I missing something right now? How come this isn't huge news all over? I'd have thought the locals would at least turn but they're all to busy with premiers I guess.
What is the ISIS response to this?
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
What is the ISIS response to this?
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They're less terrorists than insurgents. Yeah they have suicide bombers at their disposal. Like the Iraq and Afghan insurgents they use suicide bombers at a tactical level, to create breaches in perimeters and things like that. Their 'power' really comes from the fact that they have guys willing to stand and fight against armies that don't. Thanks to early gains and their financial resources they are usually facing guys with similar equipment and a lot less to fight for. We don't have that problem, our soldiers don't flee, our air power sure as hell doesn't, so unless they figure out how to project power through "conventional" terrorism they will struggle to respond.
There's not much reason to believe that ISIS can do something spectacular in scope here on U.S. soil.
You can't rule out the lone-wolf psychos, of course. And that shouldn't be disregarded entirely. But it's unlikely those types are capable of anything large-scale.
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
Plenty of peeps from deficit hawks, plenty of qualms expressed. But because in broad and general terms most of them (not all of them) believe this is important enough and dangerous enough to justify intervention expressing a qualm is not the same as saying it shouldn't happen. War is happening whether we like it or not, the issue is whether or not we participate.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
It's the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Problematic, to be sure, but when one state's inability to control its territory is undermining the security of neighbor states "sovereignty" can become an excuse for inaction. And while the bulk of our drone strikes have probably been with at least the tacit consent of those states presumably some have not been.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
I think ISIS actually forced at least the timing of the action
There were reports on the news earlier in the evening of masses of refugees reaching the border with Turkey forced out of their villages by recent ISIS offensives. The numbers were reportedly over 100,000. You were almost getting a Yazidi situation.
At the same time while admitting some of the refugees, the Turks were stopping Kurds at the border trying to get into Syria to fight ISIS. Curious, given their indifference to foreign fighters crossing to join ISIS over the last few years.
A very tangled web of motivations and strategies I'm still trying to work through. At least Obama got some Arab and Sunni states in on the action.
I'm sure the missiles are only going to harm the bad guys.
This is a flawed strategy, and will harm the citizens of Syria and Iraq, while doing little to damage ISIS. At some point we will learn to let other countries fight their own civil wars.
What does the other side do to fight back this war?
More hideous you-tube videos? Attack us on the homeland?
What kind of war posses no threat to one side?
We also hit a big Al Qaeda group who was planning a US
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
These guys need to be put down, so I'm okay with this
soil attack. We thought by making it seem like all focus was on ISIS that we could surprise them.
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
The actions against the so-called Khorasan Group are definitely more important, at least in the short-term, from a homeland security point of view. I had never heard of these guys before last night.
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
Not so fast.Bear in mind it is the Syrians, and them alone, to the best of my knowledge, who claim we gave them advance warning. The administration on the other hand denied giving advanced warning.
Near as I can gather we notified the Syrian ambassador to the U.N. mere moments before missiles and bombs struck targets.That way they can claim they were consulted, and not look like the bitches they desperately want to avoid looking like ( remember it is Syria who is pressing the claim we gave them advance warning). At the same time we didn't give the Syrians long enough to warn anyone, including Jihadists they don't mind having around because they are at war with The Free Syrian army and have basically deballed an non radical insurgents.ISIS and Assad's regime have a tacit understanding, common in the Arab world, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."In no way did the U.S. want to give advance notice and have the Syrian govt' potentially either interfere with the attacks or warn potential targets.
They may have technically notified an ambassador out of country after missiles were launched and before they struck targets, but they did not ask or receive permission.
if you think Assad gave permission for the U.S., SA, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE etc. to strike targets in Syria you're nuts.We didn't ask, we just did it.
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Come on, what "October Surprise" would change the electoral landscape? If Osama were still alive, catching him might qualify, but I din't see anything that could come out of this that would have the same impact, but the tin foil hat does look good on you.
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Meanwhile, Jordan is running out of space and resources for Syrian Refuges, and ISIS was threatening to take more and more territory.
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
most of the reading I did on the country is a decade old or older so I'm not particularly qualified to give an opinion, but to the extent that I understand it you have a leader in Erdogan who certainly wants to take the country in a more religiously conservative direction but who still fears extremism and who is ever mindful of the status of religious and ethnic minorities in the East. Turkey's take on what the right play is in this situation seems to be in flux and really hasn't been cognizable for several months.
I could tell you stories about how they were handled during the gulf wars and we looked the other way knowing exactly what they were doings. Kurds are a pretty badass group of people that hopefully someday get their own defined country and borders.
We had to have Arab countries involved in this. This is a muslim war. It has to be more of a civil war within Muslim then a western driven USA cowboy movie. Very happy with how we are going about this.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
[You mean the same moderates rebels who captured journalist Steven Sotloff and then sold hime to ISIS ? yes we definitely should be arming them!]
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
[Yes it is truly baffling why Turkey isn't helping the Kurds more.. I mean there are only 25 milllion Kurds in Turkey who have been fighting a guerrilla war for independence from Turkey for the last 20 years ]
why would Turkey want to prevent Kurds from fighting in Syria when the that, and ISIS's decision to go after the Kurds as opposed to Assad (no friend of Erdogan) produces a wave of predominantly Kurdish refugees entering Turkey? Short term it makes absolutely no sense. And even long term I don't see a benefit to Turkey of having a large population of refugee Kurds within it's borders. Once there, I don't see them sending them back to an ISIS controlled state for what would likely be a genocide.
Link - ( New Window )
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They are terrorists, what new terror will they unleash in response to this action?
