Iraq, either that or another 9/11. :dead:

[Stealhead]

We all know it's just a matter of time until we're back in Iraq in force. Eventually some nation will get hit hard by a terrorist attack or the smaller attacks will keep happening until we've had enough. Instead of all the pussy footing around, we need a president that says to the military, take the gloves off and get the job done.

It all goes back to why I was against the Iraq war to start with. It does take a radical dictator like Saddam to run and control a nation like Iraq.

If only the world where truly so black and white. First the war on terror is a counterinsurgency a form of warfare that is exceedingly difficult to fight. Its not like WWII where you have a nation state who's industrial capacity can be destroyed.

[Frömmler Vogel]

We all know it's just a matter of time until we're back in Iraq in force. Eventually some nation will get hit hard by a terrorist attack or the smaller attacks will keep happening until we've had enough. Instead of all the pussy footing around, we need a president that says to the military, take the gloves off and get the job done.

It all goes back to why I was against the Iraq war to start with. It does take a radical dictator like Saddam to run and control a nation like Iraq.
What precisely is "the job"?

The last president that thought the mission was accomplished some years ago obviously had little idea of what "the job" was. I've seen noone come up with a satisfactory answer to the question for Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan, nor prior to that Vietnam and even as far back as Korea.

I don't expect we'll see a president who knows the answer in my lifetime.

[Torplexed]

Forget Iraq. As an artificial nation state held together by Baathist barbed wire, it lasted a long time, but I think it's broken beyond salvage. Same goes for Syria at this point. All the king's horse and all the king's men can't put the Sykes-Picot map lines back together again.

If the West truly wants to help the Middle East get out of it's perpetual funk, it might be wise to start embracing fragmentation to the point of recognizing new sustainable states out of the old ones. I think putting increasing numbers of US troops there to keep the fiction of Iraq going, just likely means watching the rise of the Sons of Isis when we go weary and leave, or being on attritional garrison duty there forever.

[August]

The President who signs the order to put troops back into Iraq might as well use the same pen to write his resignation letter.

Not if we get hit hard with a big terrorist attack like Armistead said.

We could not allow isil to conduct attacks upon our country with impunity so there would have to be a very strong response and if Iraq is where we can hurt them back the most then that's we will go.

What I think the American people won't abide this time is any subsequent nation building that causes to drag our feet in leaving after the job is done.

[Oberon]

Not if we get hit hard with a big terrorist attack like Armistead said.

It would take someone who is a real smooth-talker to be able to convince the American public that they need to put forces back into Iraq, either that or another 9/11.


:03:

[Oberon]

Forget Iraq. As an artificial nation state held together by Baathist barbed wire, it lasted a long time, but I think it's broken beyond salvage. Same goes for Syria at this point. All the king's horse and all the king's men can't put the Sykes-Picot map lines back together again.

If the West truly wants to help the Middle East get out of it's perpetual funk, it might be wise to start embracing fragmentation to the point of recognizing new sustainable states out of the old ones. I think putting increasing numbers of US troops there to keep the fiction of Iraq going, just likely means watching the rise of the Sons of Isis when we go weary and leave, or being on attritional garrison duty there forever.


I think a big re-evaluation needs to be done of who we're allied with there and why we are. There's a big power struggle going on between Iran and Saudi Arabia in which Yemen and to a not-unreasonable extent Iraq, is the battlefield. Israel is a big complication thrown into the mix and that's only going to add petrol to the fire.

In a way, I suppose it's like trying to figure out where to stand in the middle of a city of fragile skyscrapers during a 9.0 earthquake...

[Armistead]

What precisely is "the job"?

The last president that thought the mission was accomplished some years ago obviously had little idea of what "the job" was. I've seen noone come up with a satisfactory answer to the question for Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan, nor prior to that Vietnam and even as far back as Korea.

I don't expect we'll see a president who knows the answer in my lifetime.

It's facing the truth about Islam, the last religion living in the dark ages and causing chaos in the world. Even so called moderate Islam is dangerous for the civilized world. Radical Islam has to be destroyed and it will take a world effort and yes, a lot of innocent people will die, but more are dying under Islam as it is.

