PDA

View Full Version : Turkey, ISIS and the Kurds



Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 03:57 PM
The Turkish/Kurd part of the equation continues to complicate a NATO response to ISIS.

I hope the Turks are coming off the sidelines, but I doubt they will do too much if they think the end result will be another autonomous Kurdish government.

It is a shame because the Kurds would be great allies against ISIS.




U.S. launches manned airstrikes against ISIS from Turkey

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. on Wednesday launched its first airstrikes by Turkey-based F-16 fighter jets against Islamic State targets in Syria, marking a limited escalation of a yearlong air campaign that critics have called excessively cautious.

In a brief statement the Pentagon announced the F-16 strikes were launched from Incirlik air base in southern Turkey but provided no details on the number or types of targets struck.

A U.S. defense official said later that two of the six F-16s based at Incirlik flew the mission over Syria to hit one or more targets that had been selected in ad

Earlier this month the U.S. began flying armed drones from Incirlik, but the F-16 flights add a new dimension to the air campaign, in part because of the added risk to pilots who might encounter Syrian or other air defenses.

Pentagon officials have said the main advantage of using Incirlik is its proximity to Islamic State targets in northern Syria, although a senior U.S. defense official said Wednesday that the F-16s may also be used on missions over Iraq. The official was not authorized to discuss F-16 mission details publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Most U.S. aerial combat missions over Iraq and Syria are being flown from more distant air bases in Qatar and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region, although the U.S. also is flying F-16s from Muwaffaq Salti air base in Jordan.

The official said the Incirlik-based F-16s are equipped with surveillance and reconnaissance equipment in addition to weapons, and thus can be used to verify targeting information that may be provided by local Syrians or Iraqis cooperating with the U.S. A total of six F-16s are operating from Incirlik; they are from the 31st Fighter Wing based at Aviano, Italy.

With the threat of Syrian air defenses in mind, the U.S. military is considering how to reconfigure its network of combat search-and-rescue forces in the region, the senior defense official said. The official indicated those forces are deemed sufficient for the moment but might change. Other officials have said the U.S. also is considering placing refueling aircraft at Incirlik in support of the F-16 mission.

After months of negotiations between Washington and Ankara, the Turkish government agreed in late July to permit the U.S. to station aircraft at Incirlik in southern Turkey.

A Foreign Ministry official in Ankara said Wednesday that Turkey has not carried out its own airstrikes against the Islamic State recently because the U.S. asked it to wait so that the two countries can coordinate efforts. The official asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The senior U.S. defense official in Washington said the two governments are working on a memorandum of understanding that would set the terms under which Turkish warplanes would be integrated into the U.S.-led air campaign.

Christopher Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War and a retired Navy commander, said the deployment of six F-16s to Turkey provides only a marginal improvement to U.S. air operations against the Islamic State, in part by shortening the flying distance to targets in northern Syria.

More broadly, the escalation is important for bringing Turkey more directly in the conflict, Harmer said.

"Turkey is coming off the sideline," Harmer said. "More than anybody else in the region, Turkey did not want to tangle with ISIS," he added, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group. "All that nastiness that ISIS can do could be turned against Turkey in very short order."

The Turkish situation is especially touchy in political terms, in part because Turkey is a NATO ally with a different perspective on the Islamic State problem. Whereas the U.S. is focused on fighting the Islamic State militants and has partnered with Syrian Kurds to that end, Turkey's main priority is curtailing growing Kurdish power along its southern border with Syria.

The Turks worry that Kurdish gains in Iraq and in Syria will encourage a revival of a Kurdish armed insurgency in Turkey in pursuit of an independent state. The PKK, a Kurdish terror group, killed two Turkish police officers and the Turks have retaliated, bombing their positions. Other Kurdish fighters have been effective against the Islamic State.

"For a long, long time Turkey has struggled mightily to stay out of this fight because they are so vulnerable," Harmer said.

An early indication of Turkish concern about the chaos in Syria was its request in 2012 for NATO missile defense support. Since early 2013 a number of NATO countries have operated Patriot missile defenses in southern Turkey, including a U.S. Army Patriot unit based at Gaziantep, due north of the Syrian city of Aleppo.

© 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 04:45 PM
The Turkish/Kurd part of the equation continues to complicate a NATO response to ISIS.

I hope the Turks are coming off the sidelines, but I doubt they will do too much if they think the end result will be another autonomous Kurdish government.

It is a shame because the Kurds would be great allies against ISIS.

Back In the days of the Old travelling circus (After Desert Storm But, before 9-11) for a couple years, we had a 90-day rotation going to support this Humanitarian Operation (the stated mission of which was to protect the Kurds from Sadaam).

It was Officially known as " Operation Provide Comfort". But, unofficially we called it Operation Provide Per-Diem.

Anyhow, A couple days a week we'd have "no fly days" during which, We'd go drink beer and fuck whores, so that the Turks could launch F-4 strikes and Bomb the living shit out of the very people that we were resupplying the day before and supposed to be protecting (with friends like this who needs enemies)

Now, Rainmaker's not really sure why, It could've been the generous amounts of "Raki" we were consuming for breakfast.... But, At the time this made perfectly good sense to all of us....

I'm just really comforted to know, that at times like these, we have the best and brightest the Nation has to offer making our Strategic Policy decisions. NomSayin?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-13-2015, 05:27 PM
Back In the days of the Old travelling circus (After Desert Storm But, before 9-11) for a couple years, we had a 90-day rotation going to support this Humanitarian Operation (the stated mission of which was to protect the Kurds from Sadaam).

It was Officially known as " Operation Provide Comfort". But, unofficially we called it Operation Provide Per-Diem.

Anyhow, A couple days a week we'd have "no fly days" during which, We'd go drink beer and fuck whores, so that the Turks could launch F-4 strikes and Bomb the living shit out of the very people that we were resupplying the day before and supposed to be protecting (with friends like this who needs enemies)

Now, Rainmaker's not really sure why, It could've been the generous amounts of "Raki" we were consuming for breakfast.... But, At the time this made perfectly good sense to all of us....

I'm just really comforted to know, that at times like these, we have the best and brightest the Nation has to offer making our Strategic Policy decisions. NomSayin?

You know, it is possible to just say Operation Provide Comfort and forego the shit about traveling circuses and and all the other little zingers that make your posts a pain in the ass to read.

I know you think it is witty, but it is the most annoying type of cornball humor on the face of the planet.

It is okay when I make jokes, but not when you do it.

Why?

Your witticisms suck.

Rainmaker
08-13-2015, 05:42 PM
You know, it is possible to just say Operation Provide Comfort and forego the shit about traveling circuses and and all the other little zingers that make your posts a pain in the ass to read.

I know you think it is witty, but it is the most annoying type of cornball humor on the face of the planet.

It is okay when I make jokes, but not when you do it.

Why?

Your witticisms suck.

That which is not too explicit is the fittest for your instruction because it rouses your faculties to act.

waveshaper2
08-14-2015, 02:41 AM
Americans seem to be infatuated with the Kurds and this rapidly evolving love-fest for the Kurds is reaching critical mass. Folks seem to forget about the Kurds recent history/traditions (just the last 100 years or so). The Kurds were the Turks go to guys during the Armenian/Assyrian Genocide. They're on the Mid-east leader board for Female Gentile Mutilation (FGM), Honor Killings, and have a long tradition of using female suicide bombers, etc, etc.

I believe we need to be extremely cautious because the US/Kurdish relationship has historically oscillated wildly. The Kurds are great fighters and I have no problem "smartly" using them to fight ISIS. Folks need to realize that the Kurds aren't 10 feet tall, they aren't going to defeat ISIS, and overly supporting them comes with significant risk/the regions historical bad blood/baggage. Prediction; in the coming months/years you will see the Kurdish tribes (100 plus tribes and x100 for clans) once again fighting each other on some level. Some Possible Examples; KRG/KDP fighting the PKK to evict them from Northern Iraq. The YPG/PKK/KDP(KRG) all fighting for control/ownership of Singar Province. The PUK/KDP infighting probably will eventually blowup again but hopefully it doesn't reach civil war level again. etc.

Some comparable recent US "Love Fests" in the Islamic AO;

1. Remember - the American "Love-Fest" years back in the 1980 when we "fell head over heels" for the Mujahideen during the Soviet/Afghan war. We all know that Love-Fest didn't last long and those same great Pashtun warriors are now the scorned Taliban.

2. Remember - the American "Love-Fest" years, post Gulf War (1991-1996), when we "fell head over heels" for the Kurds in Northern Iraq. That didn't last long and those same Kurds forced the USA to leave/evacuate Iraqi Kurdistan in (1996) because of the Kurdish Civil War.

3. Remember - the Sons of Iraq; etc, etc, etc.

Another Caution; The history of this AO (Islamic World) and the countless US policies/strategies implemented to try and shape it in a direction that's acceptable to our National Security Interest have mostly been failures. This "caution" applies to all our supposed feeble/fictitious/treacherous allies/coalition partners in this region. Every country, religious group, ethnic group, tribal affiliation, tribe, clan in this AO has competing agendas, aspirations, goals, rivals, and thousands of years of backlogged grievances. These folks will change allegiances in a tick and supporting any of these entities in this AO will always result in copious amounts of blowback and unintended consequences.

