[Luis Dias]

I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.

sigh. So true. I'm still trying to understand the bigger point though. Is this Jordan trying to "man up", showing ISIS who "da man is"? "Yeah, beheadings are rad, but you know what even more rad is? Burning people. ALIVE." "ooooooo" - (audience).

What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?

But as I said previously, my main disgust is at those westerners who were chanting "hell yeas" to these ridiculous escalations.

[666maslo666]

TBH, I prefer what Jordan is doing to what the rest of the world is (not) doing. Any attempts at "deescalation" in this conflict are a sorry delusion that's likely to end badly. IS are not "freedom fighters", their goal is not establishing a corner of the world to call their own. Their goal is world domination, no less (as they have repeatedly stated).

This. There are some terrorist organizations that can be reasoned with or appeased. ISIS is certainly not one of them. The best thing to do now is to commit forces for attacks against them.

This conflict has only one inevitable conclusion ever since the islamists started to capture actual territory, and that is an all out war of international forces against ISIS. And then establishing some kind of long term occupational zone to ensure they wont come back. Anything else is merely denying the inevitable and likely making the situation worse in the end.

So it does not really matter if the prisoners are executed or not, or if the video is shared or not. However showing the video in its entirety has its positives. It is the role of the media to show reality as it is, without censorship. And it helps to built support for campaigns against ISIS.

[karajorma]

I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.

What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?

I'm not sure you get quite how cynical I was being. The "they" I was referring to was Fox New, not ISIS. As in Fox News are deliberately baiting ISIS to commit worse acts as that will get them more page views from the sickos who want to watch a man being burned to death, and will give them something apart from beheadings to talk about. Cause beheadings definitely aren't causing the kind of shock they used to.

[The E]

This conflict has only one inevitable conclusion ever since the islamists started to capture actual territory, and that is an all out war of international forces against ISIS. And then establishing some kind of long term occupational zone to ensure they wont come back. Anything else is merely denying the inevitable and likely making the situation worse in the end.

Because the track record of western forces involving themselves in middle-eastern conflicts has been so good these past few decades.
Aren't you kinda forgetting that one of the main reasons IS was able to organize itself as well as it has was a string of absolutely terrible and boneheaded decisions US forces made after the Iraq war? What makes you think that western forces have become any more competent at managing an occupation in the middle east?

So it does not really matter if the prisoners are executed or not, or if the video is shared or not. However showing the video in its entirety has its positives. It is the role of the media to show reality as it is, without censorship. And it helps to built support for campaigns against ISIS.

Does it? Does it really?

[666maslo666]

Because the track record of western forces involving themselves in middle-eastern conflicts has been so good these past few decades.
Aren't you kinda forgetting that one of the main reasons IS was able to organize itself as well as it has was a string of absolutely terrible and boneheaded decisions US forces made after the Iraq war? What makes you think that western forces have become any more competent at managing an occupation in the middle east?

I am aware of that, I just do not see any better alternative. If it was up to me we would not be in Iraq in the first place, but now that the likes of ISIS are popping up in the power vacuum, I think it is the only option.

Does it? Does it really?

What, build support? Id say yes it does.

[The E]

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?

As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?

[666maslo666]

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?

Gulf war was a success, tough it was not an occupation. Afghanistan war and occupation is mostly a success IMHO, its a better country that it was before. Iraq war and occupation was a failure.

With these data points, I dont understand why you think all middle eastern interventions are somehow destined to fail. It is just different on a case by case basis, and it is hard to predict. There is no such correlation.

But regardless of that, we should act when the likes of ISIS pop up. Even long term occupation is preferable to letting such a terrorist state exist.

As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?

Huh? The only one that ends up looking barbaric by showing these videos is ISIS. Which obviously helps to build public support for attacks against them.

It is not gore porn, it is journalism. People should see things as they are. News sites that embed these video do nothing wrong. Tough I do understand those who choose to not show it either out of the respect for the dead or for the stomachs of their readership, there is no moral imperative to do so, and there are reasons to show it.

[Lorric]

I do understand those who choose to not show it either out of the respect for the dead or for the stomachs of their readership, there is no moral imperative to do so, and there are reasons to show it.

It's about decency. It's about respect. It's not necessary to show the video to get the point across, reporting that they burned a man alive in a cage should be all you need.

This isn't some product being taken off the shelves or some person having their freedom of speech rights curtailed. This is someone who was burned alive without their consent and filmed dying without their consent. The most famous example I can think of is the outrage when certain media outside of the UK showed pictures of Princess Diana in the fatal car crash. Wholly unnecessary and disgusting, and this is on a whole different level to that. This is a human being and they don't deserve this.

And this all falls into the hands of IS on top of that. They made this video and did it this way to get attention. Mission accomplished. This is encouraging and enabling them.

