US shoot down Syrian air force plane over ISIS held Syrian territory - who's side are the US on...?

First topic message reminder :

An American fighter jet shot down a Syrian warplane over the Isis-held province of Raqqa on Sunday as escalating tensions between rival forces threaten to draw the US into the wider conflict in Syria.

It was thought to be the first time the US-led coalition fighting Isis has shot down a Syrian jet since the war erupted six years ago, and it comes after several recent incidents in which the US has targeted regime forces and their allies in eastern Syria.

The US military said the downed Syrian plane was dropping bombs near a Syrian Kurdish militia that Washington was backing in the fight against Isis in Raqqa, the jihadi group’s de facto capital.

The downing of the Syrian jet came just hours before Iran launched ballistic missiles at suspected Isis targets in eastern Syria. The twin escalations by Washington and Tehran, which has already been active in supporting the Syrian regime, underscores the renewed risk of the civil war becoming a regional conflagration.

Moscow, which has intervened militarily to back the Syrian regime, condemned the US action, saying it flouted international law.

“What is this other than an act of aggression in violation of the norms of international law?” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, told reporters.

Syria’s conflict began in 2011 as a rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, but has since devolved into a multi-sided conflict that jihadi groups such as Isis exploited to seize territory. Russia and Iran back the regime, while the US, Turkey and Gulf Arab states have supported Syrian rebels.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards launched its surface-to-surface missiles against Isis in Syria’s east in an attack seen as retaliation for attacks this month by the jihadi group on the Islamic republic’s parliament and a shrine in Tehran.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, tweeted that “Iran’s missile capability protects its citizens in lawful self-defence and advances common global fight to eradicate Isis and extremist terror”.



https://www.ft.com/content/d2aba898-5467-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:And Tommy yet again repeats himself, with nothing to back up his opinions.

The US and the British and all its allies have every right to fight against those who commit crimes against humanity.

They acted in defense against a hostile action of the Syrian regime.

They can under article 51 of the Un charter

Well, I have the last word as we are much later that GMT.

I agree that the US, UK and allies can take action for humanitarian purposes under the UN Charter.  But only after a resolution has been argued and past.  No nation can just wing it, even if it is claiming humanitarian purposes.

There must be a deliberation and a vote.  Otherwise they are just off on a lark--maybe with justification--but no demonstrated difference from a simple invasion.

G'nite.

So how many have to die, for a resolution to be passed?

Half a million are already dead, let alone 11 million displaced, which has created a refugee crisis.
Where there has been resolutions vetoed by the Russians. 
Hence why the number of dead continues to rise.
The Russians back up those committing the genocide.
So how many more are going to die, through your inaction?

More waffle from didge...

Just admit that i'm right and you are wrong on this!

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I have the last word as we are much later that GMT.

I agree that the US, UK and allies can take action for humanitarian purposes under the UN Charter.  But only after a resolution has been argued and past.  No nation can just wing it, even if it is claiming humanitarian purposes.

There must be a deliberation and a vote.  Otherwise they are just off on a lark--maybe with justification--but no demonstrated difference from a simple invasion.

G'nite.

So how many have to die, for a resolution to be passed?

Half a million are already dead, let alone 11 million displaced, which has created a refugee crisis.
Where there has been resolutions vetoed by the Russians. 
Hence why the number of dead continues to rise.
The Russians back up those committing the genocide.
So how many more are going to die, through your inaction?

Sorry Quill, as Tommy seems intent on spoiling this thread

Have bumped this up again to get back on track

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Nothing to do with US involvement, as it was going on for two years before they did get involved.
Its completely like Yugoslavia with surrounding peoples involved, with genocide going on.
At the end of the day ISIS are propped up Qatar, Russia is propping up Assad and the rebels being backed by the US and countless other nations are small in comparison. There is other Islamic groups also fighting assad and fighting the US rebels and ISIS also.

Laters

The Russians weren't involved at first either. The US is keeping it going by countering the effects of the Russian involvement. They need to back off and let the situation be resolved.

What is the resolution?  Isn't that part of the problem?  We keep getting into these wars without an endgame.  

Up front, we get involved, not really because we want to help, but because we want to teach those bastards that we're the baddest boys in town.  

Once we get involved, and kill a few babies, we find we have no purpose to accomplish.  We run around killing more babies, bombing churches and wedding parties, and generally pissing people off. All we've done is to kill those babies, breed tremendous resentment, and prove we're the baddest boys.  Two negatives, and a little ego gratification.  As soon as we leave, things will return to the way they were...the second baddest boys in town will resume behaving inhumanely, and we will be fretting about what to do and how we left too soon.

Now that we have an overview of the full cycle, why do it all over again?  As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.  If it's insane to repeat, then we need a new strategy.  Until we get one, we would be just killing babies and breeding resentment.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Russians weren't involved at first either. The US is keeping it going by countering the effects of the Russian involvement. They need to back off and let the situation be resolved.

What is the resolution?  Isn't that part of the problem?  We keep getting into these wars without an endgame.  

Up front, we get involved, not really because we want to help, but because we want to teach those bastards that we're the baddest boys in town.  

Once we get involved, and kill a few babies, we find we have no purpose to accomplish.  All we've done is to kill those babies, breed tremendous resentment, and prove we're the baddest boys.  Two negatives, and a little ego gratification.  As soon as we leave, things will return to the way they were...the second baddest boys in town will resume behaving inhumanely, and we will be fretting about what to do.

Now that we have an overview of the full cycle, why do it all over again?  As Einstein said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.  If it's insane to repeat, then we need a new strategy.  Until we get one, we would be just killing babies and breeding resentment.

And there we have it?

Well the Iraq war lasting 15 years cost around a couple of hundred thousand lives. The vast majority carried out the deaths was the shia and Sunni insurgents. This one in Syria where there has been minimal to next to no action. Has seen half a million dead, far more injured and 11 million displaced. Unprecedented numbers of refugees, not since since the end of WW2. So bad has this refugee crisis been. That there has been a shift in politics to the right and discontent in Europe.

So thousands of babies have already died because you back inaction.
If we had of been involved, many of those babies would now be alive today. hundreds of thousands would be alive and millions would not be displaced. That is the cost of not getting involved. So because you do not want to get involved far more babies have died

bravo

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is the resolution?  Isn't that part of the problem?  We keep getting into these wars without an endgame.  

Up front, we get involved, not really because we want to help, but because we want to teach those bastards that we're the baddest boys in town.  

Once we get involved, and kill a few babies, we find we have no purpose to accomplish.  All we've done is to kill those babies, breed tremendous resentment, and prove we're the baddest boys.  Two negatives, and a little ego gratification.  As soon as we leave, things will return to the way they were...the second baddest boys in town will resume behaving inhumanely, and we will be fretting about what to do.

Now that we have an overview of the full cycle, why do it all over again?  As Einstein said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.  If it's insane to repeat, then we need a new strategy.  Until we get one, we would be just killing babies and breeding resentment.

And there we have it?