Rainmaker
11-02-2015, 01:41 AM
Anyhow, A couple days a week we'd have "no fly days" during which, We'd go drink beer and fuck whores, so that the Turks could launch F-4 strikes and Bomb the living shit out of the very people that we were resupplying the day before and supposed to be protecting (with friends like this who needs enemies)

Now, Rainmaker's not really sure why, It could've been the generous amounts of "Raki" we were consuming for breakfast.... But, At the time this made perfectly good sense to all of us....



So ,After publicly stating on 16 separate occasions that he wouldn't put BOG in Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ9CcxQjM5A&feature=youtu.be

..........The Liar in Chief now announces that we're going to embed SOF with the Kurds after all and (presumably) provide them with CAS from Incirlik.

And just as in Rainmaker's day...... For the last 3 months, These same Turks have been flying from this same Incirlik, bombing these same Kurds, while they were trying to fight "ISIS"(whoever in the hell that really is).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-conflict-with-kurds-was-approving-air-strikes-against-the-pkk-americas-worst-error-in-the-10417381.html

Full Retard All Over Again....

UncaRastus
11-02-2015, 02:38 PM
Let us do a march on the White house, shall we?

Rainmaker, must present our demands for peace to the POTUS.

Mjolnir, provides security, against The Man/Establishment.

Absinthe Anecdote, gets to do our leaflets, while the input comes from Acme_Man, and be ready to present spreadsheets, on demand.

Garhkal gets to 'police' our ranks, as it were. I suggest that he uses rubber bullets, if that is acceptable with him. Or maybe a big drum, to drum in our peaceful aims, to anyone within our group that wants to get overly militant and mean.

Bos, has to record our activities, and also to make up stuff for the press.

TJ must be there, to keep it real. Someone has to remain with both feet in the real world.

Rusty must be our PR and Anti Discrimination person.

MikeKerriii will be our resident 'Point of Joy and Enlightenment', to make sure that we only protest during Republican presidencies.

SergeantEnigma will be our 'Man on the Street', to give us validity by claiming that he isn't one of us, but that he appreciates what we are doing.

VFFTSGT will be our Voice of Reason.

Waveshaper will be our Information Gathering Dude, which translates to being our Spy.

I will sit in front of my TV, watching the news, for the purpose of gaining valuable intelligence for us, to be shared with Waveshaper's intel. I know, I will be missing out on the really fun and exciting part of our group's activities, but as people do say, somebody has to do it.

Bourne will be our behind the scene supporter.

If I missed anybody, sorry. That wasn't for lack of trying.

This will be our song, played 24/7, at top volume. Remember to bring your wives/girlfriends, because we will need some go-go dancers to avert the police's attention away from our group of Anti War Protestation for Peace Dudes (Rainmaker, I didn't say 'Protestants' in the church like scenario). 'War' by Edwin Starr:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck

Rainmaker
11-03-2015, 01:27 AM
. ......and supporting any of these entities in this AO will always result in copious amounts of blowback and unintended consequences.

There's Nothing unintended about it..... PNAC followed by CNAS......Everything is working as designed.

velliin
11-15-2015, 07:48 AM
Spammer from Malta

Absinthe Anecdote
11-15-2015, 09:21 AM
A syrian mi-8 took a direct hit with a manpad and continues to fly!http://www.thevideostreams.com/military/mi-8-takes-rpg-hit-and-continues-flying/

I think you are right. That was probably a manpad and not an RPG like the webpage says.

I'm basing that off the altitude that the helicopter was at, it looked too high for that to be an RPG.

Plus, it looked like it homed in on the exhaust port of the helicopter. The SA-7 tracks the exhaust plume and the SA-14 can track hot metal and exhaust.

Also if it was a manpad like a SA-7 or a SA-14, it probably did not actually hit the helicopter.

I know that looked like a hit, but those missiles have proximity fuses and detonate very close to the target without actually hitting it.

It has a little IR laser that shines from the missile's body. When it gets a reflection back from the target, the main charge ignites.

The main charge blows apart a metal sleeve that creates an expanding ring of shrapnel.

The MI-8 crew might have got lucky and most of the shrapnel went through the rotors without hitting anything.

Another thing that makes me think that was a manpad and not an RPG was the fact they had a camera filming it.

Oh, and you can hear the boom of the gas charge that pops the missile from its sealed canister.

Defiantly a manpad.

Rainmaker
11-15-2015, 02:44 PM
I think you are right. That was probably a manpad and not an RPG like the webpage says.

I'm basing that off the altitude that the helicopter was at, it looked a little to high for that to be an RPG.

Plus, it looked like it homed in on the exhaust port of the helicopter. The SA-7 tracks the exhaust plume and the SA-14 can track hot metal and exhaust.

Also if it was a manpad like a SA-7 or a SA-14, it probably did not actually hit the helicopter.

I know that looked like a hit, but those missiles have proximity fuses and detonate very close to the target without actually hitting it.

It has a little IR laser that shines from the missile's body. When it gets a reflection back from the target, the main charge ignites.

The main charge blows apart a metal sleeve that creates an expanding ring of shrapnel.

The MI-8 crew might have got lucky and most of the shrapnel went through the rotors without hitting anything.

Another thing that makes me think that was a manpad and not an RPG was the fact they had a camera filming it.

Oh, and you can hear the boom of the gas charge that pops the missile from its sealed canister.

Defiantly a manpad.

Good thing we looked the other way while the GCC states and the Israelies funneled tens of thousands of these things into the hands of the "moderate" Syrian rebels.

Surely there's no risk that these things will be turned back on us when we inevitably get sucked back in to fighting the perpetual war for perpetual peace?

I guess in that case we'll just have to have a man-pad buyback program at a cost of $Billions to the Taxpayer.

Wash, rinse repeat.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-15-2015, 11:12 PM
UncaRastus

Spammer or not, that was an interesting post.

I had fun analyzing the video.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-15-2015, 11:36 PM
Good thing we looked the other way while the GCC states and the Israelies funneled tens of thousands of these things into the hands of the "moderate" Syrian rebels.

Surely there's no risk that these things will be turned back on us when we inevitably get sucked back in to fighting the perpetual war for perpetual peace?

I guess in that case we'll just have to have a man-pad buyback program at a cost of $Billions to the Taxpayer.

Wash, rinse repeat.

SA-7s have been all over the place for decades, as have our Stinger-1s.

They aren't the death rays that some make them out to be. SA-14s and the Stinger Posts are a more of a concern, but our aircraft can usually cope with them.

Not saying they can't down our aircraft, they are a threat, but manpads aren't strategic weapons. They are a tactical asset that has been in the hands of bad guys for a very long time.

I realize you are only interested in Israel bashing and will use any issue to do that.

That's fine, knock yourself out.

I'm past the point of talking about geo-political issues with you.

I just like talking about weapon systems, and there is no sense talking about weapons with you.

Since you think a 60-year-old .38 revolver makes you a badass, I'm pretty sure you are beyond your depth with manpads.

Aren't there any Free Mason forums you can haunt?

Rainmaker
11-16-2015, 12:13 AM
SA-7s have been all over the place for decades, as have our Stinger-1s.

They aren't the death rays that some make them out to be. SA-14s and the Stinger Posts are a more of a concern, but our aircraft can usually cope with them.

Not saying they can't down our aircraft, they are a threat, but manpads aren't strategic weapons. They are a tactical asset that has been in the hands of bad guys for a very long time.

I realize you are only interested in Israel bashing and will use any issue to do that.

That's fine, knock yourself out.

I'm past the point of talking about geo-political issues with you.

I just like talking about weapon systems, and there is no sense talking about weapons with you.

Since you think a 60-year-old .38 revolver makes you a badass, I'm pretty sure you are beyond your depth with manpads.

Aren't there any Free Mason forums you can haunt?

Yes of course you're done talking "geo political issues" as soon as anyone points out the elephant in the room, which is that ISIS and Al Nusra just happen to share the same goal as Israel and Saudi Arabia. (Getting rid of Assad and Iran)

So, riddle me this Batman..... Who gave this shitload of stingers to ISIS Or ISIL or IS or Daesh, or whatever the experts up there in the Beltway are calling them today?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-16-2015, 12:27 AM
Yes of course you're done talking "geo political issues" as soon as anyone points out the elephant in the room, which is that ISIS and Al Nusra just happen to share the same goal as the untouchables in Israel and Saudi Arabia. (Getting rid of Assad and Iran)

So riddle me this Batman..... Who gave this shitload of stingers to ISIS Or ISIL or IS or Daesh, or whatever we're calling them today?

I don't care.

I'd rather talk about why you are such a loudmouth about the Second Ammendment and yet your are so cheap that you carry a lousy hand-me-down .38 revolver.

You always brag about being a rich guy, why skimp on your personal protection?

I'm just looking forward to the day when you get too drunk off of cheap beer down at the American Legion and get into trouble with your vintage firearm.

Sooner or later your loudmouth bragging is going to get you into a tight spot. I'm hoping a vacationing Mossad agent overhears you talking crap in Florida and feeds you to the gators.

UncaRastus
11-16-2015, 02:50 PM
Man pads are a name for urine trapping shields that are used by men that have urine leakage.

Does ISIS uses these man pads, shot from slingshots, to try to shoot down aeroplanes? Or do they use man pads from men that have urinary tract infections, to try to make the pilots sick?

Could they be shooting these man pads at the pilots, and the man pads are carrying syphilis or gonorrhea to really make the pilots sick and a bit sad from trying to explain to their spouses about how they got an STD?