We will be back sooner or later. We've grown to accept the constant terror attacks, but eventually they'll pull off another big one. Just time to divide Iraq up in pie. The only way you'll ever get the ME out of the dark ages, is to not only make war so terrible they won't want it again for 100 years, but to run the nations and reindoctrinate these people out of the dark ages. It could be done with freedom of the press, civil rights and secular govt that supports equal rights over a long period of time, but take a world effort, meaning, not gonna happen.

I think for the most part the world has accepted and don't care that Muslims war and kill each other by the millions as they do, but they too often step out in big acts of terror and wmds have to be a big concern of the future.

Hell, this is a video of our ally SA rendering justice on some helpless woman. It just shows you how sick this religion is.

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/woman-beheaded-in-broad-daylight-in-moderate-muslim-nation-while-police-watch/

[Torplexed]

but take a world effort, meaning, not gonna happen.


Well exactly. A coalition large and powerful enough to defeat Islamic State will be a ramshackle disaster that's one major diplomatic incident away from bursting at the seams. The US is already in a bind, having to chose between practical necessity and the luxury of being morally uprighteous. For example, having to choose between arming the good kind of Syrian rebels at the risk of arming the bad kind. Or deciding to work with an Egyptian government that came to power in a coup against a supposedly democratically elected one that everyone was afraid of because it was Islamic.

Although the people who look fondly on WWII like to cast it as a black and white proposition, there was actually something of a debate in Washington and London over backing Joseph Stalin. The problem many folks realized, is that if you join up with a murderous mustachioed totalitarian to defeat a murderous mustachioed totalitarian is that you end up subsidizing a murderous mustachioed totalitarian, Sure, the Nazis were pounded flat, and the Russians did most of the dying, but the winning Allies ended up in an eyeball to eyeball staring contest that parked civilization on the edge of an abyss for half a century. What will the blow back be this time?

And when you scale up such a contest to 2015 standards in terms of population, destructive power of weaponry, environmental consequences, oil disruption, the fact that Muslims currently make up about 23.4 % of the people living on this planet, I don't see how civilization survives.

[Wolferz]

Can we really call ourselves a civilized society if all we think about is thumping a bunch of radical Koran thumpers?:hmmm:

Islam strives for total control by mixing their politics and their religion.

We in the US are just the opposite and just like Islam, we smack down anyone who attempts to buck the status quo.:shifty:

Sometimes I think our government is all about the military/industrial complex and they maintain the status quo by constantly creating new enemies when the old ones fold.

[Oberon]

So basically we've got to convert them to our way of thinking through a campaign of systematic destruction and indoctrination.

Sounds familiar...

Anyway, what gives us the right to essentially declare war on nearly a quarter of the world?

[August]

We in the US are just the opposite and just like Islam, we smack down anyone who attempts to buck the status quo.

Oh really? Just like Islam? When was our last public beheading? When was the last time we locked a human being in a cage then immolated him with a flame thrower? Just like Islam?

[Armistead]

So basically we've got to convert them to our way of thinking through a campaign of systematic destruction and indoctrination.

Sounds familiar...

Anyway, what gives us the right to essentially declare war on nearly a quarter of the world?

Most are in nations that are controlled by more secular govts. The problem is we're dealing with a corrupt ideology, much like nazism, except it lives under the cover of religion. Through history it takes proper reindoctrination, but it can simply be done be freedom of religion, press, etc. Most Muslims don't follow the true tenants of Islam no more than Jews follow the OT. Somehow in the ME, Islam has to be reformed like other religions into a moderate self spiritualism.

This won't happen unless , like in other wars we become concerned for our very survival as a nation. The problem is we always wait until we pay dearly for it and one day playing this waiting game while such evil is on the march may cost us the end game.

[Frömmler Vogel]

Oh really? Just like Islam? When was our last public beheading? When was the last time we locked a human being in a cage then immolated him with a flame thrower? Just like Islam?

1747 for the barbaric UK's last public beheading but the evil French carried on until 1977 although they were no longer public by then and I'd wager some time in 1964-1975 for the flamethrower action though there were several incidents that didn't get reported due to what happened at Cam Ne. So we've moved onto more technologically advanced methods of disposal of our social refuse. The result is the same, a dead body.

Taking in context, Wolferz is not wrong.

[Oberon]

Most are in nations that are controlled by more secular govts. The problem is we're dealing with a corrupt ideology, much like nazism, except it lives under the cover of religion. Through history it takes proper reindoctrination, but it can simply be done be freedom of religion, press, etc. Most Muslims don't follow the true tenants of Islam no more than Jews follow the OT. Somehow in the ME, Islam has to be reformed like other religions into a moderate self spiritualism.

