Obama deposits two 2,000lb. bombs in ISIS bank

[chucky2]

Did you miss the posts on this entire page? Plenty are talking about the casualties.

Oh no, didn't miss them at all, nor the lack of hysteria that would be here if this were done during the Bush years. You were basically the only person to raise potential issue with Civ casualties. I'm not sure what you mean by posts (that's plural), or by plenty.

 

[Darwin333]

Its called total war, ever since WW2 that has been a thing you know.

The man has a point. If civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy a "soft target" there then why would it be any different here versus something like a suicide bomber? Is it simply the delivery method that makes one ok and the other not? What if they put a bomb in a backpack and leave it at an airport, is that an acceptable war practice?

 

[Bowfinger]

The man has a point. If civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy a "soft target" there then why would it be any different here versus something like a suicide bomber? Is it simply the delivery method that makes one ok and the other not? What if they put a bomb in a backpack and leave it at an airport, is that an acceptable war practice?

For me the difference is whether the target is a legitimate military target. ISIS money is a legitimate target. Random civilians are not.

 

[werepossum]

The man has a point. If civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy a "soft target" there then why would it be any different here versus something like a suicide bomber? Is it simply the delivery method that makes one ok and the other not? What if they put a bomb in a backpack and leave it at an airport, is that an acceptable war practice?

The difference is whether civilians are targeted or simply collateral damage. If civilian casualties are never acceptable, then the first nation willing to tie children over its tanks and drop its bombs from airliners rules the world.

 

[ivwshane]

The man has a point. If civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy a "soft target" there then why would it be any different here versus something like a suicide bomber? Is it simply the delivery method that makes one ok and the other not? What if they put a bomb in a backpack and leave it at an airport, is that an acceptable war practice?

I'd say in war, anything and everything is an option. We didn't defeat the British by playing by their rules so why would we have that expectation for any underdog fighting us?

 

[bshole]

I'd say in war, anything and everything is an option. We didn't defeat the British by playing by their rules so why would we have that expectation for any underdog fighting us?

Well in that case, why don't we carpet bomb Syria and Iraq, and kill every thing. Problem solved. No need to worry about ethics, morals and all that rot. Might makes right.

Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire fucking Middle East. Everything is on the table. Since apparently our own self-interest are no longer required to justify our actions..... simply our ability to do what we want against 3rd world nations is justification enough, we might as well go whole hog.

For fucks sake, where in the hell are the pacifists?

 

[bshole]

In other news, ISIS has completely obliterated Iraq's oldest Christian monastery. Not that I give a shit, but this will certainly whip up the neo-cons into a frothy fury.

Time to get completely out of the Middle East....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-christian-monastery-satellite-images-confirm

 

[davmat787]

For fucks sake, where in the hell are the pacifists?

Ironically, ISIS killed all of them.

 

[Darwin333]

For me the difference is whether the target is a legitimate military target. ISIS money is a legitimate target. Random civilians are not.

The intended effect, economic harm, is the same though.

 

[Darwin333]

The difference is whether civilians are targeted or simply collateral damage. If civilian casualties are never acceptable, then the first nation willing to tie children over its tanks and drop its bombs from airliners rules the world.

Tanks and other actual .mil targets are not soft targets though, a bank is. At the end of the day both have the same effects and desired outcome, civilian causalities (effect) and economic damage (desired outcome).

At the end of the day we were going after money and money alone. We had decided beforehand that up to 50 innocent civilian casualties was acceptable so we quite literally put a price on what a civilian life is worth in actual dollar figures. If we can put a price on civilian casualties then why is it so horrendous when someone else does the same to us?

Make no mistake, I am not arguing in favor of terrorism. I am arguing against our tactics and putting a price on innocent civilians deaths. What do you figure YOUR child or brother or mothers life is worth? If we could take out $50K of ISIS money would one of their deaths be acceptable to any of you? How about $100K, would it be all fine and gravy then? How about a million dollars, is that enough for your child to be blown to bits?