Maybe they are trying to make an aeroplane go down because though the man pads wouldn't be birds, still, they hope to cause engine damage/failure by the ingestion of man pads by the jet engine(s)?

These terrorist groups use anything, to try to win their battles.

Although a fully laden diaper would be doing more damage to an aeroplane's jet engine, as well as making it very hard for a pilot to be able to see through his canopy, if a crap filled diaper were to strike the canopy.

Now we know what the terrorists were doing, being in a hospital, though. They were collecting diapers from the maternity ward.

Come to think of that, anyhow, they were also collecting man pads from the STD ward, probably.

That is, if they were in the hospital that got blowed up, which is a couple of words to explain how buildings can be destroyed, used by the upper echelon in military think tanks*.

Very creative, I must say.

* Another thing which is hard to understand are the military think tanks. Why would the military use M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, to do their thinking in? I suppose that the tank is only used because who would ever think that the military would want to use a tank to hold their skull sweat sessions, so it's pretty safe, as long as it is inside the Pentagon, in a 'safe room'.

Rainmaker
11-16-2015, 03:30 PM
I don't care.

Sadly You're not alone in that view . Most people would rather not ask Legitimate questions, Because it's easier to believe the Propaganda they're fed.

Others are suffering from cognitive dissonance, so there is really no way they can even understand it.

There is hope for these two though, because eventually a crisis will arise and the system unwind and they can be awakened.

Still Others (through years of reading Reuters reports in the DIAC) have indoctrinated themselves into believing that our Nation is best served by having AIPAC lead us around by the nose, so that we export all our jobs and have an Economic system based solely on Usury and a US Foreign policy that is primarily concerned with making the world a safe place for Greater Israel.

They are much harder to wake up because, they are dependent on maintaining the status quo and sucking the government's tit all the way to "retirement".

Some of them may even be actual communists.

Rainmaker
11-16-2015, 04:27 PM
I'd rather talk about why you are such a loudmouth about the Second Ammendment and yet your are so cheap that you carry a lousy hand-me-down .38 revolver.

You always brag about being a rich guy, why skimp on your personal protection?


I'm selling Costal and Commercial Real Estate to Wealthy White (and increasingly Chinese) people in Southwest Florida. It's a subtropical environment. So, I don't normally wear a Jacket to work.

If I was doing something dangerous, like riding the Blackamore Metro or going to one of those " utopian gun free" zones, like Coppin State or Club Pussycat, You can bet I'd be carrying one of my .45 ACP's or 9mm's.

So, The Colt detective special usually suits my everyday needs, unless I'm wearing shorts in which case the Smith and Wesson J-frame fits a little better in my butthole.



I'm just looking forward to the day when you get too drunk off of cheap beer down at the American Legion and get into trouble with your vintage firearm.

Sooner or later your loudmouth bragging is going to get you into a tight spot. I'm hoping a vacationing Mossad agent overhears you talking crap in Florida and feeds you to the gators.

I do believe 007 carried a .38 revolver as backup to his Walther. Speaking of spies...this is a must read....

http://www.amazon.com/By-Way-Deception-Making-officer/dp/0971759502

sandsjames
11-16-2015, 04:27 PM
Sadly You're not alone in that view . Most people would rather not ask Legitimate questions, Because it's easier to believe the Propaganda they're fed.

Others are suffering from cognitive dissonance, so there is really no way they can even understand it.

There is hope for these two though, because eventually a crisis will arise and the system unwind and they can be awakened.

Still Others (through years of reading Reuters reports in the DIAC) have indoctrinated themselves into believing that our Nation is best served by having AIPAC lead us around by the nose, so that we export all our jobs and have an Economic system based solely on Usury and a US Foreign policy that is primarily concerned with making the world a safe place for Greater Israel.

They are much harder to wake up because, they are dependent on maintaining the status quo and sucking the government's tit all the way to "retirement".

Some of them may even be actual communists.

And some are convinced that nothing can be taken at face value, that things aren't what they seem, because if they do then they would have to admit that they are just another cog making this world spin.

Sometimes, it was Oswald who shot Kennedy, the moon landing did happen, and the U.S. government didn't arrange for, or let happen, planes flying into the towers. But there's no good narrative to that story, so some have to let their imaginations run wild.

Rainmaker
11-16-2015, 04:34 PM
Sometimes, it was Oswald who shot Kennedy, the moon landing did happen, and the U.S. government didn't arrange for, or let happen, planes flying into the towers. But there's no good narrative to that story, so some have to let their imaginations run wild.

And Some would like you to continue to think that.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 03:50 PM
Yep. Turkey is off the sidelines alright.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/24/ruaf-su-24-shot-down-by-turkey/

Not Fucking Good

.....But, To make matters even worse . The Turkish media (Dogan News) is reporting that the parachuting pilots are dead.

And the FSA "moderate rebels" (AKA. Moslem Terrorists) that we backed to the tune of $500M are posting you tube videos With the corpse (while they moan Alu Akbahr). So, if these guys ejected and are now dead, and in the hands of the FSA, the question now becomes how were they killed?

Out of respect, I won't post the video here. But, As a former Airman it makes me fucking sick.

I think we must have maniacs running our foreign policy right now.

This shit is has the potential to really get out of hand. And if/when it does. It's not going to be another OEF/OIF...... It's going to be a fucking bloodbath.

Next up In Proxy WWW 3. Turkish pilots shot down by PKK rebels suddenly armed with Russian AA capability.

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 04:26 PM
Sadly You're not alone in that view . Most people would rather not ask Legitimate questions, Because it's easier to believe the Propaganda they're fed.

Others are suffering from cognitive dissonance, so there is really no way they can even understand it.

There is hope for these two though, because eventually a crisis will arise and the system unwind and they can be awakened.

Still Others (through years of reading Reuters reports in the DIAC) have indoctrinated themselves into believing that our Nation is best served by having AIPAC lead us around by the nose, so that we export all our jobs and have an Economic system based solely on Usury and a US Foreign policy that is primarily concerned with making the world a safe place for Greater Israel.

They are much harder to wake up because, they are dependent on maintaining the status quo and sucking the government's tit all the way to "retirement".

Some of them may even be actual communists. People don't care becasue your "imaginary" concerns are simply silly noise, or bigoted lies.

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 04:29 PM
And Some would like you to continue to think that.

Fans of reality would like people to keep connected with reality, what is wrong with that? Delusions like your statement about 70% of the Syrian refugees being young males are unhealthy and lead down a rabbit hole.

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 04:36 PM
Yep. Turkey is off the sidelines alright.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/24/ruaf-su-24-shot-down-by-turkey/

Not Fucking Good

.....But, To make matters even worse . The Turkish media (Dogan News) is reporting that the parachuting pilots are dead.

And the FSA "moderate rebels" (AKA. Moslem Terrorists) that we backed to the tune of $500M are posting you tube videos With the corpse (while they moan Alu Akbahr). So, if these guys ejected and are now dead, and in the hands of the FSA, the question now becomes how were they killed?

Out of respect, I won't post the video here. But, As a former Airman it makes me fucking sick.

I think we must have maniacs running our foreign policy right now.

This shit is has the potential to really get out of hand. And if/when it does. It's not going to be another OEF/OIF...... It's going to be a fucking bloodbath.

Next up In Proxy WWW 3. Turkish pilots shot down by PKK rebels suddenly armed with Russian AA capability.

The turks shot a down a Russian aircraft, that repeatably ignored 10 warnings to leave Turkish airspace. Russia has a problem with respecting it's neighbors borders, this one they will now pay attention to.

The crew apparently died of terminal stupidity compounded by fatal levels of arrogance.

waveshaper2
11-24-2015, 05:18 PM
I think the Russian Pilots were killed (shot) by some of the few remaining FSA bad seeds planted by "Joint Team - CIA/McCain/Graham/Hillary". Thankfully, most of the bad seeds, these enablers planted, went over to the dark side (ISIS, Al Nusra, etc) long ago and we can now legally kill all those "Splitters".

Note; I don't think Russia is going to be happy about our U.S. Sponsored/cultivated/armed/funded/trained FSA Islamic "Sunni" Terrorist executing their pilots.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 06:03 PM
The turks shot a down a Russian aircraft, that repeatably ignored 10 warnings to leave Turkish airspace. Russia has a problem with respecting it's neighbors borders, this one they will now pay attention to.

The crew apparently died of terminal stupidity compounded by fatal levels of arrogance.

Do you really think that it's acceptable to shoot and kill a defenseless parachuting airman after he's ejected from his aircraft?

Talk about arrogance. I'm telling you this thing is now going to escalate even further.

I would not want to be flying over Syria right now, I can tell you that much.

But, anyhow on that point, I'll digress//

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 06:07 PM
Fans of reality would like people to keep connected with reality, what is wrong with that? Delusions like your statement about 70% of the Syrian refugees being young males are unhealthy and lead down a rabbit hole.

So, I posted the numbers in the other thread. I know you've read it because, you cherry picked the link for your own post. I'll repost them here.

The total number of refugees REGISTERED In UN Displaced Persons camps OUTSIDE EUROPE (i.e Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey) is apx 50-50. Male Female.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Now, that is the post you keep endlessly regurgitating.

However, about 70% of All asylum applicants INTO THE EU 28 ARE MALE.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-europes-migration-crisis/21469

"Frontex says 71 per cent of the people who entered Europe illegally in 2014 were male and 83 per cent were adults."