This won't happen unless , like in other wars we become concerned for our very survival as a nation. The problem is we always wait until we pay dearly for it and one day playing this waiting game while such evil is on the march may cost us the end game.

Most Muslims aren't hardcore traditionalists and a lot of hardcore traditionalists, whilst medievalesque in our viewpoint, aren't members of Daesh or Al'Qaeda. In fact, one could make the arguement, and many Muslim leaders do, that Daesh and Al'Qaeda are not following the Qu'ran, in a manner in which many other organisations both religious and otherwise criticise their extremists for taking a simple idea further than intended.
So, let's say that you do declare war on Islam, do you really think that the people living in the secular nations will remain moderate? When you're killing people because of their religious choices, do you really think that other people of the same religion will just sit back and take it?
What drives a lot of young people to travel to Syria and join Daesh is the feeling that they do not belong in a western society, that no-one trusts them, that everyone assumes that because they are a Muslim they are automatically an extremist, that their religious choice is wrong and they are backward for taking it. That feeling of not belonging is then exploited by Daesh recruiters by offering them a place where they will belong, where they will not face that judgment and state monitoring, where their name will not cause 'national security alerts', and like any young person who doesn't feel like they belong, they will flock to somewhere where they feel like they will.
If you make their fears and feelings official by taking the course of action that you propose, then Daesh will not be able to cope with the amount of new recruits that they will receive and you will make an enemy of 1.57 billion people.
What you propose is essentially 21st century colonialism, and surely someone from America can work out the pitfalls involved in trying to force anything on a nation far away from your own?

[eddie]

Going to be a long struggle with Daesh, especially when they are teaching their children to fight and carry guns even as toddlers! :nope:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/theres-a-chilling-new-trend-among-isis-militants/ar-AAddTqz

And there is this-

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/20/beat-us-everywhere-inside-isis-training-camps-for-terror-next-generation/

[Platapus]

Oh really? Just like Islam? When was our last public beheading? When was the last time we locked a human being in a cage then immolated him with a flame thrower? Just like Islam?


We use drones. No one said we had to use the exact same techniques as the Islamic apostates.

Being beheaded or having a building collapse on you. In the long term, it really does not make much difference to the victim.

[Platapus]

Even so called moderate Islam is dangerous for the civilized world.

That is an interesting statement considering we have Muslims currently serving in the US military. I would be very interested in reading any citations that support this assertion.

[Schroeder]

We use drones. No one said we had to use the exact same techniques as the Islamic apostates.

Being beheaded or having a building collapse on you. In the long term, it really does not make much difference to the victim.
However the West (for a lack of a better word) doesn't target people because they are Muslim, we target them for committing capital crimes while they target everything that is "unislamic". We try to avoid collateral damage (emphasis on try as we know it doesn't always play out that way) while collateral damage is what the terrorist try to achieve. I'm sorry but I do see a difference there.

[Nippelspanner]

Better than the rest of the world getting the idea that nuking the USA is the solution to global warming.
Might be the solution for many other problems though...

[August]

We use drones. No one said we had to use the exact same techniques as the Islamic apostates.

Being beheaded or having a building collapse on you. In the long term, it really does not make much difference to the victim.

There's a big moral difference between a drone missile that accidentally kills civilians being used as a human shields and an enemy that deliberately and continually seeks out civilians to kill by the most heinous methods possible. Which do you prefer? Being killed by a falling building or being shot then having your entire family and community rousted out into the desert and shot, maybe raped and tortured first with younger ones being shipped off to slavery?

It'd be nice if wars could be fought in places devoid of civilians but that is not how it ever turns out. The best any war time protagonist can do is try and minimize civilian casualties which we do as much or more than any other army in history.

Sorry for the speech but I resent implications that we're no different than our enemies. The differences are vast and run very deep.

[Nippelspanner]

There's a big moral difference between a drone missile that accidentally kills civilians being used as a human shields and...
You are aware that this isn't exactly how it works, right?
While 'they' use civilians as a shield, it is obvious that those in command of drone strikes stopped giving a damn a long time ago.

Do some research on the drone topic, it opened my eyes quite a while ago.
It isn't as surgical as the Air Force channel on YouTube claims to get new operators, or to calm the conscience of American citizens.