 

[shira]

Good move on the bomb drop. As to the partisan hackery, I rather doubt that Obama personally sanctioned this particular bomb drop, but was informed of it after. Not a put-down on Obama, so don't freak out boys. Just stating what most likely happened. Doing what they did is a great move and hope it continues.

/thumbs up

He may not have had fore-knowledge of this particular strike, but I'm sure he signed off on the overall strategy of focusing attacks on the financial resources of ISIS, and factoring into the decision for each specific target a calculation as to whether the estimated number of civilian casualties is acceptable.

 

[ivwshane]

Well in that case, why don't we carpet bomb Syria and Iraq, and kill every thing. Problem solved. No need to worry about ethics, morals and all that rot. Might makes right.

Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire fucking Middle East. Everything is on the table. Since apparently our own self-interest are no longer required to justify our actions..... simply our ability to do what we want against 3rd world nations is justification enough, we might as well go whole hog.

For fucks sake, where in the hell are the pacifists?

Because that doesn't work either. Just in case you hadn't noticed but ISIS inspired attacks happen pretty much everywhere and by citizens of those countries. Any sort of attack like the one you've described would only add fuel to the fire and make ISIS's cause that much more valid to its supporters. It's precisely why we negotiated with Iran, it's why we don't simply storm the federal building the fake Patriots in Oregon have taken over. You don't kill an ideology with weapons.

I'm not a pacifist or a war hawk, I'm just not an idiot and am capable of understanding the human mind based on observable reality and history.

 

[chucky2]

Well in that case, why don't we carpet bomb Syria and Iraq, and kill every thing. Problem solved. No need to worry about ethics, morals and all that rot. Might makes right.

Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire fucking Middle East. Everything is on the table. Since apparently our own self-interest are no longer required to justify our actions..... simply our ability to do what we want against 3rd world nations is justification enough, we might as well go whole hog.

For fucks sake, where in the hell are the pacifists?

Oh they're around, they're in Trump threads and Gun Grabber threads. Where they're not is anywhere else wailing about the evil Bummer&Co disintegrating brown civilians. You'll notice in public just how little whining and wailing is happening now that Bummer is running things. I mean, can you imagine if this had happened when Bush was running things? Holy F*ck, it'd be 24x7 'Bush doens't care about brown people', 'Bush touched me inappropriately through the TV', '<insert bold, italic, and emoticons>' etc. etc. etc.

 

[Tylanner]

I think this may call for another Nobel Peace Prize for my man!

 

[woolfe9998]

Tanks and other actual .mil targets are not soft targets though, a bank is. At the end of the day both have the same effects and desired outcome, civilian causalities (effect) and economic damage (desired outcome).

At the end of the day we were going after money and money alone. We had decided beforehand that up to 50 innocent civilian casualties was acceptable so we quite literally put a price on what a civilian life is worth in actual dollar figures. If we can put a price on civilian casualties then why is it so horrendous when someone else does the same to us?

Make no mistake, I am not arguing in favor of terrorism. I am arguing against our tactics and putting a price on innocent civilians deaths. What do you figure YOUR child or brother or mothers life is worth? If we could take out $50K of ISIS money would one of their deaths be acceptable to any of you? How about $100K, would it be all fine and gravy then? How about a million dollars, is that enough for your child to be blown to bits?

So your position is that we should have zero tolerance for civilian casualties no matter how valuable the target? At some level, there is always a calculus of the type you describe. If you don't think using our air power against ISIS is a good idea, then we should pull out entirely. However, you don't fight a war against an enemy whose resources, manpower and otherwise, are interspersed throughout civilian populations and expect zero civilian casualties. I can understand the argument to pull out entirely better than the one you're making. Then again, perhaps I am mistaken about what you're really arguing for.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh no, didn't miss them at all, nor the lack of hysteria that would be here if this were done during the Bush years. You were basically the only person to raise potential issue with Civ casualties. I'm not sure what you mean by posts (that's plural), or by plenty.

The irony is palpable here. This is a demonstration of how it is possible to be a hypocrite in accusing others of hypocrisy. What about all the republicans who supported a war which cost of a trillion and countless lives all the sudden complaining about something like Libya which was 1% of the size and scope? Not only that, but Isis wouldn't be in power right now without Bush's war in Iraq.