That's because entering Europe illegally is incredibly dangerous and expensive. So funding one person is easier than a whole family Plus since it's dangerous it makes sense that the majority that would risk making the journey would be men.

They're not just coming in from Syria either. Europe is being flooded with Africans, Afghans, Iraqis etc. people that will never be able to assimilate into European culture.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 06:09 PM
People don't care becasue your "imaginary" concerns are simply silly noise, or bigoted lies.

Europe has a long history of progroms and I would Not be surprised in the least to see it devolve back into Neo Nationalism as a result of this lunacy.

You need to take the Rainbow Push Coalition Blinders off.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 06:16 PM
I think the Russian Pilots were killed (shot) by some of the few remaining FSA bad seeds planted by "Joint Team - CIA/McCain/Graham/Hillary". Thankfully, most of the bad seeds, these enablers planted, went over to the dark side (ISIS, Al Nusra, etc) long ago and we can now legally kill all those "Splitters".

Note; I don't think Russia is going to be happy about our U.S. Sponsored/cultivated/armed/funded/trained FSA Islamic "Sunni" Terrorist executing their pilots.

I'm sure John McInsane, The ravishing Miss Lindsey Graham and Hitlery Clinton are all watching the Jihadi videos and having a Viagra fueled ménage et trois.

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 06:54 PM
I think the Russian Pilots were killed (shot) by some of the few remaining FSA bad seeds planted by "Joint Team - CIA/McCain/Graham/Hillary". Thankfully, most of the bad seeds, these enablers planted, went over to the dark side (ISIS, Al Nusra, etc) long ago and we can now legally kill all those "Splitters".

Note; I don't think Russia is going to be happy about our U.S. Sponsored/cultivated/armed/funded/trained FSA Islamic "Sunni" Terrorist executing their pilots.

I doubt the Russians are delusional enough to believe any of that "stuff', Do you have any factual basis for tht silliness?

waveshaper2
11-24-2015, 07:11 PM
I'm sure John McInsane, The ravishing Miss Lindsey Graham and Hitlery Clinton are all watching the Jihadi videos and having a Viagra fueled ménage et trois.

Just released video; The bad seeds destroy a Russian rescue helicopter (more Russian casualties/1 KIA/WIA?)with a U.S. supplied TOW missile. Note; These CIA/McCain/Graham/Hillary Islamic terrorist appear to be well trained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9lSiSh92v0

waveshaper2
11-24-2015, 07:13 PM
Do you really think that it's acceptable to shoot and kill a defenseless parachuting airman after he's ejected from his aircraft?

Talk about arrogance. I'm telling you this thing is now going to escalate even further.

I would not want to be flying over Syria right now, I can tell you that much.

But, anyhow on that point, I'll digress//

One of many "Escalation" possibilities; I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian's "TRY" to down some Turkish aircraft when they enter Syrian airspace.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 08:17 PM
Just released video; The bad seeds destroy a Russian rescue helicopter (more Russian casualties/1 KIA/WIA?)with a U.S. supplied TOW missile. Note; These CIA/McCain/Graham/Hillary Islamic terrorist appear to be well trained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9lSiSh92v0

Well waveshaper first you have to define "US Supplied".... these TOWs could've been funneled through one of the GCC states, Without our knowledge (cough cough).

Lindsey Graham - Q:"Do You know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?"
General Dempsey- A: "I know major Arab allies (plural) who fund them."
Lindsey Graham- "Yeah But, Do they EMBRACE them" (wtf?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

So, who was General Dempsey talking about? Which "ALLIES" are funding ISIL?

Q. So, If we're really trying to get rid of ISIS, and we know who was funding them, then Why in the Fuck did we not cut off the funding?

A. Because, We didn't want to.

Guess which country ISIS oil flows through to get to the black market? Anybody here think that Maybe it rhymes with Jerkey?

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

waveshaper2
11-24-2015, 08:47 PM
Well waveshaper first you have to define "US Supplied".... these TOWs could've been funneled through one of the GCC states, Without our knowledge (cough cough).

Lindsey Graham - Q:"Do You know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?"
General Dempsey- A: "I know major Arab allies (plural) who fund them."
Lindsey Graham- "Yeah But, Do they EMBRACE them" (wtf?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

So, who was General Dempsey talking about? Which "ALLIES" are funding ISIL?

Q. So, If we're trying to get rid of ISIS, and we know who was funding them, then Why in the Fuck did we not cut off the funding?

A. Because, We didn't want to.

Guess which country ISIS oil flows through to get to the black market? Anybody Think Maybe it rhymes with Jerkey?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog
You pretty much nailed it and I know very well how the oil black market works in this AO, first hand. I spent mucho time in Northern Iraq (Zakho) during the 1990's and there were hundreds of tanker trucks lined up at the Turkish border waiting to cross "ever day". Google; "oil trucks at Zakho Iraq Border" and you'll get the idea by looking at the photos. Back then the Kurdish PUK and PDK were in the middle of the Kurdish Civil War and lots of these tanker trucks were destroyed by well placed IED's. A magnet imbedded in a cast explosive charge/with timer/power source/detonator and placed in one of the tanker truck wheel wells was a favorite and effective tactic for destroying these targets.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 09:00 PM
You pretty much nailed it and I know very well how the oil black market works in this AO, first hand. I spent mucho time in Northern Iraq (Zakho) during the 1990's and there were hundreds of tanker trucks lined up at the Turkish border waiting to cross "ever day". Google; "oil trucks at Zakho Iraq Border" and you'll get the idea by looking at the photos. Back then the Kurdish PUK and PDK were in the middle of the Kurdish Civil War and lots of these tanker trucks were destroyed by well placed IED's. A magnet imbedded in a cast explosive charge/with timer/power source/detonator and placed in one of the tanker truck wheel wells was a favorite and effective tactic for destroying these targets.

Provide comfort 3-UNSCOM. Perhaps we gave you a ride to the transload. Diyarbakir to zahko?

waveshaper2
11-24-2015, 09:13 PM
UNSCOM. Perhaps we gave you a ride to the transload. Diyarbakir to zahko?
1994/95 timeframe; Transported by US Army/SOF via the Incirlik/Diyarbakir route to Zakho.

Rainmaker
11-24-2015, 09:47 PM
1994/95 timeframe; Transported by US Army/SOF via the Incirlik/Diyarbakir route to Zakho.

Cheers. ..

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Do you really think that it's acceptable to shoot and kill a defenseless parachuting airman after he's ejected from his aircraft?

Talk about arrogance. I'm telling you this thing is now going to escalate even further.

I would not want to be flying over Syria right now, I can tell you that much.

But, anyhow on that point, I'll digress//

By the rules of war unless you can capture him h the airman is still a combatant, so you can shoot him. Shooting after he is in custody is q crime. Why let him have another chance to drop bombs on you? That was the policy of the US and Thr other allies in WWII and seems pretty logical. What makes airmen a different than any other kind of combatant? Airmen for example routinely kill enemies that are incapable of fighting back, doing so is a part of war.

Do YOU advise stopping shooting at enemy soldiers when they run away?

Mjölnir
11-24-2015, 10:14 PM
By the rules of war unless you can capture him h the airman is still a combatant, so you can shoot him. Shooting after he is in custody is q crime. Why let him have another chance to drop bombs on you? That was the policy of the US and Thr other allies in WWII and seems pretty logical. What makes airmen a different than any other kind of combatant? Airmen for example routinely kill enemies that are incapable of fighting back, doing so is a part of war.

Do YOU advise stopping shooting at enemy soldiers when they run away?

Actually, a pilot, aircrewman etc. who has bailed out is no longer considered a combatant once they have exited the aircraft, it is a violation of the Hague Convention to engage a descending "airman in distress." Once on the ground, a "airman in distress" must be afforded the chance to surrender.

Paratroopers are different, they are fair game the whole time.

Bos Mutus
11-24-2015, 10:16 PM
By the rules of war unless you can capture him h the airman is still a combatant, so you can shoot him. Shooting after he is in custody is q crime.

No, no no.

"Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft
1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists#cite_note-PARACHUTING-1)
"


Why let him have another chance to drop bombs on you? That was the policy of the US and Thr other allies in WWII and seems pretty logical. What makes airmen a different than any other kind of combatant? Airmen for example routinely kill enemies that are incapable of fighting back, doing so is a part of war.

Do YOU advise stopping shooting at enemy soldiers when they run away?

MikeKerriii
11-24-2015, 11:31 PM
No, no no.

"Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft
1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists#cite_note-PARACHUTING-1)
"







I agree that I was wrong on the law.

What I can't understand is why it is considered desirable to let the SOB have a free shot at dropping bombs on you again. The bailed out pilot is no more "helpless" than the people he was trying to kill shortly before.

Also who controlled what part of that territory is a matter of very short distances.

Bos Mutus
11-24-2015, 11:41 PM
I agree that I was wrong on the law.

What I can't understand is why it is considered desirable to let the SOB have a free shot at dropping bombs on you again. The bailed out pilot is no more "helpless" than the people he was trying to kill shortly before.

Also who controlled what part of that territory is a matter of very short distances.

While parachuting, he is defenseless and it is militarily unnecessary to kill him.

We can assume his target was of military necessity...whether or not there was acceptable/unacceptable collateral damage is not that relevant to this point.

As far as him possibly "returning to battle to fight again"...that is dangerous thinking that would allow all manner of targets and unnecessary suffering to include hospitals, schools, etc..."why not bomb hospitals if the wounded are only there to get better so they can fight again"... "aren't schools the future soldiers?" etc.