Well the Iraq war lasting 15 years cost around a couple of hundred thousand lives. The vast majority carried out the deaths was the shia and Sunni insurgents. This one where there has been minimal to next to no action. Has seen half a million dead, far more injured and 11 million displaced. Unprecedented numbers of refugees, not since since the end of WW2. So bad has this refugee crisis been. That there has been a shift in politics to the right and discontent in Europe.

So thousands of babies have already died because you back inaction.
If we had of been involved, many of those babies would now be alive today. hundreds of thousands would be alive and millions would not be displaced. That is the cost of not getting involved. So because you do not want to get involved far more babies have died

bravo

Are you talking about Iraq or Syria?  In Iraq, we were the baby killers.  In Syria, the other guys are the baby killers.  The point is we both are baby killers, when the answer is to stop killing babies.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

And there we have it?

Well the Iraq war lasting 15 years cost around a couple of hundred thousand lives. The vast majority carried out the deaths was the shia and Sunni insurgents. This one where there has been minimal to next to no action. Has seen half a million dead, far more injured and 11 million displaced. Unprecedented numbers of refugees, not since since the end of WW2. So bad has this refugee crisis been. That there has been a shift in politics to the right and discontent in Europe.

So thousands of babies have already died because you back inaction.
If we had of been involved, many of those babies would now be alive today. hundreds of thousands would be alive and millions would not be displaced. That is the cost of not getting involved. So because you do not want to get involved far more babies have died

bravo

Are you talking about Iraq or Syria?  In Iraq, we were the baby killers.  In Syria, the other guys are the baby killers.  The point is we both are baby killers, when the answer is to stop killing babies.

Show me how many babies died from military actions, bombings and shootings by the allies?
I bet you any money the number is in single figures.
Where these would have been accidents and not deliberates

Then compare this to how many thousands were murdered by the insurgents.

So based on your premise you would rather thousands of babies be murdered, than the US and allies act to stop this genocide in Syria being carried out by Assad and ISIS.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you talking about Iraq or Syria?  In Iraq, we were the baby killers.  In Syria, the other guys are the baby killers.  The point is we both are baby killers, when the answer is to stop killing babies.

Show me how many babies died from military actions, bombings and shootings by the allies?
I bet you any money the number is in single figures.
Where these would have been accidents and not deliberates

Then compare this to how many thousands were murdered by the insurgents.

So base on your premise you would rather thousands of babies be murdered, than the US and allies act to stop this genocide.

COUNTING? You think dead babies are less dead because they didn't have more brothers and sisters blown up around them? Is the count really important? Each mother who feels the weight of her dead baby in her arms, feels the same weight regardless.

Counting dead bodies is another score, perhaps meaningful to some news reporters to relate the magnitude of the battle. But each dead baby is a score in his or herself. You can't determine the morality of a cause by counting the bodies. It's the principle of the thing.

But the only principle that got us in, in the first place, was the challenge of proving we're the baddest boys in town. In the end, that's not a lot to fight for. So, after all that baby killing, we end up walking away. (BTW, we're getting good at retreats...lol.)

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Show me how many babies died from military actions, bombings and shootings by the allies?
I bet you any money the number is in single figures.
Where these would have been accidents and not deliberates

Then compare this to how many thousands were murdered by the insurgents.

So base on your premise you would rather thousands of babies be murdered, than the US and allies act to stop this genocide.

COUNTING?  You think dead babies are less dead because they didn't have more brothers and sisters blown up around them?  Is the count really important?  Each mother who feels the weight of her dead baby in her arms, feels the same weight regardless.

Counting dead bodies is another score, perhaps meaningful to some news reporters to relate the magnitude of the battle.  But each dead baby is a score in his or herself.  You can't determine the morality of a cause by counting the bodies.  It's the principle of the thing.

But the only principle that got us in, in the first place, was the challenge of proving we're the baddest boys in town.  In the end, that's not a lot to fight for.  So, after all that baby killing, we end up walking away.  (BTW, we're getting good at retreats...lol.)

1) Poor misdirection, as never made any claim whether they are dead or less dead, I asked you how many babies died from direct military action by the allies. Also you would need to show whether it was deliberate or they were killed accidently

2) Next you need to compare this to the insurgents, who we know carried out countless suicide bombing attacks and shootings of civilians. Thus deliberately murdering civilians,

3) Do you understand the difference in moral equivalency?

4) You are avoiding my points that where no military action has happened, we have seen far more civilians die in Syria in 4 years, than the entire Iraq war.

5) That means by inaction, far more civilians have died and in many cases deliberately by Assad's forces and ISIS

6) That means by your philosophy far more babies die by inaction

Go figure

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

COUNTING?  You think dead babies are less dead because they didn't have more brothers and sisters blown up around them?  Is the count really important?  Each mother who feels the weight of her dead baby in her arms, feels the same weight regardless.

Counting dead bodies is another score, perhaps meaningful to some news reporters to relate the magnitude of the battle.  But each dead baby is a score in his or herself.  You can't determine the morality of a cause by counting the bodies.  It's the principle of the thing.

But the only principle that got us in, in the first place, was the challenge of proving we're the baddest boys in town.  In the end, that's not a lot to fight for.  So, after all that baby killing, we end up walking away.  (BTW, we're getting good at retreats...lol.)

1) Poor misdirection, as never made any claim whether they are dead or less dead, I asked you how many babies died from direct military action by the allies. Also you would need to show whether it was deliberate or they were killed accidently

The point is, the numbers don't matter.  This is the equation: Go to war >> dead babies.

Thorin wrote:2) Next you need to compare this to the insurgents, who we know carried out countless suicide bombing attacks and shootings of civilians. Thus deliberately murdering civilians,

To learn what?  We already know: Go to war >> dead babies.

Thorin wrote:3) Do you understand the difference in moral equivalency?

I think so: Dead babies = Bad.

Thorin wrote:4) You are avoiding my points that where no military action has happened, we have seen far more civilians die in Syria in 4 years, than the entire Iraq war.

But the real question is, what is the point of adding to that death toll?  Remember, the proposition we are debating over is, Do you want to go in and kill more? and To what end?

Thorin wrote:5) That means by inaction, far more civilians have died and in many cases deliberately by Assad's forces and ISIS

6) That means by your philosophy far more babies die by inaction

Go figure

I know of no formula of mathematics where you have less in total, than the sum of something's parts.  It can never be said that 5 + 5 = 4.  When you go into a war and add to the total of deaths, you end up with more deaths, not less.

LOL...go figure.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Russians weren't involved at first either. The US is keeping it going by countering the effects of the Russian involvement. They need to back off and let the situation be resolved.

What is the resolution?  Isn't that part of the problem?  We keep getting into these wars without an endgame.  

Up front, we get involved, not really because we want to help, but because we want to teach those bastards that we're the baddest boys in town.  

