CNN reports:
American jets began bombing ISIS targets in Syria early Tuesday, raising U.S. involvement in the war-torn country and sending a forceful message to the terror group.
The airstrikes focused on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, a U.S. official told CNN, though other locations were hit as well.
At least 20 targets in an[sic] around Raqqa were hit, the opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
They're the first strikes against the terror group inside the country since President Barack Obama's announcement this month that he was prepared to expand the American efforts beyond targets in Iraq.
The Telegraph reports on comments from Tony Blair:
The former Labour Prime Minister has said air strikes would not be enough to defeat the jihadists who have taken control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria, sending in combat troops to fight Islamic State militants on the ground should not be ruled out.
[...] Speaking to the BBC, he said: "What I say is maybe having been through all of this, having faced these decisions in government and having faced the difficult choices in Iraq after 2003, and when the very type of terrorism that we're facing today we faced then, maybe it's worth appreciating the fact that there are lessons I have learnt from the experience of having gone through the process of taking these decisions, of having to deal with the situation in Iraq where, as I say, precisely the same type of terrorist forces we were facing in Iraq in 2006-07 is exactly what we face now in 2014."
Glenn Greenwald makes some observations:
The U.S. today began bombing targets inside Syria, in concert with its lovely and inspiring group of five allied regimes: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan.
That means that Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate – after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.
The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed: empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason (indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force, and very few people seemed to mind that abject act of lawlessness; constitutional constraints are not for warriors and emperors).
Related Stories
As you perhaps have not heard, in Paris, France, there was a terrorist attack on the editorial board of "Charlie Hebdo", a french satirical magazine. Two brothers came in and fired Kalashnikovs, killing twelve and wounding eleven (four grievously). Europe was (and is) shocked, with spontaneous protest marches declaring "je suis Charlie" (I am Charlie) in most major European cities. A manhunt was started for the suspects, culminating the day after in two hostage situations in Paris, resulting in more deaths.
This has been conspicuously absent in the American technews sources I read. You may well argue that that's justified — after all, this is not technews. But in these same sites I have read about other terrorist attacks that involve Americans (9/11, Boston Marathon, Batman shooting, etc.). Case in point: SN itself had this news item U.S. Airstrikes Begin in Syria [against IS/ISIS/ISIL].
The Parisian shooting and subsequent hostage situation is more shocking to me (a European) than the Batman shooting or the Boston Marathon. I understand that for Americans this is different, which explains why sites with staff writers (e.g. Ars Technica) may decide to write about terror in the USA but not elsewhere. So, what about community-driven sites, such as SoylentNews? Is SN open to any such shocking news? Or only from selected areas*?
* I do wonder how little I hear about shocking terror attacks in India / China / Southeast Asia, and how much I care to read about them here on SN. Preliminary answer: yes.
[Editor's note: This submission was the first that I had heard of this. (First few days off after an arduous holiday season.) The story was accepted within 30 minutes of its being submitted. What may be common news in your area may not be as well-known elsewhere. As always, if there is a story that is important to you, please submit it. Although well-written and supported stories are ideal, we are able to fill in the blanks if you send us a link and a couple paragraphs. If the story is of a time-sensitive nature, start the headline with something to get the editor's attention; e.g. "BREAKING NEWS".]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Theophrastus on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:09AM
The news is filled with the question: "Who is funding Isis?" the answers tend to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and few others. So now who is bombing/fighting Isis? Undoubtedly subtly different parties, but from within the same group of 'allies'. This is truly madness. The middle-east has always been insane, and always will be; and it drives insane anyone who gets involved there. No sane country should allow itself to be sucked in, least of all by some gory murders with good video production values. The powers that be should either commit to taking over Syria as a failed state entirely and forever (i dunno... call it 'U.N.istan' and toss them a photocopy Turkey's constitution) or establish essentially a quarantine over the whole area, no one in, no one out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:22AM
No, they are the very same parties: as long as the "liberty fighters" (Sunni) gave troubles to Syria (Shia), all was going well.
Wanting a fresh start for a caliphate with a self-proclaimed ruler? Now now, boys... just who do you think you are? That's a challenge to our established authority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:30AM
> No, they are the very same parties: as long as the "liberty fighters" (Sunni) gave troubles to Syria (Shia), all was going well.
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that Bashar al-Assad deliberately left ISIS alone, focusing on the more moderate rebels in order to cultivate a US alliance against a 'common enemy.' [theatlantic.com] It hasn't worked out as well as it could have for al-Assad, but it sure looks like he's getting some return on the investment.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:39AM
Feed a serpent, it will bite your enemies. Then it will bite YOU! Feed a bigger serpent. It will bite the former. Then it will bite YOU! ...
US external policy. Lathe, rinse, repeat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @04:32AM
If the answers are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, then why take over or quarantine Syria? Why not go to the root of the problem?