Early last century there was some disagreement on whether or not a parachuting pilot should be fair game...but civilized peoples have since settled the argument...I'm sure there is a lot of material out there that you can read on their reasoning.

MikeKerriii
11-25-2015, 01:05 AM
While parachuting, he is defenseless and it is militarily unnecessary to kill him.

We can assume his target was of military necessity...whether or not there was acceptable/unacceptable collateral damage is not that relevant to this point.

As far as him possibly "returning to battle to fight again"...that is dangerous thinking that would allow all manner of targets and unnecessary suffering to include hospitals, schools, etc..."why not bomb hospitals if the wounded are only there to get better so they can fight again"... "aren't schools the future soldiers?" etc.

Early last century there was some disagreement on whether or not a parachuting pilot should be fair game...but civilized peoples have since settled the argument...I'm sure there is a lot of material out there that you can read on their reasoning.

You are assuming that the targets are mitary necessities. IN this case it is Russian pilots flying in support of a guy who uses nerve gas on his own civilians, so the mitary necessity seems to be a very stretched assumption. I think pilots should be considered the same as enemy soldier running away on the battlefield,

Rainmaker
11-25-2015, 02:09 AM
I think pilots should be considered the same as enemy soldier running away on the battlefield,

Good thing they didn't invite you to Geneva.

garhkal
11-25-2015, 03:50 AM
The turks shot a down a Russian aircraft, that repeatably ignored 10 warnings to leave Turkish airspace. Russia has a problem with respecting it's neighbors borders, this one they will now pay attention to.

The crew apparently died of terminal stupidity compounded by fatal levels of arrogance.

Though those 2 who ejected, were shot by ground fire...


Do you really think that it's acceptable to shoot and kill a defenseless parachuting airman after he's ejected from his aircraft?

Talk about arrogance. I'm telling you this thing is now going to escalate even further.

I would not want to be flying over Syria right now, I can tell you that much.

But, anyhow on that point, I'll digress//

Heck no.. And infact i felt Turkey did wrong by supposedly shooting down the Rescue chopper Russia sent in to get their 2 parachutists.

Rusty Jones
11-25-2015, 12:27 PM
I'm just waiting for Putin to do something. All these Obama haters think that Putin has these big balls of steel, so I wonder what he's waiting for. Because if he doesn't do anything, plenty of people here in the US are gonna feel let down. I mean... Georgia is a weak country that can't fight back. Ukraine... not as weak as Georgia, but enough citizens who are loyal to Russia to render Ukraine vulnerable to Russian occupation.

Putin is now dealing with a country that's not afraid of his ass, and has shot down one his Su-24's to prove it. It's now Putin's move.

sandsjames
11-25-2015, 02:09 PM
Holy shit. How is it possible that Mike, or anyone who was ever in the military, isn't aware of the ROE in this situation? That's pretty damn scary.

sandsjames
11-25-2015, 02:15 PM
I'm just waiting for Putin to do something. All these Obama haters think that Putin has these big balls of steel, so I wonder what he's waiting for. Because if he doesn't do anything, plenty of people here in the US are gonna feel let down. I mean... Georgia is a weak country that can't fight back. Ukraine... not as weak as Georgia, but enough citizens who are loyal to Russia to render Ukraine vulnerable to Russian occupation.

Putin is now dealing with a country that's not afraid of his ass, and has shot down one his Su-24's to prove it. It's now Putin's move.

Putin was the two year old in the grocery store grabbing candy off the shelf. He wanted to see how far he could push things. Now that he got his hand smack he'll either stop grabbing shit or he'll throw a tantrum.

I think this only adds to the fire for Obama haters. We've sat back and let Vlad do whatever he wants. Obama has been the mid-20 year old soccer mom who tells her child no but never follows through when it keeps happening. Turkey just went Adrian Peterson on him. And that's a good thing.

Bos Mutus
11-25-2015, 02:25 PM
You are assuming that the targets are mitary necessities. IN this case it is Russian pilots flying in support of a guy who uses nerve gas on his own civilians, so the mitary necessity seems to be a very stretched assumption.

It's not really relevant to the issue. Shooting an ejected pilot is illegal.

IF, the pilot were flying an illegal mission, there are ways to deal with that...but ground troops deciding that the mission is illegal so they will shoot the pilot is not the way to do it...even if an international military tribunal had decided the entire thing was illegal...shooting the pilots would not be an authorized remedy....and the actual mission would have to be illegal...not your interpretation of their support for Assad who may have at some time in the past violated LOAC. Silly really....


I think pilots should be considered the same as enemy soldier running away on the battlefield,

Your opinion is noted. I think recreational marijuana use and prostitution should be legal.

Rainmaker
11-25-2015, 04:55 PM
All these Obama haters think that Putin has these big balls of steel, so I wonder what he's waiting for. Because if he doesn't do anything, plenty of people here in the US are gonna feel let down. .

I've noticed as well, that there is a certain amount of the "Hero worship" going on for Putin (and w Trump for that matter),

Now, I think part of it is we (U.S.) have seemed pretty much unable (or unwilling) to do anything about "ISIS".

And people want this problem solved.

Because, the Rooskies have pretty much gone in and started killing terrorists, while we've spent 3 years dicking around arming "Moderate Moslem Jihadis", (and supposedly trying to kill terrorists) while at the same time trying to overthrow Assad by arming terrorists and looking the other way while Turkey buys their oil. It has to be the height of stupidity and/or corruption.

But, I also think part of it may be a result of America's No longer really producing Any Strong, White, Heterosexual Males as political leaders.

So instead we only get "choices" for leaders like Obama, Jeb, Hillary, Rubbio, Sanders, etc., that don't really represent our interests.

To a certain extent, They both (Putin and Trump) threaten the carefully crafted Marxist Fake Fag narrative of "us all having to be the same".

Even Nutty-yahoo could fit into the desired stereotype , if he wasn't such a Demented Zionist hell bent on bring about the apocalypse at any cost. Nomsayin?

MikeKerriii
11-25-2015, 06:12 PM
It's not really relevant to the issue. Shooting an ejected pilot is illegal.

IF, the pilot were flying an illegal mission, there are ways to deal with that...but ground troops deciding that the mission is illegal so they will shoot the pilot is not the way to do it...even if an international military tribunal had decided the entire thing was illegal...shooting the pilots would not be an authorized remedy....and the actual mission would have to be illegal...not your interpretation of their support for Assad who may have at some time in the past violated LOAC. Silly really....
.

Referencing the LOAC seems a bit Silly, the Russians have not paid any attention to it in over a century, Nobody the US has fought has paid any attention to it since WWI, and the US stopped paying attention to It when if decided to torture prisoners, with government sanction, over a decade ago.

Do you really think that a Russian pilot is ever going a tribunal? Even if he was video committing mass murder that would be about as likely as A US intelligence agent standing trial for torturing prisoners or a drone pilot for killing civilians.

Rainmaker
11-25-2015, 06:31 PM
Referencing the LOAC seems a bit Silly, the Russians have not paid any attention to it in over a century, Nobody the US has fought has paid any attention to it since WWI, and the US stopped paying attention to It when if decided to torture prisoners, with government sanction, over a decade ago.

Do you really think that a Russian pilot is ever going a tribunal? Even if he was video committing mass murder that would be about as likely as A US intelligence agent standing trial for torturing prisoners or a drone pilot for killing civilians.

And not only that Mike. But, the 'Moderate Turkomen Rebels' chanting 'Allahu Akbar' over the corpse of the parachuting pilot they just executed don't give a flying fuck about LOAC either.

Bos Mutus
11-25-2015, 06:31 PM
Referencing the LOAC seems a bit Silly,

that's what we're talking about...why is it silly to reference the source of our discussion?


the Russians have not paid any attention to it in over a century, Nobody the US has fought has paid any attention to it since WWI,

This is completely untrue. Sure, there have been violations...doesn't mean no one is paying attention to it or following it for the most part.


and the US stopped paying attention to It when if decided to torture prisoners, with government sanction, over a decade ago.

Do you really think that a Russian pilot is ever going a tribunal?

I don't even agree that he was conducting an illegal mission...so, no.


Even if he was video committing mass murder that would be about as likely as A US intelligence agent standing trial for torturing prisoners or a drone pilot for killing civilians.

Okay..you're gonna keep chasing the rabbit down a wormhole.

Whatever.

As you stated...you were wrong on the law.

Showing how some other people got away with committing a crime is not an ethical basis for you to commit a crime. You can try and say, well this guy didn't follow it in WWII, or that in the Balkans...all a smoke screen.

Let me simplify it for you: There are NO circumstances that make shooting an ejected pilot an appropriate or legal response...whether or not someone actually gets held accountable for it, again, not relevant to your original point which was that it is allowable and proper to shoot the pilot.

sandsjames
11-25-2015, 06:34 PM
Referencing the LOAC seems a bit Silly, the Russians have not paid any attention to it in over a century, Nobody the US has fought has paid any attention to it since WWI, and the US stopped paying attention to It when if decided to torture prisoners, with government sanction, over a decade ago.

Do you really think that a Russian pilot is ever going a tribunal? Even if he was video committing mass murder that would be about as likely as A US intelligence agent standing trial for torturing prisoners or a drone pilot for killing civilians.