[Luis Dias]

I guess they think people were getting bored of beheadings.

What next? Chop people to bits, keeping them alive as long as possible? What is the endgame here?

I'm not sure you get quite how cynical I was being.

Oh don't worry I absolutely got your point. I just went on a tangent which is informed by all this nihilistic search for profits in the mainstream media...

I mean, it is obvious what is going on here, at least at a certain "meta" level. We have a world that is informed by a materialistic way of dealing with people, markets, democracies, tolerance, etc., etc., no bigger values (I guess "Free Speech" touched a nerve, but even that one could be construed as simply a type of market idea), multiculturalism and on and on, fueled by a capitalist hegemon that touches everyone in the world with the sole concern for profits, and then we have all this rebellion against this nihilistic landscape with a righteous religious cause.

This Islamist radicalization sounds all like a giant cry of desperation against the meaninglessness of everyday "atheist" materialistic life. They desperately want it not to be true, they desperately want life to have a higher meaning, even if at the cost of creating one of the most barbarous countries that have ever existed. I would even propose that the very relative sucess of ISIS proves that the ultimate radicalization of it, to in a way, go to the end with all this violent logic of extremist religious state of mind, was able to signal to the rest of the world that this is it, this is the real deal, this is the ****, and it proved very successful at bringing people all around the world who were suffering from this ennui of life.

And it can't be helped but to happen, because economics and capitalism pervades the middle east not with the Playstations and iphones, but with giant reservoirs of barrels of oil and tanks. They feel this material nihilism in their face with their lives. This is only going to get worse, before ... well who knows.

[karajorma]

Well I think the least people should do is if (when) ISIS decide to kill their remaining American hostage, point out that Fox News are responsible for them deciding to do something even more barbaric than a beheading.

[Luis Dias]

The spice must flow Karajorma, and Fox has to flow the images. Unless it's a picture of Mohammed. Then, it cannot flow and there people become too upset.

[jr2]

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When the US brought down Iraq and al Qaida, we got ISIS, which based purely on your and Dragon's rhetoric on the matter, is far worse. So what exactly makes you certain that occupying a middle eastern country will work now when it hasn't worked in approximately ever?

As for "building support for campaigns against ISIS", why would these videos do that? What part of them helps build the case against ISIS in particular, when everyone involved ends up looking rather backwards and barbaric, including the media distributing this gore porn, and the people cheering about it?

You know what I find interesting?  This:

1) So, we shouldn't have been there in the first place? Maybe, it's debatable, but for better or worse, we did.

2) It is the opinion of many that we shouldn't leave; the region is not ready for that yet.  Some just can't seem to make up their mind (although they have since retroactively made up their minds, of course).

3) Despite this, we leave.  (Apparently, someone decided this before even getting up to speed on all the issues and then denies ever making that decision).

4) SHTF.  The growing threat of ISIS is poo-poohed and dismissed by our current leadership.  Later, when the threat can no longer be ignored, blame is set on "bad intelligence".    Folks now like to lay the blame on 1), entering Iraq in the first place.  Again, just because someone before you made a mistake (debatable), does not mean you get to do whatever you want in response.  You have had your options limited by previous choices, ignoring those limits has consequences.

WELL, despite whether we should have been there or not, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT BEFORE we could do so without creating a friggin power vacuum (y'know, the kind which produces either another Sadaam Hussein or even better, ISIS).



Although, you're right, it is awfully convenient to just blame everything on those wrong-headed conservatives.  You know, if we could just move everything to the far left center, everything would be golden.  I do wish that a real far-right fascist or two would be elected to the house of representatives, just so that their real far-right views could show everyone what real far-right looks like.  Bunch of conservative-bashing far left commies, y'all.  :P

(FTR I'm not a cookie cutter conservative, I think for myself, and disagree with the R party on lots of things or think that they are doing it wrong, but it irks me that the R party is cast as "far-right" and somehow the D party is "right-center"... I've heard comments elsewhere that some wish "real" far-left politicians would emerge to show everyone how "centrist" the D party really is...   both the D and R party are 'left' on government size, scope, and spending (to differing degrees, sure).  I would lean Libertarian on that, but nnot as far as the Libertarians take it.  Oversight is needed, it just needs to be kept simple and enforced, not carefully manipulated so that your favored cronies can get exemptions (D or R, the cronies don't care, they'll line the pockets of both and usually do).

I think immigration does need an overhaul, but that those who are already here illegally need to head to the back of the line of the (now broader and faster) lines to gain citizenship.  Citizenship should mean assimilating, too -- you can have your culture but you must be a US citizen first.  If you want to make a mini-{insert country here} in the US, go back where you came from and fix your own country the way you want it.