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:45AM
Because Syria is teh eevilzzz. It says on TV.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:47PM
Oil.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:59PM
So a CIA-sponsored coup to install a friendly regime or an outright occupation of SA and Qatar would somehow make the oil vanish from beneath the earth?
At worst, the occupying power would be accused of "colonialist" tendencies (nothing new there for the US), except that the usual detractors of US imperialism might even not mind if something so unfortunate as democracy and human rights were to happen to the Saudis.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Username on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:08AM
I thought everyone knew Obama armed them to overthrow Assad. Now hes arming other terrorists to fight ISIS. Now which terrorists will he pick to fight the terrorists he picked to fight ISIS?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:29PM
It becomes armed turtles, all the way down(in flames).
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:13PM
I always though it was gorillas and winter at the bottom of the pile once the problem solves its self.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:11AM
Blair and Cheney, two of the architects of the Iraq War in 2003, must be conspiring to make Obama look good, helping him drum up public support for US foreign policy in the middle east.
At least George W Bush has the good sense to keep his mouth shut.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 24 2014, @10:21AM
As a brit I just came here to say that Tony Blair can go fuck himself rectally with a pineapple. Sideways.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:04PM
Re: George Bush and "good sense" / keeping mouth shut
To me it's always appeared that George Bush tends to keep his mouth shut when nobody is telling him what should come out of it.
Reminder of his keeping his mouth shut - ~7 minutes after being told "the nation's under attack", he picked up and read "My Pet Goat" waiting for someone to tell him what to do or say.
Let us not forget:
http://vimeo.com/64772466 [vimeo.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:09PM
I'm no GWB apologist, but if his staff was so inept that they needed to orders to be on the defensive, that's a bigger problem.
But he should have ran out of the room, panicking a bunch of school children, and told people nothing of importance because better people were already on the job.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:31AM
I can't help but wonder if he seriously sees something wrong with bombing places that provide the world with negative value. There is nothing redeeming about any of these places unless you count target practice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:00AM
Then why the hell does the US need to bomb it? What happens there isn't the business of the United States, and shouldn't be. Lots of shit places elsewhere which the US doesn't even care enough to send a cruise missile into, why bother with Syria?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:05AM
The mid east is the worlds hornets nest atm. Lots of people hate each other there, which is good for arms sales and the military industrial complex. There is also lots of oil in iraq (close to isis held territory) and oil is the real reserve currency of the world.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:31AM
This shit is going down right near...
a. The Suez Canal, a critical connection that links Europe to China, Saudi Arabia, and India
b. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other places that must be kept together so the world doesn't starve (no oil means no crops)
c. Israel, a probable nuclear state that could nevertheless face existential peril
d. Pakistan, a nuclear state that is already held together with duct tape and coat hangers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:25PM
You give them too much credit. More like bubble gum and knock off scotch tape.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cyrano on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:24PM
"why bother with Syria?"
The answer to that question is very, very simple: Israel.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:24AM
?!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:38AM
following that logic, shouldn't Congress building/washington DC/Pentagram get bombed to oblivion?!
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:11PM
I think he means Washington DC
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:24AM
Shock/awe: the U.S. can bomb "the bad guys" and still arrive at a worse outcome.
At best it's a damned if you do (it too late), damned if you don't scenario.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday September 24 2014, @04:44AM
I can't help but wonder if he seriously sees something wrong with bombing places that provide the world with negative value. There is nothing redeeming about any of these places unless you count target practice.
If you look at where ISIS is becoming a major problem, then go back in time about ten years and look at what the political climate was like, you may stumble across an enlightening correlation.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mojo chan on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:09AM
The problem is that a place being bad is your opinion. In many people's opinion the US is a bad place from which much negativity comes, but I doubt you would be okay with them bombing it.
Even if we accept that Syria is "bad" bombing tends to murder a lot of innocent civilians. It also tends to radicalise more people to fight the people doing the bombing. It's not a good solution especially given its history.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:43AM
I wouldn't be OK with that, but I fully expect them to try and I wouldn't really be offended if they did. There is a culture clash here. I have no difficulty accepting that.
From my perspective, these places deserve to be bombed. The inhabitants surely disagree. I'm fine with that. I don't care if they disagree, and I don't expect them to be sad if I get bombed. I expect them to rejoice if I get bombed. (there is plenty of evidence that they would)
I'm not going to pretend that my enemy is my friend, even if that would be politically correct. These people would destroy my civilized part of the world in a heartbeat if they could.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:01PM
What "these people" are you talking about? Following the same logic I would think all Americans are ignorant rednecks bigots like you. But they aren't.
Get your head out of your ass and go meet some real people that are not your reflection in the mirror.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:04PM
I'm not going to pretend that my enemy is my friend
You're your own enemy.
these places deserve to be bombed.