Once we get involved, and kill a few babies, we find we have no purpose to accomplish.  We run around killing more babies, bombing churches and wedding parties, and generally pissing people off.  All we've done is to kill those babies, breed tremendous resentment, and prove we're the baddest boys.  Two negatives, and a little ego gratification.  As soon as we leave, things will return to the way they were...the second baddest boys in town will resume behaving inhumanely, and we will be fretting about what to do and how we left too soon.

Now that we have an overview of the full cycle, why do it all over again?  As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.  If it's insane to repeat, then we need a new strategy.  Until we get one, we would be just killing babies and breeding resentment.

The resolution would be for Assad to remain in power and then other countries can try to do a deal with him - for him to be more reasonable. If he goes, the rebels will all want to take power, and loads of jihadi groups will spring up. ISIS will go on the rampage, and then people will wish Assad was still in charge.

Original Quill wrote:



The point is, the numbers don't matter.  This is the equation: Go to war >> dead babies.

Thorin wrote:2)yes they do matter and on whether it was deliberate or by accident,

To learn what?  We already know: Go to war >> dead babies.

Thorin wrote:3)Really? Again what is the difference?

I think so: Dead babies = Bad.

Thorin wrote:4) Yes they are and by your method more died, which makes your method very bad.

But the real question is, what is the point of adding to that death toll?  Remember, the proposition we are debating over is, Do you want to go in and kill more? and To what end?

Thorin wrote:Adding? Its called reducing, as by your method we have seen far more babies die. Inaction as seen has accounted for far more people being butchered, let alone raped and enslaved

I know of no formula of mathematics where you have less in total, than the sum of something's parts.  It can never be said that 5 + 5 = 4.  When you go into a war and add to the total of deaths, you end up with more deaths, not less.

LOL...go figure.

So as can be seen your method accounts for thousands more babies dying. As Syria is at war and has been at war and your inaction has allowed this war to continue unabated. That means half a million dead in four years.  Let alone people being murdered, raped and enslaved. The later two of which are in unprecedented numbers. So if the US and allies had stepped in far less would have died, as they would have militarily defeated ISIS, the Islamist's groups and Assad very quickly, thus far less civilians would have been raped, murdered and enslaved

Your argument is ethically defunct mate and you definitely cannot add up

Thorin wrote:So as can be seen your method accounts for thousands more babies dying.

Lol...you sound like Trump--up is down, left is right, and Obama was born on Mars.

You need to face some fundamental facts, among which is, guns and bombs kill people.  So, anyone going in with guns is intending to kill.  I don't know, but I'm guessing that you are not advocating your tough guys go in with warm puppies.  Am I right?  So you are advocating killing someone.

Now, if Assad and the Syrian regulars have guns and bombs and they are killing 'X' number of civilians, and the cross-fire between contending insurgents is killing 'X'+ more civilians, how are you going to reverse that number with your tough guys and their tough guy guns and bombs?  How do you plan to lower the number killed by killing more?

You either advocate a genocide of your own, or you make your tough guys up with real mean face paint.  I don't know of anything else that is going to make the other guy's tough guys give up their guns and bombs.  And if you go in there with your tough guys, you just add to the number of guns and bombs.

I know you don't like math, as there is a certain deterministic inevitability to it...but at some point reality must take over.  If you jump off a cliff, odds are you will die.  If you drink cyanide, you will probably die.  And if two groups of tough guys meet with guns and bombs, something's going to go BOOM!

Save the babies...yeah, sure.

Original Quill wrote:

Lol...you sound like Trump--up is down, left is right, and Obama was born on Mars.

Thorin wrote:Misdirection

You need to face some fundamental facts, among which is, guns kill people.  So, anyone going in with guns is intending to kill.  I don't know, but I'm guessing that you are not advocating your tough guys go in with warm puppies.  Am I right?  So you are advocating killing someone.

Thorin wrote:Nothing actually countering my points

Now, if Assad and the Syrian regulars have guns and bombs and they are killing 'X' number of civilians, and the cross-fire between contending insurgents is killing 'X'+ more civilians, how are you going to reverse that number with your tough guys and their tough guy guns?  How do you plan to lower the number killed by killing more?

Thorin wrote:They are actually murdering many civilians deliberately, as are ISIS, the point where your moral compass breaks and you fail to understand they have been doing this systematically for four years. Let alone where they have starved cities. So again if the US and allies had of militarily defeated ISIS, Assad ect. They never would have been able to carry out mass murder of Syrian civilians, with gas attacks, starvation, shootings bombings etc. ISIS would have not been able to murder, enslave and rape countless Yazidi's, druze, Kurds etc. Do you see how your argument is falling apart at the seems? I know it has, as you gone from have a civil discussion to attempting and failing to take the piss. It proves to me, you know your argument is flawed

You either advocate genocide of your own, or you make your tough guys up with real mean face paint.  I don't know of anything else that is going to make the other guys tough guys give up their guns and bombs.  And if you go in there with your touch guys, you just to the number of guns and bombs.

Thorin wrote:As seen above my action would have prevent many of the deaths, rapes and oppression of many people where they have been starved and enslaved
Again you need to look at your moral compass.

I know you don't like math, as there is a certain inevitability to it...but at some point reality must take over.  If you jump off a cliff, odds are you will die.  If you drink cyanide, you will probably die.  And if two groups of tough guys meet with guns and bombs, something's going to go BOOM!

Thorin wrote:If you stand by and watch people rape women and children, then you have allowed that to happen. If you step in and stop those commiting the rape and murder, you have prevented many women and children from being raped and eslaved

Save the babies...yeah, sure.

You ensured many babies were not saved and thousands died, thousands of women and girls were raped, enslaved and murdered.

Thorin wrote:They are actually murdering many civilians deliberately, as are ISIS, the point where your moral compass breaks and you fail to understand they have been doing this systematically for four years. Let alone where they have starved cities. So again if the US and allies had of militarily defeated ISIS, Assad ect. They never would have been able to carry out mass murder of Syrian civilians, with gas attacks, starvation, shootings bombings etc. ISIS would have not been able to murder, enslave and rape countless Yazidi's, druze, Kurds etc. Do you see how your argument is falling apart at the seems

So you are advocating guns and bombs.  Okay...now how are you going to assure you will win against 1.6 Muslims in the world, which you have tutored to hate you by having raped their daughters, tortured their husbands and brothers, kidnapped their fathers and tossed them into concentration camps?

War begets war, didge.  And the tactics of war beget the tactics of war.  How is your war different?

Thorin wrote:As seen above my action would have prevent many of the deaths, rapes and oppression of many people where they have been starved and enslaved  Again you need to look at your moral compass.

Are we speaking past tense?  Because, here and now, we only have the future.  Show of hands, how many believe that going into a war, with guns and bombs, is going to reduce deaths and minimize rapes and tortures?

Thorin wrote:If you stand by and watch people rape women and children, then you have allowed that to happen. If you step in and stop those commiting the rape and murder, you have prevented many women and children from being raped and eslaved

And if you are committing the rapes and tortures yourself?  I repeat: war begets war, and war tactics beget war tactics.  