Civilian casualties aren't 'accidental' - they are being accepted!

Drones aren't a problem, they are excellent tools.
The way they are being used (at least by the US) is just criminaland should not even be open to debate.

[em2nought]

Sorry for the speech but I resent implications that we're no different than our enemies.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the idea that we're as bad as our enemies is coming out of "our" schools. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Do some research on the drone topic...
Could you be so kind as to point us in the right direction, at least a little?

[Armistead]

We do make efforts not to kill civilians because we know each one killed will be a propaganda tool and sure, they're times the target gets hit knowing civilians will be killed. The other issues, often civilians support or accept living under tyranny rather than fighting it and sadly a price is paid for that. The bigger fact remains, Muslims mostly kill the majority of Muslims. Sad situation all the way around, but sitting idle and letting such a radical enemy grow only means much worse death and destruction for all down the road.

[Nippelspanner]

Could you be so kind as to point us in the right direction, at least a little?
Of course.
Google. (https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=drone+strikes) :O:
I also like this one (http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/) in particular.

Now before the all-time classic "google/random source =/= truth" card gets played by someone - I am aware of that after 15 years in the internet.
In the end, you gotta see for yourself what source you deem trustworthy or not. It is also funny that as soon as someone criticizes the drone program, some people start demanding sources.
When 'official sources' (military) claim numbers and facts regarding drones, these people usually don't question them.

The majority of articles I read about drone operations come to the same conclusion though: Too many civilian casualties.
Question is, why?

Surely not because you can't possibly expect civilians to be hit when putting a Hellfire missile or even a GBU into the dle of a village, a funeral or any crowded place.
I am all for the idea of surgical warfare, also I am very aware of the obvious fact that collateral damage will always exist, however I'm even more aware that prevention of civilian casualties should have priority - not the target.
Assuming the numbers (which vary a lot but are too high in any case) are even just half true, the current operational doctrine *might* be... 'faulty'.

Oh by the way. Go to Apacheclips or other pages like that (if you have a strong gut. It's a dark place, full of ignorance, stupidity and gore-freaks who lost touch with reality a long time ago...) and watch some drone strike material.
It speaks volumes, no need to read charts with numbers who might be true or totally made up.

...and sure, they're times the target gets hit knowing civilians will be killed.
That sounds a little like "wrong place, wrong time, too bad... on to the weather!".
If your loved one(s) get killed by a drone strike because your neighbor was a terrorist... mh...let's not go there, you see my point I'm sure.

Long story short, I get the feeling that certain lives seem to be taken for more valuable than others and most numbers clearly support this feeling.
Reading what some people wrote in this thread doesn't help.

Ah, let's cute to the chase and nuke 'em all. :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

Of course.
Thanks for those.

Now before the all-time classic "google/random source =/= truth" card gets played by someone - I am aware of that after 15 years in the internet.
That's true. I know nothing at all about the drone strikes, and I was a little surprised to see how many there have been.

I do remember the "collateral damage" arguments when smart bombs were first used, and I remember noting that compared to WW2 bombing standards the precision involved is very good. Still, mistakes are made and innocent people die, which is never a good thing. It's pretty easy to argue both sides of any debate, and people do get caught up in their own feelings and try to dismiss the other side. On the one hand accidents are impossible to eliminate altogether. On the other it's easy to dismiss them as "okay". Collateral damage will happen, but it's never okay.


It is also funny that as soon as someone criticizes the drone program, some people start demanding sources.
When 'official sources' (military) claim numbers and facts regarding drones, these people usually don't question them.
Anyone who believes firmly in their argument runs the risk of refusing to see any merit in a different viewpoint or any flaws in their own. It seems to be the way our brains operate.

I am all for the idea of surgical warfare, also I am very aware of the obvious fact that collateral damage will always exist, however I'm even more aware that prevention of civilian casualties should have priority - not the target.
I see I said much the same thing in response, but before I read this part of your post. Well said.

[Armistead]

That sounds a little like "wrong place, wrong time, too bad... on to the weather!".
If your loved one(s) get killed by a drone strike because your neighbor was a terrorist... mh...let's not go there, you see my point I'm sure.

Long story short, I get the feeling that certain lives seem to be taken for more valuable than others and most numbers clearly support this feeling.
Reading what some people wrote in this thread doesn't help.