Exactly!!!! Guys rob banks all the time so we should all just do it. Why should I, as a private citizen, follow the laws when criminals don't? I think we see eye to eye on this one.

UncaRastus
11-25-2015, 09:43 PM
According to my 'secret sources', some guys were drunk on raki, so that they couldn't tell the difference between the pilot and the Russky Marine.

Don't tell anyone that I put this in here. I would hate to have my 'secret sources' 'burned'.

;)

MikeKerriii
11-25-2015, 10:51 PM
Exactly!!!! Guys rob banks all the time so we should all just do it. Why should I, as a private citizen, follow the laws when criminals don't? I think we see eye to eye on this one.
This would be like following the laws when the people that write the laws, those in charge of enforcing the laws, routinely and openly break them, and have done so for decades.


When a law is Ignored for decades, it s ceases to be meaningful. like obsolete laws about wearing a corset that still sit in the books, Should we now take every fighter pilot who has strafed infantry with a 20MM cannon to trial, that is against the Hague Convention ( minimum weight of explosive rounds used against troops is 100 Grams) from the 1890s and is still binding. Or how abourt every artilleryman that has fired WP against personnel?

If you wan to be legally strict about it, the guys who shot the pilot are not troops of a signatory power so they are not bound by that treaty in the first place. That treaty is only binding on signatories. Expecting people to obey a law that doesn't apply to them and is never enforced against people it applies to is silly. Only Syrian law would apply, and that is non-existent

MikeKerriii
11-25-2015, 11:05 PM
that's what we're talking about...why is it silly to reference the source of our discussion? Since the LOAC and the treaties involved do not apply to the guys who did the shooting discussing something in that context is a bit silly.




This is completely untrue. Sure, there have been violations...doesn't mean no one is paying attention to it or following it for the most part.You really believe that Imperial Japan, Nazi Germay ( remarkably the least criminal in this context, at least in relationship to the US). The NVA, The North Koreans and the Chinese obeyed the LOAC for the most part? Or that Russian has ever does , 90% of the POWS Russia took died in custody, and if you read about Chechnya they are no more civilized in their behavior now

The US plays at living by it until we decide that we, want to violate it for our convenience. We openly violated it quite recently, and the President that order it is receiving a nice fat retirement check. Why should Syrian Rebels, pay more attention to the LOAC than the POTUS?


.


Showing how some other people got away with committing a crime is not an ethical basis for you to commit a crime. You can try and say, well this guy didn't follow it in WWII, or that in the Balkans...all a smoke screen.

Let me simplify it for you: There are NO circumstances that make shooting an ejected pilot an appropriate or legal response...whether or not someone actually gets held accountable for it, again, not relevant to your original point which was that it is allowable and proper to shoot the pilot.

THE US did not even follow it in its last two wars, with drone strike against civilian areas routine breaks it now, Syria is ignoring it wholesale now and Russia has never followed it, at least since the 1917 revolution.

Bos Mutus
11-26-2015, 01:30 AM
Since the LOAC and the treaties involved do not apply to the guys who did the shooting discussing something in that context is a bit silly.

YOU were the one that started this by saying, "By the rules of war...."

You are correct that LOAC does not apply to non-military "rebels"...in that the have no authority to kill anyone...combatant or not...so they are run-of-the-mill murderers instead of war-criminals

Or do you think that since LOAC doesn't apply, they can kill anyone they want...heck, why not bomb a hospital, they didn't sign on to LOAC? You are talking nonsense.

The LOAC protects military personnel hitting military targets from criminal charges...doesn't mean that not agreeing or being bound by it lets you kill noncombatants...do you see how silly that is?


You really believe that Imperial Japan, Nazi Germay ( remarkably the least criminal in this context, at least in relationship to the US). The NVA, The North Koreans and the Chinese obeyed the LOAC for the most part? Or that Russian has ever does , 90% of the POWS Russia took died in custody, and if you read about Chechnya they are no more civilized in their behavior now

The US plays at living by it until we decide that we, want to violate it for our convenience. We openly violated it quite recently, and the President that order it is receiving a nice fat retirement check. Why should Syrian Rebels, pay more attention to the LOAC than the POTUS?

it does not matter how many people speed on the I75...speeding is still breaking the law. It does not matter if the POTUS does.

If you say, "Speeding is perfectly legal on the I75"...you are wrong...they rest of this "well, so and so did it" ...and "since the rebels didn't have a drivers llicense, they didn't agree to that"...is a bunch of nonsense.

Shooting an ejected pilot is illegal...no matter who does it, no matter what the circumstance. If the rebels did it, they are guilty of plain old murder...whether or not they will be tried and convicted, I dunno...not the point..



THE US did not even follow it in its last two wars, with drone strike against civilian areas routine breaks it now, Syria is ignoring it wholesale now and Russia has never followed it, at least since the 1917 revolution.

Oh, well...then I guess we can just start blowing up schools and hospitals and shooting noncombatants without retribution...

Bos Mutus
11-26-2015, 01:36 AM
I agree that I was wrong on the law. .

Let's just leave it at that.

garhkal
11-26-2015, 03:32 AM
This would be like following the laws when the people that write the laws, those in charge of enforcing the laws, routinely and openly break them, and have done so for decades.

Very valid point MK.. One of the few i agree with you on.

Mjölnir
11-26-2015, 12:34 PM
Since the LOAC and the treaties involved do not apply to the guys who did the shooting discussing something in that context is a bit silly.

Discussing the need for ISIS or any terrorist to follow the Geneva Conventions is silly. What is not silly is the need for the U.S. to follow and adhere to the law of war, even when those we are fighting do not.

Ignoring the law of war turns us into that which we are fighting; which is (at least in part) the goal of those whom we fight.



The US plays at living by it until we decide that we, want to violate it for our convenience. We openly violated it quite recently, and the President that order it is receiving a nice fat retirement check. Why should Syrian Rebels, pay more attention to the LOAC than the POTUS?

THE US did not even follow it in its last two wars, with drone strike against civilian areas routine breaks it now, Syria is ignoring it wholesale now and Russia has never followed it, at least since the 1917 revolution.

Discussing drone strikes specifically, there is legal agreement from both R and D administrations offering legal opinions that using drones for targeted killing (which have been deemed legal) and how they differ from political assassination (which have been prohibited since banned in 1976.) The U.S.'s current legal means for counterterrorism operations and the targeted killing of members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which has been cited by both the G.W. Bush and Obama administrations for this specific mission. The U.S. also refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, with the ruling that targeting "may include the targeted killing of persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks, both in and out of declared theaters of war." The current administration's posture includes the prerogative to unilaterally pursue targets in nations without prior consent if that country is unwilling or unable to deal effectively with the threat (exemplified by the Navy SeAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.)

A few years ago, Eric Holder elaborated on the targeting of U.S. citizens abroad (e.g., Anwar al-Awlaki), stating that such individuals may be killed by U.S. forces, but are still protected under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause—albeit a consideration that "takes into account the realities of combat."

Bottom line: It is one thing to have either the legislative or judicial branches either revoke the law or rule the law illegal (neither of which has happened.) Also, I would think that if the political will existed in the Democratic Party that felt the use of drones was illegal, we would have seen (in the last almost 7 years) some sort of effort to charge someone / anyone from the G.W. Bush administration with violating the law of war or murder.

It is entirely different to state that something is illegal just because you disagree.

As far as the use of drones go, you should research the process that goes into the targeting. The process and determination if the proposed target poses a "significant threat", the analysis of sovereignty issues, the target ID validation, the collateral damage assessment (to both innocent civilians and overall U.S. efforts, and a review process if the individual is a U.S. citizen. It would probably give you a better understanding of how it works and that it isn't just some analyst somewhere saying "kill that one, now that one, now that one."

MikeKerriii
11-27-2015, 06:47 PM
Though those 2 who ejected, were shot by ground fire... They were in parachutre becasue the ignored warnings to avid Turkish airspace, that was the arrogance ans stupidity that killed them, If they had not been iditsa they would be alive/




Heck no.. And infact i felt Turkey did wrong by supposedly shooting down the Rescue chopper Russia sent in to get their 2 parachutists. Rescue Choppers, at leas those that are not flying a red cross/crescent are perfectly legal targets. Where did you get the idea that the Turks shot at the rescue chopper? Rebels did so, not the Turks.

MikeKerriii
11-27-2015, 06:50 PM
Holy shit. How is it possible that Mike, or anyone who was ever in the military, isn't aware of the ROE in this situation? That's pretty damn scary.

How are you unaware that everyone is not bound by the same ROE and treaties? Do you know the ROE of the ethnically Turkish rebels is, or whether that group a has signed the Geneva accords?

Who can write ROEs that are binding on the rebels?

MikeKerriii
11-27-2015, 07:01 PM
Discussing the need for ISIS or any terrorist to follow the Geneva Conventions is silly. What is not silly is the need for the U.S. to follow and adhere to the law of war, even when those we are fighting do not.

Ignoring the law of war turns us into that which we are fighting; which is (at least in part) the goal of those whom we fight. We were talking about rebels fighting against a malignant dictator, not US actions. Since they are not treaty signatories the treaties that govern this are irrelevant.