You saw yourself, the rapes and tortures going on in Iraq.  Nicko can fill you in on what he saw in Viet Nam.  It's the Pogo reality all over again:

Original Quill wrote:

So you are advocating guns and bombs.  Okay...now how are you going to assure you will win against 1.6 Muslims in the world, which you have tutored to hate you by having raped their daughters, tortured their husbands and brothers, kidnapped their fathers and tossed them into concentration camps?
War begets war, didge.  And the tactics of war beget the tactics of war.  How is your war different?
Are we speaking past tense?  Because, here and now, we only have the future.  Show of hands, how many believe that going into a war, with guns and bombs, is going to reduce deaths?
And if you are committing the rapes and tortures yourself?  I repeat: war begets war, and war tactics beget war tactics.  

You saw yourself, the rapes and tortures going on in Iraq.  Nicko can fill you in on what he saw in Viet Nam.  It's the Pogo reality all over again: 

I see you just repeated the same thing without countering my points

So lets break this down to show how easily you are wrong

Lets just go off ISIS and use some hypothetical numbers to show why your reasoning is so poor.

So lets say over a four year period that ISIS have murdered 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

If we break this down year by year, that for each year, 20,000 people are murdered each year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped each year and that 2500 casualties come from military conflict.

By your inaction over four years we would still have the figures above.

By US and the Allies military intervention in the first year with boots on the ground. Taking into account ISIS using human shields. Would see ISIS defeated and at a cost of 20,000 people are murdered that year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped that year and that 7500 casualties come from military conflict.

This is compared to your inaction which has caused 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

Which means my military action has saved 60,000 people from murder, 30,000 women and girls from being raped and civilian deaths by 2,500 accidentally through collateral damage.

The above is just based on ISIS and not even Assad, where the numbers could be vastly more saved based on the same time frame.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you are advocating guns and bombs.  Okay...now how are you going to assure you will win against 1.6 Muslims in the world, which you have tutored to hate you by having raped their daughters, tortured their husbands and brothers, kidnapped their fathers and tossed them into concentration camps?
War begets war, didge.  And the tactics of war beget the tactics of war.  How is your war different?
Are we speaking past tense?  Because, here and now, we only have the future.  Show of hands, how many believe that going into a war, with guns and bombs, is going to reduce deaths?
And if you are committing the rapes and tortures yourself?  I repeat: war begets war, and war tactics beget war tactics.  

You saw yourself, the rapes and tortures going on in Iraq.  Nicko can fill you in on what he saw in Viet Nam.  It's the Pogo reality all over again: 

I see you just repeated the same thing without countering my points

So lets break this down to show how easily you are wrong

Lets just go off ISIS and use some hypothetical numbers to show why your reasoning is so poor.

So lets say over a four year period that ISIS have murdered 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

If we break this down year by year, that for each year, 20,000 people are murdered each year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped each year and that 2500 casualties come from military conflict.

By your inaction over four years we would still have the figures above.

By US and the Allies military intervention in the first year with boots on the ground. Taking into account ISIS using human shields. Would see ISIS defeated and at a cost of 20,000 people are murdered that year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped that year and that 7500 casualties come from military conflict.

This is compared to your inaction which has caused 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

Which means my military action has saved 60,000 people from murder, 30,000 women and girls from being raped and civilian deaths by 2,500 accidentally through collateral damage.

The above is just based on ISIS and not even Assad, where the numbers could be vastly more saved based on the same time frame.

That's all in the past, didge.  I don't look backwards. Viet Nam was a bad idea. Iraq was a bad idea. And on it goes...

I'm off bombs and guns. I don't countenance any killing, rape or torture.  What do you propose, besides killing, rape and torture?

If it does involve killing, rape and torture, it had better last 100-years, because it will take that long to go through 1.6-billion Muslims. Don't think small...if your proposal involves killing babies, rape or torture, as we saw in Iraq, and still see in Yemen, I can guarantee it will take some time. Expect ISIS to be replaced by the next group, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, and so on. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and your way continues to piss all of them off. If you choose war, they'll be back until all of them are gone. I don't know...how many do you have?

What's your winning proposal...I'm listening.  

Green from me Raggs!


Didge... you are now just conflating and twisting away from the original point of op because you are wrong!

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I see you just repeated the same thing without countering my points

So lets break this down to show how easily you are wrong

Lets just go off ISIS and use some hypothetical numbers to show why your reasoning is so poor.

So lets say over a four year period that ISIS have murdered 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

If we break this down year by year, that for each year, 20,000 people are murdered each year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped each year and that 2500 casualties come from military conflict.

By your inaction over four years we would still have the figures above.

By US and the Allies military intervention in the first year with boots on the ground. Taking into account ISIS using human shields. Would see ISIS defeated and at a cost of 20,000 people are murdered that year by ISIS. !0,000 women and girls are raped that year and that 7500 casualties come from military conflict.

This is compared to your inaction which has caused 80,000 people. That they have raped 40,000 women and girls.
Military action has been the cause of 10,000 civilians.

Which means my military action has saved 60,000 people from murder, 30,000 women and girls from being raped and civilian deaths by 2,500 accidentally through collateral damage.

The above is just based on ISIS and not even Assad, where the numbers could be vastly more saved based on the same time frame.

That's all in the past, didge.  I don't look backwards.  Viet Nam was a bad idea.  Iraq was a bad idea.  And on it goes...

I'm off bombs and guns.  I don't countenance any killing, rape or torture.  What do you propose, besides killing, rape and torture?

If it does involve killing, rape and torture, it had better last 100-years, because it will take that long to go through 1.6-billion Muslims.  Don't think small...if your proposal involves killing babies, rape or torture, as we saw in Iraq, and still see in Yemen, I can guarantee it will take some time.  Expect ISIS to be replaced by the next group, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, and so on.  There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and your way continues to piss all of them off.  If you choose war, they'll be back until all of them are gone.  I don't know...how many do you have?

What's your winning proposal...I'm listening.  

I see you conceded your other arguments

Well where does any of what I said mean taking on 1.6 billion Muslims?
Are you thus saying the problem is Muslims and Islam.
That by saving women and children from rape and murder, that then all Muslims in the world will see this as a heinous crime to stop Islamist from committing this crime?

Is that what you are saying?
That the problem is Islam? 
It clearly would have to be if you believe that to help prevent people committing mass murder and the rape and enslavement of people, would cause all Muslims to go to war with us? That you are then in fact capitulating to ISIS who want the entire Muslim world to rise up against the west.
Is that what you are doing?

I on the other hand know and believe the vast majority of Muslims also want to defeat ISIS
What is even worse is you think its all in the past and that all those lives lost do not matter.
Which is odd after arguing off Iraq and saying its wrong with babies being killed.
Does it now not matter that babies are being killed, when its others killing babies?

Have I just exposed your poor use of babies to deny saving their lives, when its not the US involved in these wars? That you are happy to stand by and allow babies to die? You only object when some are accidentally killed as collateral damage in conflict?