Ah, let's cute to the chase and nuke 'em all. :doh:


Remember, Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden for fear of civilian casualties. Look how that turned out....

[Nippelspanner]

Remember, Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden for fear of civilian casualties. Look how that turned out....
So basically, 9/11 happened because Clinton was a sissy?
I am tempted to claim that a few more circumstances lead to everything Bin Laden related.
How about we blame the CIA/US Gov. for getting in touch with him in the first place, train him, support him and even call him an Allie as long as he was useful to the US?
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette!" :D

Also, this argument still stinks, Armistead, and you might think differently if one of your relatives would be among the drone victims just to get a suspected target.
What if your family would have been at risk from that very particular strike against Bin Laden?
That's what I thought.

I'm sorry for painting this grim scenario, I just try to make my point clear.
It's pretty easy to argue both sides of any debate, and people do get caught up in their own feelings and try to dismiss the other side. On the one hand accidents are impossible to eliminate altogether. On the other it's easy to dismiss them as "okay". Collateral damage will happen, but it's never okay.
Exactly, very well put! :yep:

[Frömmler Vogel]

Sorry for the speech but I resent implications that we're no different than our enemies. The differences are vast and run very deep.
resent it all you like, the similarities are the problem. There's a reason these guys don't like us and its much the same one that we don't like them.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the idea that we're as bad as our enemies is coming out of "our" schools. :yep:
I'd say it has more to do with facts. It's hard to look in the mirror and see a monster looking back.

[Nippelspanner]

Welcome to Subsim, Frömmler, good post as well! :salute:

[vienna]

Exactly, very well put! :yep:

Yes, it was...

...now, a follow-up question to you Nippelspanner: Your criticisms are valid, but like a lot of broad criticisms abounding, it lacks a certain specificity. What, exactly, and with detail, would you propose as a precise alternative or precise alternatives to the current situation and process. We all know war is bad and killing civilians is intolerable, so how exactly do we fight against an enemy who embeds itself in the civilian population, at times explicitly as human shields? Other than walking up to each of them individually and shooting them one by one, there doesn't seem to be a means of achieving your concept of a "sanitary" war...


<O>

[August]

resent it all you like, the similarities are the problem. There's a reason these guys don't like us and its much the same one that we don't like them.

Why should I care if ISIS likes us? Maybe worrying too much about what terrorists think of us is the real problem here. The Chamberlinian attitude that if we just try to get along with them they'll leave us alone is the height of foolishness.

[Nippelspanner]

What, exactly, and with detail, would you propose as a precise alternative or precise alternatives to the current situation and process.
I thought it was obvious.
My complaint is that, in the drone program, collateral damage is accepted - which disgusts me, especially because of the double-moral standards.
First, the US diminishes terror attacks where civilians die as an act of cowardice.
Then, they kill civilians themselves with untouchable drones.
Since the casualties are accepted(!) to happen, it is the same crap these Islamist scumbags do.

Both sides want to destroy each other/pursue their goals.
Both sides accept civilian casualties as long as the 'target' gets destroyed or the 'cause' is enforced.

The only difference is the reason both sides take civilian casualties with a grain of salt.
(Yes, terrorists do care. No terrorist just wants to destroy everyone and everything, he fights for a cause - as stupid as it might be.)

One side hates the negative publicity because it might turn new recruits away.
The other side is afraid to lose the regional influence/trust.
Who is who, though? :hmmm:

I don't know about you, but this attitude just doesn't work out for me.
Does it for you?

Anyways!
Why, according to you, do I have the responsibility to find an alternative to these criminal acts anyways?
It isn't my war, I do not participate in it and it is under no circumstances my responsibility to find a legal and sufficient strategy that
gets the job done while actually respecting the civilian lives involved and that does not contradict with nearly everything the country/military that applies these strategies claims to stand for.

But!

Other than walking up to each of them individually and shooting them one by one.
There you go - why is this not an option?
I thought the American military is the best anyways, how hard can it be to take this war of terror, I mean war against terror, to a more personal level and minimize the risk of civilian casualties,
or at least start to not spit on these people by declaring them expendable?
America F yeah... and all that. :hmm2:

What?
High US casualties? Oh...well... maybe err don't join the military?