You reap what you saw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:48PM
> I'm not going to pretend that my enemy is my friend, even if that would be politically correct.
You don't have to. But what any decent human being must do is recognize that they are no more and no less human than you.
A Precondition of
Doing Violence To
Any Group Of People
Or Nation Is to Make
Them Less Than Human
-- Rajko Radovanovic [flickr.com]
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:10PM
I do recognize that they are no more and no less human than me. I still think they deserve to be bombed.
I'm sure they think likewise about me. I'm fine with that. Let the best bomber win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:18PM
> I do recognize that they are no more and no less human than me.
> Let the best bomber win.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard someone admit that they are at least as much of a monster as the people they want to kill. I suspect you have a mental illness. The kind of the gets people labelled a sociopath. At least you know you are a monster, now if only you had a problem with being a monster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:33AM
What I really enjoy about Greenwald is how artfully he makes factual observations like:
"the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate"
and the moral/ethical judgments explode. Sometimes reality has a moral/ethical bias.
I enjoy how Obama puts a lot of work into showing there is only one political party with two PR teams. Aside from all the PR BS, the only difference if the other PR team won, is the list might be 8 instead of 7 and there might be subtle differences in the order of countries bombed. We only have one political party and its the rich guys party.
"he seriously sees something wrong with bombing places that provide the world with negative value"
Be careful with stuff like that. You're basically providing written documentation of encouragement of anti-government domestic terrorism against united states government and financial system targets. We have and will send people to nazi style concentration camps for doing less than that. Hopefully you're living in the free world outside US jurisdiction, if such a place actually exists...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:08PM
if such a place actually exists…
It does: Russia, where you're free to express your hatred about the US, just as you're free to express your hatred about Russia in the US.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:28PM
we have 2 political parties: the rich guys that don't overly show their religion and the rich guys who DO and who force it upon everyone else (not unlike the enemy we are now fighting).
other than that, I can't see much diff between them; but this one diff is HUGE and the main reason why people voted D the last time. they knew they were getting a right-wing rich guy but at least the level of forced religion was on the lower end of the spectrum.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:52PM
"not unlike the enemy we are now fighting"
It is interesting to think about, on a practical day to day manner, would I be better off with the Taliban in total control of the USA or the neocons in total control? Honestly I am not sure how to answer. There are some subgroups that are obviously in big trouble under either, like women or gays or atheists or buddhists. There is a very small collection of people who are obviously better off under one group of lunatics than the other, like the jews or the moslems and arabs in general. For most people other than trivialities (like which holy book is read vs which book is burned) I'm having severe difficulty telling apart the two.
Sometimes the bitterest fights are between brothers, so you can see how the dead ender neocons and the ISIS/taliban/al queda don't get along precisely because they're so similar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:52PM
That's really a false equivalence. Most men going about their daily lives won't notice a difference because if daily life were impossible the Taliban would collapse.
BUT... Under the Taliban "pushing the boundries" is stuff like a woman wearing a hijab instead of a niqab. Their entire society stagnates under that sort of cultural repression, they remain frozen in time. Which means long-term nothing ever gets better. In the west we are used to things getting better on a regular basis. Stuff like electricity and the internet just won't ever be developed under a Taliban regime.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:56PM
I disagree with 95% of what Republicans say and 90% of what Democrats say. In 2008, weary from the War on Terror and Iraq and all the rest, I held my nose and voted for Obama because "at least we'll stop bombing people! And shut down Gitmo!" Ahhahahahahahahhahaha no. No. The bodies just keep pilin' up...
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:47AM
That's funny. I guess that's exactly what the ISIS scumbags think about you. Great minds think alike.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:22PM
They also think whatever about a non-muslim cab driver from England that was a voluntary aid worker for a muslim charity (go watch the video of the beheading if you don't believe me, might be hard to find since the US government etc. don't want you to watch it, they might have it linked at the Intercept [firstlook.org]) so they most likely also think that about you and me.
Evil (an unconstitutional US government that's both fascist and inept) vs. evil (real uninhibited islam true to the spirit of mohammed the pedophile warlord) vs. evil (apologist relativist fake “humanitarian” stupidity).
None of them will save you from the other.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 5, Insightful) by buswolley on Wednesday September 24 2014, @02:41AM
I agree that war against another state should have congressional declaration of war. But ISIS is not a state...not yet any way...
But I agree about the middle east...fuck it. Put that money into renewables so we can eventually give a rats ass about the middle east. Else, treat it like a real war and burn it to the ground...ice it. War is hell. So if we do it.then fucking do it. Pick a side sunni or sheite and utterly beat one into the ground ...is that moral no. Fuck no...but that is the only answer with a military solution.
Or leave them. Put a base on every oil field and own it, like an empire.