The answer is very simple Quill, even more so that many of the other Arab nations see Iran as the biggest threat in the Middle East and that only Russia, China are the only real nations propping up Assad.

The first thing to do, is from Iraq, Jordan have Arab and Allied western forces, with the US backed rebels and Kurds from the areas they control. To invade the areas in Syria under ISIS control, which would give control of the vast majority of Syria to the rebels and the Kurds. Create an Independent Kurdish nation from these where the majority of Kurds live there and the rest create an independent Eastern Syrian nation from Assad, a democratic one. You get both new nations backed by the vast majority of the rest of the world as legal. This has solved one of the problems, destroying ISIS. As unlike with the Taliban, there is neighboring country with a vast mountain range to hide and regroup in. With little that Assad or the Russians can do about a joint Arab and allied invasion of ISIS controlled Syria. ISIS would effectively be destroyed in Syria. Whilst this invasion is going on, the rebel forces in the south can attack Assad, and split off his forces in the south, linking up with the allies coming from Iraq. Reducing Assad to only control a small portion of Syria. Assad forces are already exhausted from so many years of war and the more Assad becomes isolated the more chance there will be of a coup eventually happening there. As these two new independent states will be buffers against Iran and will leave Assad isolated. Assad only controls a small amount of Syria and with these two new independent states backed by Arab nations and the west, will mean Russia's influence will have been greatly diminished. 

Thorin wrote:Well where does any of what I said mean taking on 1.6 billion Muslims?

I think it's a significant point.  Let's go back to my previous post:

Original Quill wrote: Expect ISIS to be replaced by the next group, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, and so on.  There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world...

I repeat: what is your endgame? What you start is going to go on, and on, and on...with no end.  It's because the west has no goal, no endgame.  You have these glorious goals--like 'humanitarian interference' or 'ending genocide'--but they are so vague and nebulous as to be meaningless.  

Look at Korea...ended in 1953, and we're still there with 28, 500 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea. Do you realize what that costs go go 65-years, with no endgame.  Viet Nam we flat out ran away from.  Same with all the other conflicts.  There's just lots of glory going in, and no endgame.

Once you are in, they've got you by the balls.  You can't get out without collapsing the whole thing.  And the enemy goes back to the same old ways.  What do you achieve...nothing.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Well where does any of what I said mean taking on 1.6 billion Muslims?

Yes, I think it's a significant point.  Let's go back to my post:

Original Quill wrote: Expect ISIS to be replaced by the next group, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, and so on.  There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world...

What you start is going to go on, and on, and on...with no end.  It's because the west has no endgame.  You have these glorious goals--like 'humanitarian interference' or 'ending genocide'--but they are so vague and nebulous as to be meaningless.  Look at Korea...ended in 1953, and we're still there with 28, 500 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea.  Viet Nam we flat out ran away from.  Same with all the other conflicts.  There's just lots of glory going in, and no endgame.

Once you are in, they've got you by the balls.  You can't get out without collapsing the whole thing.  And the enemy goes back to the same old ways.  What do you achieve...nothing.

You never addressed a single point.

And many other conflicts in the 20th century have been resolved, including ones that involve Islamic nations. Look at East Timor? 

Then we have conflicts like Malaysia? Bosnia? Northern Ireland? Kenya? I could go on, but as seen your argument is again weak.

Try again

Well where does any of what I said mean taking on 1.6 billion Muslims?
Are you thus saying the problem is Muslims and Islam.
That by saving women and children from rape and murder, that then all Muslims in the world will see this as a heinous crime to stop Islamist from committing this crime?

Is that what you are saying?
That the problem is Islam? 
It clearly would have to be if you believe that to help prevent people committing mass murder and the rape and enslavement of people, would cause all Muslims to go to war with us? That you are then in fact capitulating to ISIS who want the entire Muslim world to rise up against the west.
Is that what you are doing?

I on the other hand know and believe the vast majority of Muslims also want to defeat ISIS
What is even worse is you think its all in the past and that all those lives lost do not matter.
Which is odd after arguing off Iraq and saying its wrong with babies being killed.
Does it now not matter that babies are being killed, when its others killing babies?

Have I just exposed your poor use of babies to deny saving their lives, when its not the US involved in these wars? That you are happy to stand by and allow babies to die? You only object when some are accidentally killed as collateral damage in conflict?

The answer is very simple Quill, even more so that many of the other Arab nations see Iran as the biggest threat in the Middle East and that only Russia, China are the only real nations propping up Assad.

The first thing to do, is from Iraq, Jordan have Arab and Allied western forces, with the US backed rebels and Kurds from the areas they control. To invade the areas in Syria under ISIS control, which would give control of the vast majority of Syria to the rebels and the Kurds. Create an Independent Kurdish nation from these where the majority of Kurds live there and the rest create an independent Eastern Syrian nation from Assad, a democratic one. You get both new nations backed by the vast majority of the rest of the world as legal. This has solved one of the problems, destroying ISIS. As unlike with the Taliban, there is neighboring country with a vast mountain range to hide and regroup in. With little that Assad or the Russians can do about a joint Arab and allied invasion of ISIS controlled Syria. ISIS would effectively be destroyed in Syria. Whilst this invasion is going on, the rebel forces in the south can attack Assad, and split off his forces in the south, linking up with the allies coming from Iraq. Reducing Assad to only control a small portion of Syria. Assad forces are already exhausted from so many years of war and the more Assad becomes isolated the more chance there will be of a coup eventually happening there. As these two new independent states will be buffers against Iran and will leave Assad isolated. Assad only controls a small amount of Syria and with these two new independent states backed by Arab nations and the west, will mean Russia's influence will have been greatly diminished. 

Thorin wrote:You never addressed a single point.

There is no other point to consider.  Endless war is not a proper way of life.

And for what? It's not our fight.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:You never addressed a single point.

There is no other point to consider.  Endless war is not a proper way of life.

And for what?  It's not our fight.

So the human race does not matter to you and you offer up a racial argument or nationalist argument.

Look after your own.. You are thus racially segregating the rest of the world to suffer their fate.

Which seems odd, when your nation is founded on the liberty and freedom of people from oppression

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Your argument would have left the Jews to have become extinct in Europe under the Nazis.

More dodgy waffle... this thread is about the illegal military action in shooting down a syrian govt jet that was engaged in bombing hostile isis militia...

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is no other point to consider.  Endless war is not a proper way of life.

And for what?  It's not our fight.

So the human race does not matter to you and you offer up a racial argument or nationalist argument.

Look after your own.. You are thus racially segregating the rest of the world to suffer their fate.

Which seems odd, when your nation is founded on the liberty and freedom of people from oppression

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Your argument would have left the Jews to have become extinct in Europe under the Nazis.

Bumped to get the thread back on track, after yet again Tommy trying to derail the thread, after he cannot stomach the fact people get bored with his poor unfounded circular arguments. Its up to others if they wish to debate him, which I have no objection to, but nobody else is.