It may be that there's some hypocrisy among certain people on the left here, but it is no less obvious on the right.

How about taking a break from the hypocrisy game and telling us what you actually think about this particular bombing. Politics aside, what do you think of it? Are you able to do that?

 

[chucky2]

The irony is palpable here. This is a demonstration of how it is possible to be a hypocrite in accusing others of hypocrisy. What about all the republicans who supported a war which cost of a trillion and countless lives all the sudden complaining about something like Libya which was 1% of the size and scope? Not only that, but Isis wouldn't be in power right now without Bush's war in Iraq.

It may be that there's some hypocrisy among certain people on the left here, but it is no less obvious on the right.

Doesn't matter what the Right opinion was, the absolute tirades from the Left during Bush were absolute and never ending, to the degree the BDS term was coined. Bummer gets elected, disintegrates brown people. If Lefties weren't hypocrites, they'd be spamming every news media outlet, neigh, the Media itself would be frothing on how yet more brown civilians were killed, we'd have a certain poster here pasting Macros worth of drivel spuriously applied to Reality, emojis, etc. etc. etc. I mean, where the f*ck is the Left now a days??? Have you realized that Bummer suckered you all yet and are lining up to elect Billary, or are you still in Hope and Changium land?

How about taking a break from the hypocrisy game and telling us what you actually think about this particular bombing. Politics aside, what do you think of it? Are you able to do that?

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I don't think we should have bombed it because I don't think we should be doing a thing about ISIS. Every country over there with a Mil can band together and go deal with ISIS. As you noted, we expended much blood and treasure giving the Iraqis a chance at self rule. They and they alone (along with their Muslim neighbors) are responsible for their destiny...if they choose ISIS (either directly because their views align or indirectly in that they are opposed but didn't do what it took to ensure their own Civ Gov beforehand and Mil afterwards, to speak nothing of themselves and their own action/inaction, could deal with the Civ issues/ISIS issue), then that is their bed to lie in.

The only thing that sucks about ISIS is their willingness to destroy historic sites...personally regardless of history I think they should be preserved.

But none of this has anything to do with the intentional quiet of the Left...

 

[Darwin333]

So your position is that we should have zero tolerance for civilian casualties no matter how valuable the target? At some level, there is always a calculus of the type you describe. If you don't think using our air power against ISIS is a good idea, then we should pull out entirely. However, you don't fight a war against an enemy whose resources, manpower and otherwise, are interspersed throughout civilian populations and expect zero civilian casualties. I can understand the argument to pull out entirely better than the one you're making. Then again, perhaps I am mistaken about what you're really arguing for.

Well frankly I do argue that we should pull out together.

The point I am trying to make above is how exactly does this make us different than our supposed sole goal which is to stop terrorism which uses the exact same tactics. Attack soft targets irrespective of civilian casualties in order to cause economic damage. If we can put a hard dollar figure in economic harm on civilian casualties and that is a perfectly acceptable tactic then if they do it to us do we really have the right to call it "horrendous"? Are we somehow better because we do it from 40,000 feet instead of on the ground like they do?

I posit that the tactics are almost exactly the same and have the same goals. If they were to blow up a few of our banks or airports tomorrow would our actions be morally superior than theirs somehow even though they would almost definitely get a higher price in economic damage versus innocent civilian killed?

Finally, to all the people that agree with this attack I would like to know a hard number of what a civilian casualty is worth in this type of attack on a soft target. Is it $50K per life? Maybe $100K per innocent civilian that we kill? Keep in mind that we found it acceptable to kill at least 50 innocent civilians in this attack even though the final tally was considerably less.

 

[chucky2]

No, the final tally was an estimated low number, they don't know.

 

[woolfe9998]

Doesn't matter what the Right opinion was, the absolute tirades from the Left during Bush were absolute and never ending, to the degree the BDS term was coined. Bummer gets elected, disintegrates brown people. If Lefties weren't hypocrites, they'd be spamming every news media outlet, neigh, the Media itself would be frothing on how yet more brown civilians were killed, we'd have a certain poster here pasting Macros worth of drivel spuriously applied to Reality, emojis, etc. etc. etc. I mean, where the f*ck is the Left now a days??? Have you realized that Bummer suckered you all yet and are lining up to elect Billary, or are you still in Hope and Changium land?