Why should I care if ISIS likes us?
First line and you already justify what he said, amazing August is amazing! :o

Maybe worrying too much about what terrorists think of us is the real problem here.
Maybe not worrying too much about what terrorists think of us is the real problem here. :hmm2:
People are not terrorists by birth, they become terrorists for various reasons. Dropping explosives on their families, homes and countries might not exactly help preventing terrorism to flower.

The Chamberlinian attitude that if we just try to get along with them they'll leave us alone is the height of foolishness.
You wouldn't know... :03:

[vienna]

Nipplespanner, you still haven't answered the question: what is your precise solution? All you have said is a rehash of some of the same things I heard back in the 60s and 70s from the war protesters. The main difference is neither the VC nor the NVA were fomenting attacks on US civilians in the US and they were not setting up training and recruiting networks to aid in those attacks...


I thought the American military is the best anyways, how hard can it be to take this war of terror, I mean war against terror, to a more personal level and minimize the risk of civilian casualties,


It must be real hard because even you don't seem to have a practical solution, just platitudes and suspect "moral superiority"...


Why, according to you, do I have the responsibility to find an alternative to these criminal acts anyways?
It isn't my war, I do not participate in it and it is under no circumstances my responsibility to find a legal and sufficient strategy that
gets the job done while actually respecting the civilian lives involved and that does not contradict with nearly everything the country/military that applies these strategies claims to stand for.


One thing I was taught a long time ago, if you want to criticize how someone does something, you better have a good alternative to offer; otherwise, all you have is useless words restating the obvious to no constructive end...

Oh, and you are right: it isn't your war...yet. If ISIL and the rest are not stopped, you may have a rather uncomfortable problem with also those middle eastern Muslim refugees entering your country and the Muslim extremists who will use the refugees as a cover for their activities. But, of course, you'll subdue them, their bombings, beheadings and such with your sparkling rhetoric...

Good luck to you and remember, the vile US has sworn to help you, not that you seem to need it by you account...


<O>

[Oberon]

There is one potential solution in the pipeline in regards to drone strikes.

ARSS

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

Much less likelihood of collateral damage, although there's still the problem of them hiding in underground places and buildings, but a drone can be on station 24/7 if you rotate them right and unless they build tunnels under the house then they'll have to come out sometime and then pop. :dead:
Equally you have to look at the bullet speed and calibre since once it has hit the target in the head...it might well keep going and hit a small child behind him. So timing and location is everything.

But it's a vast improvement over dropping a Hellfire into a marketplace or a wedding. :yep:

[vienna]

That's the main problem with any of the practical solutions and alternatives. There is always the possibility of a change to a situation between the time a trigger is pulled and when the munition reaches the location of its intended target...

As far as popping the bad guys when they come up for air, the really bad guys are smart enough to fly low and avoid the radar while engineering the activities of their lesser brethren. Remember, Bin Laden stayed indoors out of sight for several years, making it unlikely if not impossible to take an airborne "sniper shot". The same holds true for all the other senior leaders and planners in the Jihad; they stay well out of sight; sometimes the next time they are seen is the only chance you may have to eliminate them...


<O>

[Nippelspanner]

One thing I was taught a long time ago, if you want to criticize how someone does something, you better have a good alternative to offer; otherwise, all you have is useless words restating the obvious to no constructive end...
Ah yes, I heard this as well of course.
Thing is, I think it is neither right nor realistic.

I criticize the way it is done because it is a crime, nothing less.
According to you, I lose the right to speak out against it because I am no general in the military, able to find another way to deal with it?

I may be wrong but... are you creating a straw man here?
Genuine question since the problem and (off)topic is the knowingly killing civilians to achieve a 'good kill', not what strategy is best.
Again, civilian lives should have priority.
Something tells me you would think differently when you would be among these civilians. Am I right?

Oh, and you are right: it isn't your war...yet.
If it will be my war some day, I say the same as I say now - stop to willingly kill civilians just to strike a target.

Wrong is wrong.
Nothing to do with moral superiority, just with being a human being with morals at all.