Even worse he claims a warplane was shot down, not for attacking Kurdish US backed Rebels, but claims based off no evidence they were attacking ISIS. We know Assad is fighting against the Kurds as well. The point on the plane has been discussed and now Quill and myself are discussing the conflict in further detail.

Now dodgy spamming...

Tommy Monk wrote:Green from me Raggs!


Didge... you are now just conflating and twisting away from the original point of op because you are wrong!

Thank you Tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:More dodgy waffle... this thread is about the illegal military action in shooting down a syrian govt jet that was engaged in bombing hostile isis militia...

Yes it is, and the Russians consider that it was illegal, which is really what matters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:More dodgy waffle... this thread is about the illegal military action in shooting down a syrian govt jet that was engaged in bombing hostile isis militia...

Yes it is, and the Russians consider that it was illegal, which is really what matters.

lol, so if someone believes someone is guilty, that is what counts and not the law?

So why are they not taking the US to the international criminal court?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes it is, and the Russians consider that it was illegal, which is really what matters.

lol, so if someone believes someone is guilty, that is what counts and not the law?

So why are they not taking the US to the international criminal court?

I don't think the Russians will bother with a court - they already said might shoot down US planes west of the Euphrates. I posted a link before.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol, so if someone believes someone is guilty, that is what counts and not the law?

So why are they not taking the US to the international criminal court?

I don't think the Russians will bother with a court - they already said might shoot down US planes west of the Euphrates. I posted a link before.

So they will use the same article 51 of the UN, which makes the US action legal.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think the Russians will bother with a court - they already said might shoot down US planes west of the Euphrates. I posted a link before.

So they will use the same article 51 of the UN, which makes the US action legal.

I don't know. The Russians are there because the Syrian Government wants them there. They do not want the Americans there. Perhaps that makes a difference.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So they will use the same article 51 of the UN, which makes the US action legal.

I don't know. The Russians are there because the Syrian Government wants them there. They do not want the Americans there. Perhaps that makes a difference.

But they are stating specifically that if US fighters cross west of the Euphrates, they will consider the action a hostile threat and thus invoked article 51 to defend their forced and allies. So they are doing tit for tat with the US.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know. The Russians are there because the Syrian Government wants them there. They do not want the Americans there. Perhaps that makes a difference.

But they are stating specifically that if US fighters cross west of the Euphrates, they will consider the action a hostile threat and thus invoked article 51 to defend their forced and allies. So they are doing tit for tat with the US.

Yes, possibly.

Thorin wrote:So the human race does not matter to you and you offer up a racial argument or nationalist argument.

Look after your own.. You are thus racially segregating the rest of the world to suffer their fate.

Which seems odd, when your nation is founded on the liberty and freedom of people from oppression

Didge, right now you're blowing out your ass.  One of the ways that you lose the linear focus of your argument is become all grandiose.  You start making all sorts of groundless associations, and lose sight of what you are saying.  Come back to earth.

Your criticism is more appropriately directed at you: your argument is authoritarian and anti-humane.  You are advocating perpetual war, because in your ethnocentric vision Muslims are...what?  They are rejecting your values and your lifestyle in their own country.  They are rejecting you because they damn well like their own culture.  They are seeking what, in their minds, is a proper direction, and you don’t like it.  Like a petulant child, you insist that they must become more like you, your values and beliefs.

Why can’t you just leave other parts of the world alone?  It’s none of your business.  If you care so much for humanity, perpetual war is no answer.  Turn to your own country.  Work to improve the quality of life for the homeless, the poor, to feed and educate children, and remove humanity-haters and profit-takers from political office in the UK.

The only reason that you would want perpetual war with Muslims is that you hate them for some reason.  There is no other reason for you to even concern yourself.  Go home…make your own country better.  Leave Syria to persons who have an honest interest in humanitarian purposes, not perpetual war.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So the human race does not matter to you and you offer up a racial argument or nationalist argument.

Look after your own.. You are thus racially segregating the rest of the world to suffer their fate.

Which seems odd, when your nation is founded on the liberty and freedom of people from oppression

Didge, right now you're blowing out your ass.  One of the ways that you lose the linear focus of your argument is become all grandiose.  You start making all sorts of groundless associations, and lose sight of what you are saying.  Come back to earth.

So you resort to abuse and offer nothing to counter my points. Instead you do your usual misdirection and drivel about debating. When you are not the standard to look up to on this and turn the debate about me and not my reasoned points. That is you waving the white flag in this debate.

You had to spoil the debate and all because you know you cannot counter my points

Like I said, if we had you around in WW2 in charge of the US, all the Jews would be extinct in Europe because of you

I suggest you read this book as its apt that you do.






Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah and Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) in the Israel Defense Forces. His latest book is The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust (2017).



My new book, The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust, is a personal journey exploring my parents’ Holocaust experiences. My mother survived the war hiding in a Budapest attic; my father survived both a mining-work camp in Yugoslavia (Bor) and a forced march from which he escaped when Tito’s partisans ambushed the German soldiers.

In addition to researching how they survived, something I knew very little of as a child, the book addresses the role of the bystander – in particular, the complicity of the bystander. I firmly believe that bystander non-intervention enhances victim vulnerability and facilitates perpetrator evil. It is for that reason that I advocate legislation criminalizing bystander non-intervention and am working with a member of the Utah legislature in this effort.

Non-intervention is a conscious decision. The bystander, to meet my proposed definition, must know the victim is in distress and be in a position to alert the proper authorities. There is no need for actual, physical intervention. Innumerable reasons are proffered as to “why not.” I, too, have been guilty of this. I have excuses, none particularly compelling or convincing.

The bystander is a recurring theme in history. The consequences are inevitably tragic. To wit: Pictures of lynchings graphically and convincingly illustrate crowds, enjoying their picnics, surrounded by their children as an African American is brutally murdered. While those iconic and infamous pictures also show the local sheriff casually observing mob rule, my focus is not on individuals in positions of power. They are not bystanders; they are guilty of other crimes including dereliction of duty, if not accomplices to murder.

For a previous writing project, I interviewed a distinguished academic whose beloved grandfather participated in lynchings. She explained to me that her grandfather adored her; she adored him. However, when the truth of his past came to her attention she was repulsed. I assume her anger would be mitigated had he been “in the crowd” watching others murder a fellow citizen.

While researching my present book, I met with children of bystanders who watched the Jews of Maastricht in the Netherlands make their way to the train station to be deported. One was adamant that her father bore no guilt as “he could do nothing”; the second was overcome with emotion when realizing her father’s inaction was akin to that of the bystander. She recalled in painstaking detail taking leave of her Jewish classmates and neighbors who were murdered in Auschwitz. Their faces adorn her kitchen wall.

The same cruel fate awaited my paternal grandparents. Their walk from home to the train station was, as I have come to learn, marked by taunting, hitting, jeering by their soon-to-be erstwhile neighbors. Not one offered solace or assistance. The same combination of taunting accompanied my father as he and three other liberated prisoners walked 136 km to safety in the dead of winter. No one offered them provisions. I offer this not to suggest that Yugoslav (they walked through present-day Serbia to Bulgaria) villagers were responsible for their travail but rather to present a compelling historical story from which we can learn much. Simply put: one of the profound lessons I learned while researching this book is that the evil of the Nazis was facilitated by the millions of bystanders. For me, that is not an abstract concept; rather, it is concrete and personal.

