US airstrikes in Syria kill 27 civilians, including 6 children. Zero ISIS members

[Notchris]

Replace means with Will....
Every country on that list in support of fighting ISIS has the means to provide air power.
Only few taking actively part of it.. And fewer of them are willing to provide that aid across the entire mission zone.

That's generally how it works with this stuff though. Not everyone who supports an operation participates in things like airstrikes, regardless of capabilities.

You're not going to deal any type of real damage to them by just cutting off things like bank accounts. They're very well entrenched in their "territories". At some point though, someone is going to have to push in on foot, but currently airstrikes are the best way to soften them up for any type of ground attack.

Assad is the, sadly, lesser of two evils here. Hitting ISIS' front lines against Assad, allowing his forces to push the advantage gained by it to start pushing ISIS back may be the best possible way to engage them on the ground without putting any large numbers of coalition troops on the ground.
Couple that with Iran's Qods forces, the Kurds, and a (hopefully) more dedicated Iraq military pushing from Iraq, they may be able to squeeze ISIS like a pimple.

No matter what anyone says though, There will have to be a ground offensive by SOMEONE.

[Deleted]

So we both agree Assad can't effectively fight IS during the civil war.

What facts are those?

-"Your strategy won't work because you're not working with Iran"
"We tried, they weren't interested"
-"Obviously they would never work with you!"

Sure. So drop the support to rebels and start coordinating with assad?
Silos just destroyed last night, or the day before.
Hey, working with Iran means just that. You're the cause of your own bad relationship with them. Negotiate, compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

That's generally how it works with this stuff though. Not everyone who supports an operation participates in things like airstrikes, regardless of capabilities.

You're not going to deal any type of real damage to them by just cutting off things like bank accounts. They're very well entrenched in their "territories". At some point though, someone is going to have to push in on foot, but currently airstrikes are the best way to soften them up for any type of ground attack.

Assad is the, sadly, lesser of two evils here. Hitting ISIS' front lines against Assad, allowing his forces to push the advantage gained by it to start pushing ISIS back may be the best possible way to engage them on the ground without putting any large numbers of coalition troops on the ground.
Couple that with Iran's Qods forces, the Kurds, and a (hopefully) more dedicated Iraq military pushing from Iraq, they may be able to squeeze ISIS like a pimple.

No matter what anyone says though, There will have to be a ground offensive by SOMEONE.

I fully agree with the situation you described. Although I support the Kurdish cause, I'd be wary of arming them though. That could be another hot spot.

[Slant]

Since extremism is born out of war and desperation and hunger and hopelessness I'm pretty sure that causing more war and desperation and hunger and hopelessness isn't going to help.
What happened to "surgical operation". I remember people talking about smart bombs years back.

Yeah, I called that bullshit in desert storm, too. I am in a mind to agree with you about war, albeit for different reasons. See, I think the middle east is not ready for the modern age. They're in a place where Europe was during the middle ages. It's a process of finding your own identity and culture and borders are going to shift. I say let them bash their heads in.

Germany is sending weapons to the Kurds... couple of thousand G36s... and I kept wondering "We have millions of Turks in Germany, how happy are they going to be when Isis is gone and those Kurds turn around say "Hi, we're from PKK and now we're going to fuck Turkey up again" as they used to do in the past 20 years or so. This isn't going to solve any problems. The extremists will just hide somewhere else and we're going to start bombing another country with yet more civilian casualties. But hey, at least we're getting a use out of our weapons. *sigh*

[Notchris]

Although I support the Kurdish cause, I'd be wary of arming them though. That could be another hot spot.

Even with them just having small arms, they should be able to push ISIS with the help of air support, as they've done already.

The Kurds are in a precarious position. Though they've been getting along a lot better with Turkey lately. That's a step in the right direction for their situation.

[Wildtree]

That's generally how it works with this stuff though. Not everyone who supports an operation participates in things like airstrikes, regardless of capabilities.

You're not going to deal any type of real damage to them by just cutting off things like bank accounts. They're very well entrenched in their "territories". At some point though, someone is going to have to push in on foot, but currently airstrikes are the best way to soften them up for any type of ground attack.