Also, why is it just about the IS all the sudden?
The drone strike problem I'm referring to has nothing to do with IS since it goes way back.
What happened to 15 years of AQA and AQI?
Gone and forgotten? :hmmm:


If ISIL and the rest are not stopped, you may have a rather uncomfortable problem with also those middle eastern Muslim refugees entering your country and the Muslim extremists who will use the refugees as a cover for their activities. But, of course, you'll subdue them, their bombings, beheadings and such with your sparkling rhetoric...
Hardly, I am not that rhetoric, but thank you.
"If" they do this or that, we will see.
Remember, I never said it is wrong to fight them, I said treating foreign civilians as expendable is.
Remember also that I asked you why kicking their doors in with US ground forces is not an option,
I'm still waiting for your answer on that and I think I have given answers to your questions now, did I?

Good luck to you and remember, the vile US has sworn to help you, not that you seem to need it by you account...
The vile US have sworn to help me only because it helps them.
You are a smart person, you know that countries don't have friends, only interests.
Let's not act as if our countries are best friends forever. Politicians and lobbies rule both our countries, ruining them in the long run (I think), so don't be so hurt over me not giving a damn about the 'selfless act of comradeship' from the US. It is all a farce anyways - unfortunately!

But it's a vast improvement over dropping a Hellfire into a marketplace or a wedding. :yep:
Indeed!
Thing is, a Hellfire or GBU is totally fine - if not dropped voluntarily on civilians.

It is beyond me how, apparently, so many people don't give a flying jack about this. I'm probably too much of a liberal... or was it communist... marxist maybe?
Wait, I'm German, must be a Nazi then. Or just a tree-hugger afterall for caring about people? All of it maybe? Sissy, softy, ...Mangina?

In the end I don't care what I might be labelled, I don't need to be afraid of not being able to look in the mirror anymore because I'm OK with murdering people.
(Not directed towards you vienna.)

Addendum:
sometimes the next time they are seen is the only chance you may have to eliminate them...
Too bad for Fatma and her kids in the yard next to the target building then... :yeah:

[Oberon]

That's the main problem with any of the practical solutions and alternatives. There is always the possibility of a change to a situation between the time a trigger is pulled and when the munition reaches the location of its intended target...

As far as popping the bad guys when they come up for air, the really bad guys are smart enough to fly low and avoid the radar while engineering the activities of their lesser brethren. Remember, Bin Laden stayed indoors out of sight for several years, making it unlikely if not impossible to take an airborne "sniper shot". The same holds true for all the other senior leaders and planners in the Jihad; they stay well out of sight; sometimes the next time they are seen is the only chance you may have to eliminate them...


<O>

Aye, it's not a perfect answer, and it's going to take a lot of refining but I think that it's going to help a lot in terms of collateral reduction which is, I think, a goal that we should strive towards because it will help reduce the likelihood of radicalisation of the victims relations and/or friends.
At some point we're going to be looking at guided munitions too which will help with the changing situation, guiding the bullet to the target, it might also help with reducing the chance of the bullet going through the target as you could order the bullet to self-destruct when it has hit the target.
In regards to buildings, that's a lot harder, although as we get smaller drones you've got the possibility of shooting through windows, getting camera drones inside and then shooting high powered rifle bullets through the walls. But that's stuff that's going to be more 20 or 30 years down the line...but then again, this war isn't going away any time soon. :hmm2:

[Oberon]

It is beyond me how, apparently, so many people don't give a flying jack about this. I'm probably too much of a liberal... or was it communist... marxist maybe?
Wait, I'm German, must be a Nazi then. Or just a tree-hugger afterall for caring about people? All of it maybe? Sissy, softy, ...Mangina?

East German Communist work for you? We can get you your Honnecker poster in the mail soon?

The thing that hit me the hardest in regards to drone warfare was the realisation that children in those areas fear sunny days, that they hope for cloud and for rain because that's when the drones can't fly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K4NRJoCNHIs#t=674

These are the children who grow up to hate America and then join organisations like Daesh. It's...honestly, I don't know, because I believe that drone warfare is the future, but equally I believe that all countries should focus on removing civilians from the line of fire as much as possible, obviously the likes of Daesh disagree with this and will exploit such a morality as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level and stop trying.
I can only hope that ARSS helps reduce the amount of Hellfire and GBU usage in crowded civilian areas, but I doubt it will eliminate civilian casualties. I don't think anything will do that.