I think taxes should be lowered but loopholes should be 95% eliminated, thus in actuality raising the taxes on those companies that don't pay anywhere near a decent rate of taxes.

etc, etc, in other words, if you just dismiss everything I say as me being a bat**** crazy far-right conservative, well... then IMHO you're likely a bat**** crazy far-left liberal (which would be why my right-leaning positions seem so far right to you).  :P



/end rant, sorry.  Feel free to rant too,  :hopping: just pause once in a while to smile.   :nod:

[swashmebuckle]

Ah, the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED guy, telling it like it IS.

Yeah there was overwhelming bipartisan support for invading Iraq at Bush's insistence, but there was also overwhelming bipartisan support for getting the hell out of there after it became obvious that we couldn't accomplish any of our goals. Hard liners got their forever-war candidate in 2008 and they lost. The current situation resulting from our change in strategy is as much of a fait accompli as that which Obama inherited post-invasion.

Saying "we shouldn't have left before the job was done" is just as useful as people saying "Bush should never have been president in the first place." It's done, and "don't leave until the job is done" is the exact wrong lesson to take away from it. The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."

[jr2]

The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."

some of us do. 

[Lorric]

Shouldn't have gone in the first place, shouldn't have left with the job unfinished imo.

Swash does have a good point though. You need the support of the people, I mean full support, to be able to see something like this through to the end. I saw something recently, and supposedly the American general at the end of the Vietnam war said something like "you never beat us on the battlefield" to his Viet counterpart, and the response was something like "True. And also completely irrelevant."

[jr2]

You need the support of the people, I mean full support, to be able to see something like this through to the end. I saw something recently, and supposedly the American general at the end of the Vietnam war said something like "you never beat us on the battlefield" to his Viet counterpart, and the response was something like "True. And also completely irrelevant."

Not the first time that has happened, probably won't be the last.  Interesting:

The Wall Street Journal published an interview in 1995 with Bui Tin, a former colonel who had served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:

How North Vietnam Won the War[/i], August 3, 1995, page A8]

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp#8AgQ8kSgLQAWDCDv.99

Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

[Dragon]

Some people knew this for quite a while. This is basically what Kurtz said in "Apocalypse Now", and what some Iraq opponents said back then. America is getting into unwinnable wars, and they're not unwinnable because of any military reason, but because American public would never approve of what was necessary to win. If America had the collective balls to do it, it could have won a victory in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The manpower and technology were all here. However, this would come at a cost, especially to people in those regions, that America just couldn't pay. In WWII, on the other hand, the public didn't hold the US back. The result? Beaches strewn with thousand of American soldiers and complete and utter destruction of the Nazis. Loses were large, but they were worth it. While the nature of war was different there, the essence was the same - killing the other side's men. Who those men were (soldiers vs. "civilians") merely influenced how capable we were of killing them.

This is also why my predictions about both conflict with Russia and the IS are so dark. NATO is incapable of winning any conflict that would require taking unpopular actions to win. Neither Russia nor IS have this issue, giving them an enormous advantage. Winning a war while being "the hero in shining armor" is a much more difficult feat, and might in fact be impossible against some enemies.

[Phantom Hoover]

The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."

some of us do. 

Yes, and voters have to be considered in aggregate. That's how it works.

[swashmebuckle]

The real lesson should be one in humility, like "Western voters don't care enough about the Middle East to do what would be necessary to change it for the better (if it's even possible at all to externally impose that sort of change), so don't go there looking for miraculous military solutions to political problems."

some of us do. 

Ditto to what Phantom Hoover said.

Also, feel free to solve for "what would be necessary." I'm thinking it involves America adopting Islam as an official religion, sending tens of thousands of (converted and Arabic speaking) aid workers to poor areas, pouring billions of dollars into improving their social services and bolstering their economies, and not responding with military action when some of our people come home in body bags. If you would be willing to do that, kudos, but we still ain't voting for you.

[666maslo666]

ISIS is not the equivalent of Vietnam, tough. I believe they are more similar to Hitler crossed with Taliban. In both of those cases military solution was applied with really good result. If we do not commit now, we wont leave behind a Vietnam-like country, a country with downsides but a pretty good one. We will leave a North Korea behind, or worse. True, the military is held back by the public, but thats where similarities with Vietnam end.

Liberals and anti-war activists were all about getting out of Iraq over the past decade, including me, and it may be hard to admit we were utterly wrong in that (even tough it did look like a good idea at the time). US was tired of war, is tired of war. But still, now the gloves need to come off.

The lesson is:

Shouldn't have gone in the first place, shouldn't have left with the job unfinished imo.

And I would add:

We should tolerate semi-secular dictators and autocrats in the middle east, cause they are better than Islamists.