I don't think you can call every single use of the military as yea or nay. It depends on circumstances. It isn't being inconsistent or hypocritical to agree with one use of it and disagree with another. There are plenty of people who agreed with our involvement in WWII but not Vietnam. Yet both wars were started under democrats.

That said, I have no doubt that some people on the left are being hypocrits here. Just as some people on the right have been hypocrites in a way that almost precisely mirrors it.

For myself, I didn't agree with the Iraq war because there were no WMD's and Hussein's regime was far and away not the worst case scenario for that area of the world. ISIS OTOH is much more dangerous than Hussein in myriad ways, and I also think we bear a degree of responsibility for the fact that they even exist. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning on either of these, but it has nothing to do with hypocrisy on my part. I supported the Gulf War, started by a republican, and disagreed with Vietnam.

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I don't think we should have bombed it because I don't think we should be doing a thing about ISIS. Every country over there with a Mil can band together and go deal with ISIS. As you noted, we expended much blood and treasure giving the Iraqis a chance at self rule. They and they alone (along with their Muslim neighbors) are responsible for their destiny...if they choose ISIS (either directly because their views align or indirectly in that they are opposed but didn't do what it took to ensure their own Civ Gov beforehand and Mil afterwards, to speak nothing of themselves and their own action/inaction, could deal with the Civ issues/ISIS issue), then that is their bed to lie in.

While I don't agree with you, at least you are taking a stand here instead of just throwing stones at others.

The only thing that sucks about ISIS is their willingness to destroy historic sites...personally regardless of history I think they should be preserved.

There's a lot more that sucks about ISIS than just that. Much more.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think you can call every single use of the military as yea or nay. It depends on circumstances. It isn't being inconsistent or hypocritical to agree with one use of it and disagree with another. There are plenty of people who agreed with our involvement in WWII but not Vietnam. Yet both wars were started under democrats.

That said, I have no doubt that some people on the left are being hypocrits here. Just as some people on the right have been hypocrites in a way that almost precisely mirrors it.

Oh, as we saw during the Bush years of the Iraq and to lessor extent Afghanistan wars, every Civ casualty news story was a perfect example of the evil criminal cabal of War Criminals :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: Maybe you weren't here for those days, but we literally had threads that had absolutely nothing to do with the the WoT, or Bush, and we still had Lefty posters here - mod sanctioned (sometimes it was a mod actually doing the trolling) - shitting up threads with their BDS. Generally I'm in P&N for entertainment value (Moonbat theories, Proggie idiocy, Nick Nick'ing, etc.) but occasionally there is a thread that has some valid interest and it's nice when it's not sidetracked. I'm of course just returning the favor, but instead of sidetracking it, just pointing out the total non-concern hypocrisy of these same BDS'rs. I mean, just where are they all??? Brown people are being disintegrated, you'd think they'd be going batshit in this thread, amirite?

For myself, I didn't agree with the Iraq war because there were no WMD's and Hussein's regime was far and away not the worst case scenario for that area of the world.

I was, am still am, fine with the Iraq war, at least the going into Iraq. Unlike so many people, I understood it was for many (valid) reasons in a post 9/11 world, however, that was/is contingent on a.) not letting up or taking away any resources at all in Afghanistan and b.) doing Iraq properly. We failed on both accounts, and that is on 1.) Bush and his Executive, 2.) the Mil Leadership, and to a lessor extent but still accountable 3.) Congress. All three of these actors failed to properly execute either of these missions, which given their importance is inexcusable, and especially inexcusable given the yearly expense of our Mil and the population size of our country.

ISIS OTOH is much more dangerous than Hussein in myriad ways, and I also think we bear a degree of responsibility for the fact that they even exist. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning on either of these, but it has nothing to do with hypocrisy on my part. I supported the Gulf War, started by a republican, and disagreed with Vietnam.

While I don't agree with you, at least you are taking a stand here instead of just throwing stones at others.