[Nippelspanner]

East German Communist work for you? We can get you your Honnecker poster in the mail soon?
But... I'm a Northerner! :)

Regarding drones... yeah I've seen that and other videos like it. :-?
Probably just left-wing propaganda... :shifty:

[Oberon]

But... I'm a Northerner! :)

You're....you're a Bielefelder aren't you?! :o:o:o

[Nippelspanner]

You're....you're a Bielefelder aren't you?! :o:o:o
Don't be silly, Bielefeld doesn't even exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy), everyone knows that, ja!

[Oberon]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/82/ea/fe82eac7766eff1bdf64b11c5d27e293.jpg


Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand. It is a very tough thing, because we are facing an enemy who knows our strategy, who knows to hide by schools and public places. It's a difficult thing to fight against, especially when you've spent fifty years teaching your military to fight the Soviet Union. If only Daesh would just convert to Operational Maneuver Groups and try a mechanised assault with T-72s and BMPs then it would make things a lot easier. :/\\!!
Still, at least we are making the effort to avoid civilian casualties, I mean if we weren't then the B-52s would be doing Arc Lights on any town that Daesh captured. Our enemy, on the other hand.... :nope:

[Torplexed]

One of the more perverse aspects of war is that trying to keep the moral high ground and fight conventionally "soldier-to-soldier" has it's own price too. Maybe not as expensive as descending into utter depravity, but certainly not cheap. Restraining from using a possibly effective weapon, but with a really bad reputation can be a thankless, forgotten proposition.

For example early in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced that the U.S. would only use poison gas in retaliation for first use by the Axis powers.

However, due to the increasing cost of causalities in the amphibious assault landings, and cave-to-cave fighting in the Pacific from the fall of 1943 to the end of 1944, as well as the relatively small size, isolated location and lack of civilian population on the island of Iwo Jima, senior officers up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a proposal for the preemptive use of poison gas against the Japanese garrison. This proposal reached President Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief.

He promptly vetoed it.

So, instead of being cleanly exterminated by gas, the Japanese were messily exterminated out of their caves and pillboxes in Iwo Jima by flamethrowers, gasoline hoses and demo charges. The Marine casualties were severe. More than 75,000 Americans fought at Iwo Jima. Almost 7,000 were killed and more than 24,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison was virtually wiped out as it probably would have been if gas was used. But at least they got the honor of facing their foe.

So, at that cost in combatant lives I suppose the US got to hold on to the moral high ground and avoid the moniker of being that bad boy nation that took the easy way out and was the first to resort to the use of chemical weapons in WW2. The same moniker we have for being the first to use atomic weapons. The chemical genie was kept in the bottle. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be many platitudes for Roosevelt from any relatives of those who fell, if they knew an alternative had been considered.

[vienna]

One of the more perverse aspects of war is that trying to keep the moral high ground and fight conventionally "soldier-to-soldier" has it's own price too. Maybe not as expensive as descending into utter depravity, but certainly not cheap. Restraining from using a possibly effective weapon, but with a really bad reputation can be a thankless, forgotten proposition.

For example early in the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt officially announced that the U.S. would only use poison gas in retaliation for first use by the Axis powers.

However, due to the increasing cost of causalities in the amphibious assault landings, and cave-to-cave fighting in the Pacific from the fall of 1943 to the end of 1944, as well as the relatively small size, isolated location and lack of civilian population on the island of Iwo Jima, senior officers up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a proposal for the preemptive use of poison gas against the Japanese garrison. This proposal reached President Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief.

He promptly vetoed it.

So, instead of being cleanly exterminated by gas, the Japanese were messily exterminated out of their caves and pillboxes in Iwo Jima by flamethrowers, gasoline hoses and demo charges. The Marine casualties were severe. More than 75,000 Americans fought at Iwo Jima. Almost 7,000 were killed and more than 24,000 wounded. The Japanese garrison was virtually wiped out as it probably would have been if gas was used. But at least they got the honor of facing their foe.

So, at that cost in combatant lives I suppose the US got to hold on to the moral high ground and avoid the moniker of being that bad boy nation that took the easy way out and was the first to resort to the use of chemical weapons in WW2. The same moniker we have for being the first to use atomic weapons. The chemical genie was kept in the bottle. Something tells me though that there wouldn't be many platitudes for Roosevelt from any relatives of those who fell, if they knew an alternative had been considered.

Well put... :up:


<O>

[August]

I doubt it will eliminate civilian casualties. I don't think anything will do that.

Agree. Unfortunately with 7 billion souls now on this planet and growing it's going to become more and more difficult.