Discussing drone strikes specifically, there is legal agreement from both R and D administrations offering legal opinions that using drones for targeted killing (which have been deemed legal) and how they differ from political assassination (which have been prohibited since banned in 1976.) The U.S.'s current legal means for counterterrorism operations and the targeted killing of members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which has been cited by both the G.W. Bush and Obama administrations for this specific mission. The U.S. also refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, with the ruling that targeting "may include the targeted killing of persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks, both in and out of declared theaters of war." The current administration's posture includes the prerogative to unilaterally pursue targets in nations without prior consent if that country is unwilling or unable to deal effectively with the threat (exemplified by the Navy SeAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.)

A few years ago, Eric Holder elaborated on the targeting of U.S. citizens abroad (e.g., Anwar al-Awlaki), stating that such individuals may be killed by U.S. forces, but are still protected under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause—albeit a consideration that "takes into account the realities of combat."

Bottom line: It is one thing to have either the legislative or judicial branches either revoke the law or rule the law illegal (neither of which has happened.) Also, I would think that if the political will existed in the Democratic Party that felt the use of drones was illegal, we would have seen (in the last almost 7 years) some sort of effort to charge someone / anyone from the G.W. Bush administration with violating the law of war or murder. when you put a warhead into a apparent building or a car driving though cities target, the target might be a valid target but the civilians you kill in the process are not valid target. How many Pakistani, Yemeni and other civilians have died with an out of the blue attack from the US?


It is entirely different to state that something is illegal just because you disagree.

As far as the use of drones go, you should research the process that goes into the targeting. The process and determination if the proposed target poses a "significant threat", the analysis of sovereignty issues, the target ID validation, the collateral damage assessment (to both innocent civilians and overall U.S. efforts, and a review process if the individual is a U.S. citizen. It would probably give you a better understanding of how it works and that it isn't just some analyst somewhere saying "kill that one, now that one, now that one."[/QUOTE]The Drone strikes are not the only places we violate the convention. We torture prisoners and the torturers are not punished. We hold POWs long after we have said we are no longer combatants in the conflict they were taken in. Torture did not become somehow legal and acceptable just becasue a few psychopathic vermin in the US government said it was.

We blow up occupied markets , city streets and apartment building in nations were are not at war with killing civvies on a large scale basis. That is about as legal the Mexican government blowing up an apartment building in LA, because there is cartel member hiding there would be.

garhkal
11-27-2015, 08:56 PM
They were in parachutre becasue the ignored warnings to avid Turkish airspace, that was the arrogance ans stupidity that killed them, If they had not been iditsa they would be alive/


Rescue Choppers, at leas those that are not flying a red cross/crescent are perfectly legal targets. Where did you get the idea that the Turks shot at the rescue chopper? Rebels did so, not the Turks.

Both pieces of info i got from CNN/BBC world news. Guess my sources were off.
As to the helos, i feel even if not flying a cross/crescent, a rescue helo should be off limits to being fired on, just like a medical helo is.

Mjölnir
11-28-2015, 11:09 AM
We were talking about rebels fighting against a malignant dictator, not US actions. Since they are not treaty signatories the treaties that govern this are irrelevant.

Correct, but when you come across as saying "if they don't obey rules, why should we?". The simple answer to that is ... we are better than them.

=========


when you put a warhead into a apparent building or a car driving though cities target, the target might be a valid target but the civilians you kill in the process are not valid target. How many Pakistani, Yemeni and other civilians have died with an out of the blue attack from the US?

True, and as I described, part of the process is the evaluation of that (cold term) collateral damage. Any civilian casualty is too many, but the facts of combat is that they will happen; we have to mitigate those as best we can ... we do a heck of a lot better about this than we did in WWII, Korea or Vietnam ... but yes ... still not perfect.

If we had good locational data on Osama bin Laden in Oct 2001, but dropping a JDAM on him would have killed civilians should we have done it? If so, how many civilians is too many? 10, 20, 50, 100? If the civilians are women and children vice males does that change the paradigm? There are no easy answers, and to vilify those making those hard choices is easy and convenient for those not charged with the decision ... Monday morning quarterbacking. Under your logic Harry Truman would be classified as a criminal for the use of atomic bombs in WWII. As terrible as the civilian deaths were, how many lives (military & civilian) were saved as a result of avoiding an invasion of the Japanese mainland?


The Drone strikes are not the only places we violate the convention. We torture prisoners and the torturers are not punished. We hold POWs long after we have said we are no longer combatants in the conflict they were taken in. Torture did not become somehow legal and acceptable just becasue a few psychopathic vermin in the US government said it was.

Is it possible that the 'torturers' were not punished (as vilified as they were by certain politicians, pundits and commentators) because the techniques they used were approved and are considered within the law? Again, the issue isn't pretty but it is a reality of the conflict. If the conduct was truly criminal, I think (based on the politics involved) that at some point since the change in administrations in 2009 we would have seen prosecutions for this issue ... we have not.

Of particular note, those people detained are not POW's, they are unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Convention -- yes we are signatories ... they are not.) The Combatant Status Review Tribunal was established in 2004 to determine the legal status of detainees, since then about 3 dozen have been released and over 500 remain in detention. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 further clarified the issue, but opinions (usually partisan extremes) differ. Both Attorney General Holder and Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan concurred with the law. Of course there are people who will disagree. President Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 into law which even further clarified the issue but still retained the legal status to indefinitely detain an unlawful combatant. Over 8 years and two politically diverse administrations the definition of, detention of, and handling of unlawful combatants has been consistent ... there is probably more legality to it than a few "psychopathic vermin" making a whimsical decision.

At some point I look at the multiple laws that have passed bipartisan and bicameral Congresses, associated legal rulings from multiple courts & by multiple administration officials (from both the G.W. Bush and Obama Administrations) and have to conclude that at least under 'the Law', that we are mostly getting this right.

Now, I do agree with you on the issue of indefinite detention. It presents a problem for the U.S. A large part of the issue is that there are bad people that were rounded up, that we would not be able to convict in a court, but that we know are bad (some based on the unwillingness to reveal the source & method of how we know they are bad, some based on the circumstantial nature of the evidence.) The reality is the easiest thing would have been them being killed in combat rather than captured. But, once captured we had to do something with them ... just let them go? Just make them disappear? Put them in a hole for the rest of their lives?


We blow up occupied markets , city streets and apartment building in nations were are not at war with killing civvies on a large scale basis. That is about as legal the Mexican government blowing up an apartment building in LA, because there is cartel member hiding there would be.

The legal framework that allows us to legally strike targets in foreign countries is in the Geneva Convention, which is when that foreign country is "unable or unwilling to act." So first in your example would be if the U.S. was unable or unwilling to move against a cartel member.

Bottom line to this thread is that you characterize this as if we are purposely targeting markets, city streets and civilian apartment buildings. This is a gross mis-characterization of the truth ... if you do not know that there are plenty of open source facts you could educate yourself on the topic with, If you fail to acknowledge that because you are so partisan that it doesn't fit your narrative ... there isn't much point in discussing it.

MikeKerriii
11-28-2015, 02:49 PM
Both pieces of info i got from CNN/BBC world news. Guess my sources were off.
As to the helos, i feel even if not flying a cross/crescent, a rescue helo should be off limits to being fired on, just like a medical helo

If you want to be off limit you need to fly with a red cross or crescent and be unarmed

For the US at least CSAR Helicopters are heavily armed, carry heavy armed of out opponents i since we have had helicopters in operation have given a damn about the LOAC

Mjölnir
11-28-2015, 03:09 PM
If you want to be off limit you need to fly with a red cross or crescent and be unarmed

For the US at least CSAR Helicopters are heavily armed, carry heavy armed of out opponents i since we have had helicopters in operation have given a damn about the LOAC

You are kind of crossing two mission sets.

Aircraft, vehicles, personnel marked with the cross or the crescent, a red crystal / diamond shape or a red Star of David on a white background (also called protective use symbols) are carry out humanitarian missions governed by the International Committed of the Red Cross & Red Crescent (ICRC) and are in a protected status. The symbol is meant to protect aid workers and other declared non-combatants from military action. You are correct, they must be unarmed and act neutrally. If they by virtue of presence are blocking (acting as a human shield) for a military target; they cannot be actively targeted but may be harmed by collateral damage.

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) is a military mission set to recover personnel (also see Tactical Recovery of Aircraft & Personnel - TRAP). CSAR personnel are combatants and not afforded the same status, nor do we expect them to receive the same protected status as an aid worker. It isn't that U.S. has ignored the Law of War for CSAR personnel, we consider them combatants.

MikeKerriii
11-28-2015, 03:20 PM
You are kind of crossing two mission sets.

Aircraft, vehicles, personnel marked with the cross or the crescent, a red crystal / diamond shape or a red Star of David on a white background (also called protective use symbols) are carry out humanitarian missions governed by the International Committed of the Red Cross & Red Crescent (ICRC) and are in a protected status. The symbol is meant to protect aid workers and other declared non-combatants from military action. You are correct, they must be unarmed and act neutrally. If they by virtue of presence are blocking (acting as a human shield) for a military target; they cannot be actively targeted but may be harmed by collateral damage.

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) is a military mission set to recover personnel (also see Tactical Recovery of Aircraft & Personnel - TRAP). CSAR personnel are combatants and not afforded the same status, nor do we expect them to receive the same protected status as an aid worker. It isn't that U.S. has ignored the Law of War for CSAR personnel, we consider them combatants.

I didn't say the the US ignored the law of war in that area, that is a place were we tend to scrupulously obey those laws.

I was just explaining when you are allowed to shoot at rescue helicopters.