Might be to scary to fathom if what we read about their reach is accurate
They're less terrorists than insurgents. Yeah they have suicide bombers at their disposal. Like the Iraq and Afghan insurgents they use suicide bombers at a tactical level, to create breaches in perimeters and things like that. Their 'power' really comes from the fact that they have guys willing to stand and fight against armies that don't. Thanks to early gains and their financial resources they are usually facing guys with similar equipment and a lot less to fight for. We don't have that problem, our soldiers don't flee, our air power sure as hell doesn't, so unless they figure out how to project power through "conventional" terrorism they will struggle to respond.
You can't rule out the lone-wolf psychos, of course. And that shouldn't be disregarded entirely. But it's unlikely those types are capable of anything large-scale.
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
evidently this war will be for free as well since nary a peep from the deficit hawks
Plenty of peeps from deficit hawks, plenty of qualms expressed. But because in broad and general terms most of them (not all of them) believe this is important enough and dangerous enough to justify intervention expressing a qualm is not the same as saying it shouldn't happen. War is happening whether we like it or not, the issue is whether or not we participate.
It's the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Problematic, to be sure, but when one state's inability to control its territory is undermining the security of neighbor states "sovereignty" can become an excuse for inaction. And while the bulk of our drone strikes have probably been with at least the tacit consent of those states presumably some have not been.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
At the same time while admitting some of the refugees, the Turks were stopping Kurds at the border trying to get into Syria to fight ISIS. Curious, given their indifference to foreign fighters crossing to join ISIS over the last few years.
A very tangled web of motivations and strategies I'm still trying to work through. At least Obama got some Arab and Sunni states in on the action.
Who am I kidding, no, we'll never learn.
http://www.newsweek.com/etymology-islamic-state-270752 - ( New Window )
More hideous you-tube videos? Attack us on the homeland?
What kind of war posses no threat to one side?
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Bombing inside a sovereign country would seem to have legal implications.
As scary as ISIS is, Al Qaeda needing to make a "statement" to try and get their power back is very concerning.
The actions against the so-called Khorasan Group are definitely more important, at least in the short-term, from a homeland security point of view. I had never heard of these guys before last night.
Quote:
inside a sovereign state without the consent of that state, I presume. This should go over real well.
Also we told Syria we were going to do this. Presumably they're on board since ISIL is an enemy of theirs.
If a year ago you told me we were bombing Syria... and Assad would approve I would have thought you were nuts. These things are so complex and it's why the Mccains of the word look like buffoons when they sing for bombs without really know what the fuck is going on.
Near as I can gather we notified the Syrian ambassador to the U.N. mere moments before missiles and bombs struck targets.That way they can claim they were consulted, and not look like the bitches they desperately want to avoid looking like ( remember it is Syria who is pressing the claim we gave them advance warning). At the same time we didn't give the Syrians long enough to warn anyone, including Jihadists they don't mind having around because they are at war with The Free Syrian army and have basically deballed an non radical insurgents.ISIS and Assad's regime have a tacit understanding, common in the Arab world, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."In no way did the U.S. want to give advance notice and have the Syrian govt' potentially either interfere with the attacks or warn potential targets.
They may have technically notified an ambassador out of country after missiles were launched and before they struck targets, but they did not ask or receive permission.
if you think Assad gave permission for the U.S., SA, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE etc. to strike targets in Syria you're nuts.We didn't ask, we just did it.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Quote:
ISIS is a player in 2 ongoing civil wars. I don't see any benefit getting involved. We will undoubtedly harm innocent people and only engender more anti-American feelings in those states.
THAT will have as much an impact on potential terrorist attacks domestically as ISIS will.
Maybe somebody needed an October suprise to help with elections upcoming and a poor showing for their party in polls on national security issues.Always goes over good with the boys.
There is your benefit.
speaking of which......
Speeches and a crackdown on a male dominated sport over domestic violence can't hurt with women voters either, can it?
Now I understand why youre so popular here
And certain wackos in the Republican party want a full-blown shooting war. But that isn't politics, I guess.
A case can be made that we should have armed the so-called moderate rebels much earlier. Another case can be made that we needed to get critical mass of support from other nations in the neighborhood. Many experts of all stripes are actually surprised at how many Arab countries are participating. The one we need much more help from is Turkey, because of their porous common border and greater military strength than many of the other players--among many other reasons.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
Erdogan is resistant, in part because of the Kurds, in part because of his quasi-extremist views on Islam. But, he will be dragged in eventually, I suspect.
1. A case could also be made that if the "moderates" had been armed earlier that the critical mass would not have been needed. Now that it's needed and there, particularly the fact it's Sunni, it's a positive.
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
We had to have Arab countries involved in this. This is a muslim war. It has to be more of a civil war within Muslim then a western driven USA cowboy movie. Very happy with how we are going about this.
[You mean the same moderates rebels who captured journalist Steven Sotloff and then sold hime to ISIS ? yes we definitely should be arming them!]
2. Turkey is the mystery to me. As opposed to Jordan, which does have a massive refugee problem, the latest wave of refugees was headed to Turkey. But as I said above, yesterday Turkey was preventing Kurds from crossing into Syria to fight ISIS with much more zeal than it has been preventing foreign fighters from crossing to join ISIS. I realize that they may have been constrained by the 42 diplomatic hostages held until last weekend, but the extreme nature of their policies surprise me.
[Yes it is truly baffling why Turkey isn't helping the Kurds more.. I mean there are only 25 milllion Kurds in Turkey who have been fighting a guerrilla war for independence from Turkey for the last 20 years ]