The idiom of failing to learn from history is oft-repeated, yet, tragically, not always applied. The book talks I have given since the book’s release have been marked by three important patterns:

● A remarkably wide range of attendees’ ages, 15 to 85 years old
● Powerful questions regarding the bystander today
● Painful sharing of family Holocaust stories


I have been asked whether the current American political climate was “in the back of my mind” when writing my book. The answer is a loud and resounding “NO.” I am not a prophet. However, I do believe that we—individually and collectively—must ask ourselves two questions: what do learn from the consequences of bystander non-intervention 75 years ago and how is that lesson to be applied in 2017?

For me, the answers are remarkably clear and simple: To minimize, if not prevent a recurrence—regardless of degree—we must engage each other and our leaders in a loud, consistent manner in accordance with the finest and time-honored manner of a civic and civil democracy. Exercising the right to vote is obvious (failure to do so is unacceptable); speaking truth to power is essential; understanding that today’s bystander is tomorrow’s victim is a theme that repeats itself; and most importantly that we owe a legal duty to intervene on behalf of another human in distress.

On June 14, 2016, I re-traced my grandparents’ horrible walk of May 26, 1944. I did so with the invaluable assistance of a Hungarian genealogist. My emotions ran the expected gamut. However, the OVERWHELMING emotion was: how could it be that NO ONE offered any assistance. That is the essence of the bystander. That same powerful, overwhelming emotion would be, I am convinced, akin to what descendants of an innocent American strung to a tree would feel were they to visit the spot where their relative was brutally murdered.
With those two awful visions in my mind, I am convinced that the effort to legislate bystander non-intervention is the obvious lesson history offers.


- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/165943#sthash.Q1qX1Gd2.dpuf

I just think that one side has to win, otherwise it will go on and on with more and more deaths. I doubt the Russians are going to back off any day soon, so it's best if the US does.

If Assad does win, there is a chance of reprisals against the rebels and their supporters, but I think that's something that has to be addressed as soon as he shows signs of winning. If he ignores any warnings, then other countries might have to think again. The way it is at the moment though, it's just stalemate.

I'm not sure what should be done about ISIS though - I doubt they'll give up any day soon either.

Raggamuffin wrote:I just think that one side has to win, otherwise it will go on and on with more and more deaths. I doubt the Russians are going to back off any day soon, so it's best if the US does.

If Assad does win, there is a chance of reprisals against the rebels and their supporters, but I think that's something that has to be addressed as soon as he shows signs of winning. If he ignores any warnings, then other countries might have to think again. The way it is at the moment though, it's just stalemate.

I'm not sure what should be done about ISIS though - I doubt they'll give up any day soon either.

No one side won in the Balkans conflicts at the break up of Yugoslavia.
I foresee as I said to you before Syria broken up into independent states.
Assad's forces are exhausted and do not have the manpower to wing this conflict
They already require the assistance of thousands of Hezbollah, Russian and Iranian forces and its the US Kurdish rebels they have made the biggest headway against ISIS.
I think it is only a matter of time before there is a military coup against Assad.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I just think that one side has to win, otherwise it will go on and on with more and more deaths. I doubt the Russians are going to back off any day soon, so it's best if the US does.

If Assad does win, there is a chance of reprisals against the rebels and their supporters, but I think that's something that has to be addressed as soon as he shows signs of winning. If he ignores any warnings, then other countries might have to think again. The way it is at the moment though, it's just stalemate.

I'm not sure what should be done about ISIS though - I doubt they'll give up any day soon either.

No one side won in the Balkans conflicts at the break up of Yugoslavia.
I foresee as I said to you before Syria broken up into independent states.
Assad's forces are exhausted and do not have the manpower to wing this conflict
They already require the assistance of thousands of Hezbollah, Russian and Iranian forces and its the US Kurdish rebels they have made the biggest headway against ISIS.
I think it is only a matter of time before there is a military coup against Assad.

Look what happened when Bosnia tried to break away from Yugoslavia. It was a bloodbath, despite the presence of the UN.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No one side won in the Balkans conflicts at the break up of Yugoslavia.
I foresee as I said to you before Syria broken up into independent states.
Assad's forces are exhausted and do not have the manpower to wing this conflict
They already require the assistance of thousands of Hezbollah, Russian and Iranian forces and its the US Kurdish rebels they have made the biggest headway against ISIS.
I think it is only a matter of time before there is a military coup against Assad.

Look what happened when Bosnia tried to break away from Yugoslavia. It was a bloodbath, despite the presence of the UN.

Well this is far more of a bloodbath, half a million are now dead, 11 million displaced which has created the refugee crisis in Europe. This is far worse.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Look what happened when Bosnia tried to break away from Yugoslavia. It was a bloodbath, despite the presence of the UN.

Well this is far more of a bloodbath, half a million are now dead, 11 million displaced which has created the refugee crisis in Europe. This is far worse.

That's because of the interference from other countries, which are balancing each other out. As I said, the US needs to back off.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So the human race does not matter to you and you offer up a racial argument or nationalist argument.

Look after your own.. You are thus racially segregating the rest of the world to suffer their fate.

Which seems odd, when your nation is founded on the liberty and freedom of people from oppression

The only reason that you would want perpetual war with Muslims is that you hate them for some reason.  There is no other reason for you to even concern yourself.  Go home…make your own country better.  Leave Syria to persons who have an honest interest in humanitarian purposes, not perpetual war.

Here we go again making out this is about Muslims and your belief being the same as ISIS

So again

Well where does any of what I said mean taking on 1.6 billion Muslims?
Are you thus saying the problem is Muslims and Islam.
That by saving women and children from rape and murder, that then all Muslims in the world will see this as a heinous crime to stop Islamist from committing this crime?

Is that what you are saying?
That the problem is Islam?
It clearly would have to be if you believe that to help prevent people committing mass murder and the rape and enslavement of people, would cause all Muslims to go to war with us? That you are then in fact capitulating to ISIS who want the entire Muslim world to rise up against the west.
Is that what you are doing?

I on the other hand know and believe the vast majority of Muslims also want to defeat ISIS
What is even worse is you think its all in the past and that all those lives lost do not matter.
Which is odd after arguing off Iraq and saying its wrong with babies being killed.
Does it now not matter that babies are being killed, when its others killing babies?

Have I just exposed your poor use of babies to deny saving their lives, when its not the US involved in these wars? That you are happy to stand by and allow babies to die? You only object when some are accidentally killed as collateral damage in conflict?

The answer is very simple Quill, even more so that many of the other Arab nations see Iran as the biggest threat in the Middle East and that only Russia, China are the only real nations propping up Assad.