Assad is the, sadly, lesser of two evils here. Hitting ISIS' front lines against Assad, allowing his forces to push the advantage gained by it to start pushing ISIS back may be the best possible way to engage them on the ground without putting any large numbers of coalition troops on the ground.
Couple that with Iran's Qods forces, the Kurds, and a (hopefully) more dedicated Iraq military pushing from Iraq, they may be able to squeeze ISIS like a pimple.

No matter what anyone says though, There will have to be a ground offensive by SOMEONE.

yes, that's spot on

[Olo]

Sure. So drop the support to rebels and start coordinating with assad?

IS has become the primary force of the civil war. In part because the 'FSA' is so under equipped.

Silos just destroyed last night, or the day before.

That proves they were more concerned with "showing off"?

Hey, working with Iran means just that. You're the cause of your own bad relationship with them. Negotiate, compromise.

We're attempting to cooperate with Iran. Your claim that we are ignoring them is wrong.

[Kaleredar]

Yeah, I called that bullshit in desert storm, too. I am in a mind to agree with you about war, albeit for different reasons. See, I think the middle east is not ready for the modern age. They're in a place where Europe was during the middle ages. It's a process of finding your own identity and culture and borders are going to shift. I say let them bash their heads in.

Germany is sending weapons to the Kurds... couple of thousand G36s... and I kept wondering "We have millions of Turks in Germany, how happy are they going to be when Isis is gone and those Kurds turn around say "Hi, we're from PKK and now we're going to fuck Turkey up again" as they used to do in the past 20 years or so. This isn't going to solve any problems. The extremists will just hide somewhere else and we're going to start bombing another country with yet more civilian casualties. But hey, at least we're getting a use out of our weapons. *sigh*

The problem is, Europe in the middle ages was resigned to fucking up stuff in their general vicinity with very limited technology and a fairly limited range.

Now, I don't for a second think ISIS is going to "kill us all back at home," but the danger they pose is not just limited to wherever they can march in a day's time.

And borders are an interesting issue... The country lines were drawn across historic and tribal barriers. Resolving those issues by just saying "let them fight" wont resolve the issue swiftly or affectatiously.

[Paulosio]

Didn't they change name to IS instead of ISIL or ISIS?

Is it an old article? Hmm no September 29

Well if they can't name the organization how can i trust the rest of their facts?

They've named themselves all sorts of things. Obama still refers to them as ISIL (even since they decided they wanted to be known as IS). It's not ignorance of their decision to change their name. It's a refusal to accept their claims of statehood. Why would anyone show them the respect of refering to them as Islamic State? Surely that just gives legitimacy to their claims of statehood.

BBC used to call them ISIS, then they referred to them as IS / Islamic State and now they refer to them as "so called Islamic State".

[Kaleredar]

But no worries, American Airplanes will keep striking with ever more Democracies in Iraq, Syria, later Iran and this will totally "destroy" all the Terrorists.

That's what America and 61 other countries are counting on.

[Olo]

USA Iraq war causing "at least 110,591 to 120,816 civilian deaths in the whole conflict as of December 12, 2012.2" (WIkipedia)
and nobody bats an eye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...mates_by_group

ISIS beheads three Journalists and everyone is losing their minds.
But no worries, American Airplanes will keep striking with ever more Democracies in Iraq, Syria, later Iran and this will totally "destroy" all the Terrorists.

IS has done far more than behead 3 journalists and there were lots of 'batted eyes' around iraq. Furthermore, most of the deaths in iraq were cased by AQI - one of the groups that eventually became IS.

[Deleted]

IS has become the primary force of the civil war. In part because the 'FSA' is so under equipped.
That proves they were more concerned with "showing off"?

We're attempting to cooperate with Iran. Your claim that we are ignoring them is wrong.

Yes. That's because the FSA could not keep their territory from isil. The FSA is in disarray now.
That proves Intel is lacking. Intel should be the primary focus of this operation or any surgical operation.
No you're not. Negotiating and compromising means just that. Ease off on their request and work with them.