ISIS is playing basically over there, which makes it their problem. They could have headed off ISIS by not F'ing themselves up in Iraq when were there, but they couldn't bring themselves to do that. No, they had to kill Americans there to help them, and each other, dig in their heels and not take advantage of historic help being offered to them. Welp, their own actions/inactions with some help from that Nobel Peace Prize winning Bummer have created ISIS, and it's biting them right in the @ss. We should directly be publically telling them this, so they can't run from the truth of their decisions, and letting them either live with the problem they created, or expend their shit fixing it. Either way it'll be a learning lesson for them, and if anything is true in the ME, it's those F's need about 1000 years of history. The Arab Excuses need to stop and Arab Accountability needs to happen. Until that does, enjoy groups like ISIS, because they've always had them while they do things their way...

There's a lot more that sucks about ISIS than just that. Much more.

Sure, don't disagree at all. But since they've always had ISIS's running around there, who cares? Arabs kill Arabs? Water is wet? The only thing that affects us is, if you can even visit them (but just having them exist unharmed is good enough), are the historic sites.

 

[michal1980]

In other news, ISIS has completely obliterated Iraq's oldest Christian monastery. Not that I give a shit, but this will certainly whip up the neo-cons into a frothy fury.

Time to get completely out of the Middle East....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-christian-monastery-satellite-images-confirm

of course a good liberal doesn't care something Christian got destroyed by their Muslim brothers.

Its only an outrage if a Christian destroys something Muslim. Then those Christians are intolerant bigots.

 

[dank69]

Oh, as we saw during the Bush years of the Iraq and to lessor extent Afghanistan wars, every Civ casualty news story was a perfect example of the evil criminal cabal of War Criminals :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: Maybe you weren't here for those days, but we literally had threads that had absolutely nothing to do with the the WoT, or Bush, and we still had Lefty posters here - mod sanctioned (sometimes it was a mod actually doing the trolling) - shitting up threads with their BDS. Generally I'm in P&N for entertainment value (Moonbat theories, Proggie idiocy, Nick Nick'ing, etc.) but occasionally there is a thread that has some valid interest and it's nice when it's not sidetracked. I'm of course just returning the favor, but instead of sidetracking it, just pointing out the total non-concern hypocrisy of these same BDS'rs. I mean, just where are they all??? Brown people are being disintegrated, you'd think they'd be going batshit in this thread, amirite?



...

So you can't tell the difference between civ. casualties in the persuit of legitimate goals vs. civ. casualties resulting from a war based entirely on lies? I am shocked, shocked, that you can't understand the difference. You're too busy trying to "get even" to bother fully analyzing the situation first.

 

[chucky2]

So you can't tell the difference between civ. casualties in the persuit of legitimate goals vs. civ. casualties resulting from a war based entirely on lies?

Pursuit of legitimate goals? Hahaha, what goals? "Defeat" ISIS? Not have Putin show Bummer up? You think hitting that bank is going to set back ISIS? LOL alrighty. Your point here seems to be, Lefties are good with disintegrating brown people in an act to help them long term, vs. Lefties are not OK with disintegrating brown people in an act (Iraq liberation followed by the historic opportunity they blew so they could kill each other and US) to help them long term. Whether the Iraq war was based on lies or not is a straw man argument - it literally has nothing to do with disintegrated brown people vs disintegrated brown people. Face it: You're OK with Bummer disintegrated brown kids and turning them into pink mist. All so he can look like he's doing something with ISIS and can show Putin, Yes, look Russian Bear, I can get us to do cool shit too. Congrats, Mission Accomplished! :thumbsup:

I am shocked, shocked, that you can't understand the difference. You're too busy trying to "get even" to bother fully analyzing the situation first.