The first thing to do, is from Iraq, Jordan have Arab and Allied western forces, with the US backed rebels and Kurds from the areas they control. To invade the areas in Syria under ISIS control, which would give control of the vast majority of Syria to the rebels and the Kurds. Create an Independent Kurdish nation from these where the majority of Kurds live there and the rest create an independent Eastern Syrian nation from Assad, a democratic one. You get both new nations backed by the vast majority of the rest of the world as legal. This has solved one of the problems, destroying ISIS. As unlike with the Taliban, there is neighboring country with a vast mountain range to hide and regroup in. With little that Assad or the Russians can do about a joint Arab and allied invasion of ISIS controlled Syria. ISIS would effectively be destroyed in Syria. Whilst this invasion is going on, the rebel forces in the south can attack Assad, and split off his forces in the south, linking up with the allies coming from Iraq. Reducing Assad to only control a small portion of Syria. Assad forces are already exhausted from so many years of war and the more Assad becomes isolated the more chance there will be of a coup eventually happening there. As these two new independent states will be buffers against Iran and will leave Assad isolated. Assad only controls a small amount of Syria and with these two new independent states backed by Arab nations and the west, will mean Russia's influence will have been greatly diminished.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well this is far more of a bloodbath, half a million are now dead, 11 million displaced which has created the refugee crisis in Europe. This is far worse.

That's because of the interference from other countries, which are balancing each other out. As I said, the US needs to back off.

Why, when for the first 3 years they were not involved and as seen countless people have died.
So inaction has brought about the refugee crisis.
Now more than anytime the west needs to step in and resolve this
The US needs to get involved and they are doing so.
They are standing up to Putin and so far Putin has done nothing

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's because of the interference from other countries, which are balancing each other out. As I said, the US needs to back off.

Why, when for the first 3 years they were not involved and as seen countless people have died.
So inaction has brought about the refugee crisis.
Now more than anytime the west needs to step in and resolve this
The US needs to get involved and they are doing so.
They are standing up to Putin and so far Putin has done nothing

Because of all the different factions which kept it going.

The US either needs to go in with all guns blazing or back off. Fiddling around "supporting" the rebels is doing nothing because they're more than matched by the Russian involvement.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Why, when for the first 3 years they were not involved and as seen countless people have died.
So inaction has brought about the refugee crisis.
Now more than anytime the west needs to step in and resolve this
The US needs to get involved and they are doing so.
They are standing up to Putin and so far Putin has done nothing

Because of all the different factions which kept it going.

The US either needs to go in with all guns blazing or back off. Fiddling around "supporting" the rebels is doing nothing because they're more than matched by the Russian involvement.

Hence why now with US involvement they are making the most gains against ISIS both in Syria and Iraq,
Assad has made little gains.
So what is critical is defeating ISIS, which is on track to happen with US involvement.

Thorin wrote:Hence why now with US involvement they are making the most gains against ISIS both in Syria and Iraq,

The US has not stepped up its involvement in any opposition against ISIS.  In a Washington round-table last night on MSNBC, the consensus was that so far Trump is continuing the Obama approach to Syria. It's all a continuation of the prior program.

What has occurred is two confrontations between the US and Russian-backed Assad forces.  First, there was that fake raid firing 59 tomahawk missiles into a field, and now, second, the shooting down of a Russian made, Syrian jet.

The US has done nothing except send advisers to Syria and provide a small degree of air cover.  Obama was doing the same.  Nothing has changed.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Hence why now with US involvement they are making the most gains against ISIS both in Syria and Iraq,

The US has not stepped up its involvement in any opposition against ISIS.  In a Washington round-table last night on MSNBC, the consensus was that so far Trump is continuing the Obama approach to Syria.  It's all a continuation of the prior program.

What has occurred is two confrontations between the US and Russian-backed Assad forces.  First, there was that fake raid firing 59 tomahawk missiles into a field, and now, second, the shooting down of a Russian made, Syrian jet.

The US has done nothing except send advisers to Syria and provide a small degree of air cover.  Obama was doing the same.  Nothing has changed.

Oh decided to rejoin the debate with some civility?

How nice.

Now are you conceding your other earlier posts then, as you did not counter mine?

I gather you are

As to the above, well what can i say, other than you really are not up to speed are you on the conflict

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/world/middleeast/united-states-syria-military-pentagon.html

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The US has not stepped up its involvement in any opposition against ISIS.  In a Washington round-table last night on MSNBC, the consensus was that so far Trump is continuing the Obama approach to Syria.  It's all a continuation of the prior program.

What has occurred is two confrontations between the US and Russian-backed Assad forces.  First, there was that fake raid firing 59 tomahawk missiles into a field, and now, second, the shooting down of a Russian made, Syrian jet.

The US has done nothing except send advisers to Syria and provide a small degree of air cover.  Obama was doing the same.  Nothing has changed.

Oh decided to rejoin the debate with some civility?

How nice.

My goodness, did you get your feeling hurt didge?  I assure you it wasn't intentional.  It's just that you've got to learn to pee in the tall grass, if you're going to run with the big dogs.  Lol.

Thorin wrote:Now are you conceding your other earlier posts then, as you did not counter mine?

I gather you are

Not at all.  Nothing has changed...I continue to hammer away at the futility of your advancement of perpetual war, and the fact that you need to have a goal if you are going to commit so much manpower, munitions and resources.  You've got to have an endgame, and with 1.6-billing Muslims to replenish the opposition, you're in for a long night.  You haven't got the stuff, and neither does the US.

And the US still has not got the authority to attack Syrian forces.

Thorin wrote:As to the above, well what can i say, other than you really are not up to speed are you on the conflict

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/world/middleeast/united-states-syria-military-pentagon.html

Haha...yet I've managed to kick your arse all over the field.     It may not be my best game, but it's good enough, innit?  

Original Quill wrote:

My goodness, did you get your feeling hurt didge?  I assure you it wasn't intentional.  It's just that you've got to learn to pee in the tall grass if you're going to run with the big dogs.  Lol.

Thorin wrote:No sweety, not hurt, just amused at your continued misdirection

Not at all.  Nothing has changed...I continue to hammer away at the futility of your advancement of perpetual war, and the fact that you need to have a goal if you are going to commit so much manpower, munitions and resources.  You've got to have an endgame, and with 1.6-billing Muslims to replenish the opposition, you're in for a long night.  You haven't got the stuff, and neither does the US.

Thorin wrote:As to the above, well what can i say, other than you really are not up to speed are you on the conflict

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/world/middleeast/united-states-syria-military-pentagon.html

Haha...yet I've managed to kick your arse all over the field.     It may not be must best game, but it's good enough, innit?  

Wow we have gone from a civil debate to you acting like a 2 year old

As seen its evidence and you have no idea of the present situation in Syria

Not only that you have failed to counter many points

So let me know when you want to answer them

Ta

Are you still here?  You lost long ago, didn't tommy tell you? The US has no authority to be shooting at Syrian jets in Syria. Point, set, match.

Isn't it tea time?