[Deleted]

We constantly hear on how Muslim countries breed terrorists because they have freedom and US way of living.
I remember seeing this narrative being valid when all of us were still 9/11 shocked but at this point USA is literally this planet's tyrant.

[Deleted]

The problem is, Europe in the middle ages was resigned to fucking up stuff in their general vicinity with very limited technology and a fairly limited range.

Now, I don't for a second think ISIS is going to "kill us all back at home," but the danger they pose is not just limited to wherever they can march in a day's time.

And borders are an interesting issue... The country lines were drawn across historic and tribal barriers. Resolving those issues by just saying "let them fight" wont resolve the issue swiftly or affectatiously.

Isil is a regional problem with limited projection if any at all.
That point is false anyway. Middle East is in a sorry state due to foreign intervention. Things go back 70 years now.

[Olo]

Yes. That's because the FSA could not keep their territory from isil. The FSA is in disarray now.

And removing their limited backing will improve that?

That proves Intel is lacking.

You originally claimed they were "showing off". Stop trying to move the goal post.

No you're not. Negotiating and compromising means just that. Ease off on their request and work with them.

Neither you nor I know the specifics of the discussions. Your claim that we are ignoring them is wrong.

[Noobzilla]

LOL Infowars... that is all.

[Slant]

The problem is, Europe in the middle ages was resigned to fucking up stuff in their general vicinity with very limited technology and a fairly limited range.

Now, I don't for a second think ISIS is going to "kill us all back at home," but the danger they pose is not just limited to wherever they can march in a day's time.

And borders are an interesting issue... The country lines were drawn across historic and tribal barriers. Resolving those issues by just saying "let them fight" wont resolve the issue swiftly or affectatiously.

The danger those extremists pose is in large parts due to Russia and us providing them with the weapons to be dangerous. I haven't seen a middle east manufactured rifle, yet. It's always AKs or what about those Humvees they grabbed from the Iraqi forces.

And stubbornly keeping the borders on an arbitrary map as they are is not going to solve anything swiftly, either. Nations rise and fall, if anything history taught us, it's that borders rarely remain the same forever. Yet we're in an age where both Russia and the western world falls into a thinking that the borders have to remain as they are. Forever. And if they're not, we go in guns blazing.

Normally, I'd say that is cool, but we have not solved anything with that attitude. Since 1991 we've only added onto the pile of problems in the middle east. And every time we fail to solve something but instead just bring the hammer down, it escalated a few years later on a bigger scale. I'm not seeing an end to this. We'll only hit a percentage of the extremists as always. And as always, the remaining ones will become even more extreme and pop up somewhere else.

[Independent voter]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tion-Iraq.html

British MPs in Parliament vote 543 to 43 for airstrikes.

This is going to go on for years.

[Deleted]

And removing their limited backing will improve that?
You originally claimed they were "showing off". Stop trying to move the goal post.

Neither you nor I know the specifics of the discussions. Your claim that we are ignoring them is wrong.

The fsa has shown to not be able to defend their territories and most importantly that they will not be able to hold their territories against a bigger threat. Syria has always been a land to conquer for extremists. Assad used to keep them out as saddam and geddafi used to.
The only way of making fsa a viable alternative is by literally sending troops over for years. Who's going to do it?
My point from the beginning was that Intel wasn't prioritised. You're focusing on "showing off" and that's simply an exaggeration. I don't believe the USA are "showing off" their planes.
have you been following the recent nuclear negotiations?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tion-Iraq.html

British MPs in Parliament vote 543 to 43 for airstrikes.

This is going to go on for years.

That's in Iraq.

[Independent voter]

So you agree Assad isn't capable of fighting IS? Good. And he wouldn't be fighting a foreign backed civil war if he didn't massacre peaceful protesters.

Assad is Russia's last ally. The Russians don't care how terrible he is, they just want to keep him in power and will do anything, say anything to keep Assad in power.

[Cheerbleeder]

All the hate on infowars is hilarious here. Infowars & DrudgeReport are without out a doubt the best places to get news from. To all the noobs, where do you get your information from? I am very curious. Do you get your news from the dinosaur media - fox, cnn, msnbc, rachel maddow ? Please let me know so I can viciously attack you with my knowledge and word play!