MikeKerriii
11-28-2015, 03:23 PM
Correct, but when you come across as saying "if they don't obey rules, why should we?". The simple answer to that is ... we are better than them. we were talking about the actions of a group of Syrian rebels, not US troops.

=========




True, and as I described, part of the process is the evaluation of that (cold term) collateral damage. Any civilian casualty is too many, but the facts of combat is that they will happen; we have to mitigate those as best we can ... we do a heck of a lot better about this than we did in WWII, Korea or Vietnam ... but yes ... still not perfect. The that collateral f damage, such a "nice" way to say slaughtered civilians, are citizens of nations we are not at war with, I I do nbt find the claim that we worry all that much about mitigation the damage all the credible, not when the targets include apt. building in densely populated areas and markets squares.


If we had good locational data on Osama bin Laden in Oct 2001, but dropping a JDAM on him would have killed civilians should we have done it? If so, how many civilians is too many? 10, 20, 50, 100? If the civilians are women and children vice males does that change the paradigm? There are no easy answers, and to vilify those making those hard choices is easy and convenient for those not charged with the decision ... Monday morning quarterbacking. Under your logic Harry Truman would be classified as a criminal for the use of atomic bombs in WWII. As terrible as the civilian deaths were, how many lives (military & civilian) were saved as a result of avoiding an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Truman had valid mitary targets in a declared war and he struck a country that was a combatant state, I don't see that nay of those apply in most drone strikes. For the ,ost part we are killing civilians of a state we are allied with. Just as if Mexico started doing Air strikes against Cartel targets in the US




Is it possible that the 'torturers' were not punished (as vilified as they were by certain politicians, pundits and commentators) because the techniques they used were approved and are considered within the law? Again, the issue isn't pretty but it is a reality of the conflict. If the conduct was truly criminal, I think (based on the politics involved) that at some point since the change in administrations in 2009 we would have seen prosecutions for this issue ... we have not.[ When was International law changed to allow torture, We used the exact same kind of torture as evince when we tried and executed Yamashita. So you are saying that only local laws matter and international law can be ignored? Is torture of prisoners legal if local law says it is OK?


Of particular note, those people detained are not POW's, they are unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Convention -- yes we are signatories ... they are not.) The Combatant Status Review Tribunal was established in 2004 to determine the legal status of detainees, since then about 3 dozen have been released and over 500 remain in detention. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 further clarified the issue, but opinions (usually partisan extremes) differ. Both Attorney General Holder and Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan concurred with the law. Of course there are people who will disagree. President Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 into law which even further clarified the issue but still retained the legal status to indefinitely detain an unlawful combatant. Over 8 years and two politically diverse administrations the definition of, detention of, and handling of unlawful combatants has been consistent ... there is probably more legality to it than a few "psychopathic vermin" making a whimsical decision.

At some point I look at the multiple laws that have passed bipartisan and bicameral Congresses, associated legal rulings from multiple courts & by multiple administration officials (from both the G.W. Bush and Obama Administrations) and have to conclude that at least under 'the Law', that we are mostly getting this right.

Now, I do agree with you on the issue of indefinite detention. It presents a problem for the U.S. A large part of the issue is that there are bad people that were rounded up, that we would not be able to convict in a court, but that we know are bad (some based on the unwillingness to reveal the source & method of how we know they are bad, some based on the circumstantial nature of the evidence.) The reality is the easiest thing would have been them being killed in combat rather than captured. But, once captured we had to do something with them ... just let them go? Just make them disappear? Put them in a hole for the rest of their lives? What part of International law give the US the authority to put these people under trial at all? How can s we try them under laws that they were not under the jurisdiction of? The ICC has jurisdiction the US doesn't. We let bad people go after every war before this one, some worse than what we are looking at a Gitmo, otherwise we would still be holding Japanese and German prisoners from WWII.





The legal framework that allows us to legally strike targets in foreign countries is in the Geneva Convention, which is when that foreign country is "unable or unwilling to act." So first in your example would be if the U.S. was unable or unwilling to move against a cartel member. So if the US is not willing to kill large numbers of people innocent people to arrest a criminal , is another nation is free to kill Americans to stop that criminal?


Bottom line to this thread is that you characterize this as if we are purposely targeting markets, city streets and civilian apartment buildings. This is a gross mis-characterization of the truth ... if you do not know that there are plenty of open source facts you could educate yourself on the topic with, If you fail to acknowledge that because you are so partisan that it doesn't fit your narrative ... there isn't much point in discussing it. I Don't think we are purposely targeting those areas, but since we are hitting those areas with precision weapons I think that assuming that we care much if we do is not supported by the evidence.

Mjölnir
11-28-2015, 04:05 PM
The that collateral f damage, such a "nice" way to say slaughtered civilians, are citizens of nations we are not at war with, I I do nbt find the claim that we worry all that much about mitigation the damage all the credible, not when the targets include apt. building in densely populated areas and markets squares.

There is no 'nice' way to say it. It is what it is.

Do you not find the U.S. concerned for civilians via conjecture or personal experience? When was the last time you were in a targeting board? I can tell you for a fact, we do worry about civilian bystanders.


Truman had valid mitary targets in a declared war and he struck a country that was a combatant state, I don't see that nay of those apply in most drone strikes. For the ,ost part we are killing civilians of a state we are allied with. Just as if Mexico started doing Air strikes against Cartel targets in the US

Yes, and about 250,000 of those Japanese were guilty of nothing more than living in the same city as a military target. I am not criticizing Truman's decision, it is what it is.


When was International law changed to allow torture, We used the exact same kind of torture as evince when we tried and executed Yamashita. So you are saying that only local laws matter and international law can be ignored? Is torture of prisoners legal if local law says it is OK?

International law didn't change, the U.S. maintained most of its interpretations of international law that defines torture as "severe pain and suffering." Who unambiguously defines "severe" pain and suffering? No one. The U.S. held that if the interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause severe pain and suffering the interrogation was legal. I have been to SERE, been waterboarded etc. Yeah ... it is scary. One person's average day in the infantry may be another person's severe pain and suffering.

Admittedly, the ethics, legality etc are cloudy and will be debated long after you and I are gone.


What part of International law give the US the authority to put these people under trial at all? How can s we try them under laws that they were not under the jurisdiction of? The ICC has jurisdiction the US doesn't. We let bad people go after every war before this one, some worse than what we are looking at a Gitmo, otherwise we would still be holding Japanese and German prisoners from WWII.

The U.S. never ratified the International Criminal Court and withdrew as a signatory in 2003. They are tried based on the Military Commissions Act.


So if the US is not willing to kill large numbers of people innocent people to arrest a criminal , is another nation is free to kill Americans to stop that criminal?

It would depend if that criminal posed a "significant threat" to the other nation and the other nation made the determination that the U.S. was unwilling or unable to arrest the criminal. How do you defeine significant threat is the big 'policy' question for that. Is a drug dealer / cartel leader a significant threat to a nation ... probably depends on the nation.


I Don't think we are purposely targeting those areas, but since we are hitting those areas with precision weapons I think that assuming that we care much if we do is not supported by the evidence.

Again, having sat on targeting boards, I am not assuming. You are incorrect.

TJMAC77SP
11-29-2015, 03:13 AM
Reason and facts can be such a real pain in the ass when you want to vent based on ignorance and emotion. Damn it !!!!!!!!!!!!

MikeKerriii
11-29-2015, 05:46 AM
There is no 'nice' way to say it. It is what it is.

Do you not find the U.S. concerned for civilians via conjecture or personal experience? When was the last time you were in a targeting board? I can tell you for a fact, we do worry about civilian bystanders. The results are what matters, and the result us tyhat t we kill a lot of innocent civilians, Civilians who are citizens of a s supposed allies. Results show more than and supposed intent






International law didn't change, the U.S. maintained most of its interpretations of international law that defines torture as "severe pain and suffering." Who unambiguously defines "severe" pain and suffering? No one. The U.S. held that if the interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause severe pain and suffering the interrogation was legal. I have been to SERE, been waterboarded etc. Yeah ... it is scary. One person's average day in the infantry may be another person's severe pain and suffering.

Admittedly, the ethics, legality etc are cloudy and will be debated long after you and I are gone. They torture men dozens or in one case u hundreds of times until their minds broke, A scumbag lawyer invent er a new definition of torture that exclude the methods of torture that they wanted to use. Again what made it torture IN WWII when our enemies used it but integration when we used it, It was torture when we practiced it on a mass scale In the P.I, a century ago it is torture today. Other that a customer made definition of torture written specifically to allow torture what international or legal destination would not call waterboarding torture




The U.S. never ratified the International Criminal Court and withdrew as a signatory in 2003. They are tried based on the Military Commissions Act. Against the basic principles of international law since the US has absolute no jurisdiction to try the under, no more than Russian has the ability to try an American for a burglary committed by an American in the US



It would depend if that criminal posed a "significant threat" to the other nation and the other nation made the determination that the U.S. was unwilling or unable to arrest the criminal. How do you defeine significant threat is the big 'policy' question for that. Is a drug dealer / cartel leader a significant threat to a nation ... probably depends on the nation.





Again, having sat on targeting boards, I am not assuming. You are incorrect. The results say otherwise. Did those apartment building and market places get hit by mistake?

Rainmaker
12-18-2015, 04:15 AM
Refining Islamic State oil...


http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/refining-islamic-state-oil?articleId=USRTX1Z16Q

gotta Wonder does this refinery meet the EPA mandates?