There is no difference. One action is to defeat a group invading established territory and killing innocent people. The other was an entire country worth of individual actions undertaken to defeat a group(s) invading established territory and killing innocent people. The only difference is the scope. I'd say I'm shocked, shocked that you can't understand the difference, but that'd honestly be a lie. We both know you know the difference, which is why you Lefties are little partisan hypocrites: You're absolutely Lefty shaking your heads up and down agreeing with each other fine when Bummer is disintegrating brown people, but aghast and completely batshit frothing at the mouth demonstrating in the streets when Bush does it. You're fooling absolutely no one.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh, as we saw during the Bush years of the Iraq and to lessor extent Afghanistan wars, every Civ casualty news story was a perfect example of the evil criminal cabal of War Criminals :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: Maybe you weren't here for those days, but we literally had threads that had absolutely nothing to do with the the WoT, or Bush, and we still had Lefty posters here - mod sanctioned (sometimes it was a mod actually doing the trolling) - shitting up threads with their BDS. Generally I'm in P&N for entertainment value (Moonbat theories, Proggie idiocy, Nick Nick'ing, etc.) but occasionally there is a thread that has some valid interest and it's nice when it's not sidetracked. I'm of course just returning the favor, but instead of sidetracking it, just pointing out the total non-concern hypocrisy of these same BDS'rs. I mean, just where are they all??? Brown people are being disintegrated, you'd think they'd be going batshit in this thread, amirite?

Yeah, I remember Harvey with his cut and pastes. And others who made these points. It may surprise you if you don't read mainstream press that liberals have been criticizing Obama for killing too many civilians in drone strikes, targeted assassinations, etc. Example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=2

That is Jimmy Carter's editorial in the NYT.

More? How about the decidely left wing Human Rights Watch complaining that Obama is not honoring his own policies by killing civilians with drone strikes.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/19/us-yemen-drone-strike-may-violate-obama-policy

I would agree that the criticisms were more shrill during the Bush years. Then again, we were also killing more people during those years. We did, after all, have a ground force in two Islamic countries.

I was, am still am, fine with the Iraq war, at least the going into Iraq. Unlike so many people, I understood it was for many (valid) reasons in a post 9/11 world, however, that was/is contingent on a.) not letting up or taking away any resources at all in Afghanistan and b.) doing Iraq properly. We failed on both accounts, and that is on 1.) Bush and his Executive, 2.) the Mil Leadership, and to a lessor extent but still accountable 3.) Congress. All three of these actors failed to properly execute either of these missions, which given their importance is inexcusable, and especially inexcusable given the yearly expense of our Mil and the population size of our country.

We certainly agree on the second part of this, that the execution was botched. May have been botched even worse in Afghanistan than Iraq.

ISIS is playing basically over there, which makes it their problem. They could have headed off ISIS by not F'ing themselves up in Iraq when were there, but they couldn't bring themselves to do that. No, they had to kill Americans there to help them, and each other, dig in their heels and not take advantage of historic help being offered to them. Welp, their own actions/inactions with some help from that Nobel Peace Prize winning Bummer have created ISIS, and it's biting them right in the @ss. We should directly be publically telling them this, so they can't run from the truth of their decisions, and letting them either live with the problem they created, or expend their shit fixing it. Either way it'll be a learning lesson for them, and if anything is true in the ME, it's those F's need about 1000 years of history. The Arab Excuses need to stop and Arab Accountability needs to happen. Until that does, enjoy groups like ISIS, because they've always had them while they do things their way...



Sure, don't disagree at all. But since they've always had ISIS's running around there, who cares? Arabs kill Arabs? Water is wet? The only thing that affects us is, if you can even visit them (but just having them exist unharmed is good enough), are the historic sites.

So you think it doesn't impact the security of the US and its western allies to have the most militant jihadist group in the world control an entire state with billions in resources? Really? I recall when everyone was so concerned about "state sponsored terrorism." Now we have a terrorist group which IS a state. The group, BTW, wants to continue attacking the west because it believes that this will provoke the US to invade and Allah will then intervene and vanquish the infidels. Which means that if we stop bombing them, they aren't going to stop attacking us. We will see many more like Paris if they are allowed to persist for as long as it takes the Arabs and Kurds to topple them. They will attack us until either a) their apocalyptic vision actually happens, or b) they are annihilated. Since I think b is a little more likely to actually happen, I'd rather not just sit and wait for more attacks. These attacks will keep coming and the isolationism you espouse will become increasingly untenable. We may as well accelerate their demise sooner rather than later.