I prefer the renewables idea.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:00AM
The us is bombing a sovereign nation. If that aint an act of war I dunno what is
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:24AM
which sovereign nation? Syria?
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:37AM
um.... yes
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:43AM
And tell me. Which nations still recognize Syria as a nation these days? We sure as hell didn't just send missiles into Assad's controlled territory.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:55PM
> And tell me. Which nations still recognize Syria as a nation these days?
Every nation on earth does.
Most people hated Bush and wished him gone, but that didn't change the recognition of the US.
The main solution to most of the mess in the middle-east is to just redraw most of the borders around people who want to live together. You'd have to move a few hundred thousand pissed people, but down the road it is the only lasting solution as long as their religion and ethnicity keeps pushing them to fight each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @02:05AM
Don't move them. Give them really big incentives to move on their own (carrot incentives, not stick incentives). Let the ones who want to stay, stay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:41AM
War is hell. So if we do it.then fucking do it.
Easier said than done. Are you volunteering to go fight? No way you get rid of ISIS with just an aerial attack without killing millions of civilians.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday September 25 2014, @07:09AM
You missed the point. When I said fucking do it, I meant glass them. Everyone. Thats how to win this kind of war. Its when you care about civilians that this kind of war is difficult. Do I think we should? No. I think we should leave the middle east and focus on technology and our own energy supplies. BUT if we are going to do war, then you go all in if you want to win. You stomp everyone down into abject submission like a dictator would.
Otherwise, its just round and round and round forever. If we didn't need what that area had, we'd give a rat's ass if they wanted to conduct a tribal war there.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @12:01PM
> Pick a side sunni or sheite and utterly beat one into the ground
Did you know that roughly half of the Kurds are sunni too? War may be hell, but war is never simple. When people try to simplify it like you a have, they inevitably make the situation worse.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday September 25 2014, @04:35PM
I have to reiterate that I'm not for this. But you are wrong. Yes there is ambiguity in identity but this is a signal det action problem. A liberal response bias would mean that the hit rate would 100% even if the false Alarms are high..= effective.
subicular junctures
(Score: 4, Informative) by drussell on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:00AM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/15/isis-and-washingtons-ignorance-about-the-sunni-shia-divide/ [counterpunch.org]
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/ [counterpunch.org]
(Score: 2, Troll) by cyrano on Wednesday September 24 2014, @12:32PM
Thanks for these links. At least some Americans seem to have a brain.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:11PM
Thanks for these links. At least some Americans seem to have a brain.
Perhaps, perhaps not since I see you're currently modded 'Troll"... What on earth is up with THAT?
Thank you... Those professors wiriting the articles in the links know what they're talking about... (So yes, there are a FEW!)
The US government and media? Perhaps not so much.... How sad that the propaganda machine is so effective! :(
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:45PM
Some people use the troll moderation for anything that makes them uncomfortable or goes contrary to their held notions, doesn't matter if it's right or wrong or anything. I think one should simply remove the “troll” moderation option, if enough people agree on that it shouldn't be difficult, maybe throw out “overrated” too.
What difference does it make if spam or actual trolling stays at 0, 1 or even 2? Not much (I read at 0 anyway). I could be wrong of course but it seems like it should be interesting to at least try it.
Btw the shia-sunni divide is sort of besides the point and the same goes for any new demarcation like salafist vs. non-salafist or extremist vs. non-extremist, all those things are nothing but word games trying to avoid the core nature of islam (submission [wikipedia.org]) as illustrated in practice by centuries of history with shitty results right from the beginning.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:34AM
Amazing! We point to decaying infrastructure and D.C. pleads poverty. Likewise, food stamps get cut, education gets cut, medicare gets cuts and we can't even get started on single payer health care. We have no money, you see.
Someone says a dirty word in Syria? What's a few thousand million dollar bombs here and there? Suddenly the clouds burst open and tax dollars rain down from the heavens.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Wednesday September 24 2014, @06:11PM
Thank you for writing this. I find it strange that they never bring up the "can we afford this" when it comes to bombs-a-flying action.
How many American/"Western" deaths is this ISIS/ISIL responsible for/at risk of causing vs the likes of harm from - poverty & education (& crime that leads to) or medical care.
Whip up some fear / patriotism and the bomb-making credit card comes out... sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:11PM
It's because poor people are literally evil, and the enemy. If they weren't, they'd be wealthy Americans. You don't help evil. You don't help the enemy. You bomb them.
You can't bomb the nation's poor and downtrodden, because they're still Americans, but you can still ignore them.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:40AM
I was curious why Ol' Henry Kissinger was in the news a week ago or so. All makes sense now. Nixon never got no Nobel prize!
(Score: 3) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:13AM
Oh, merde, responding to myself! But only because I came across interesting article [thenation.com] that includes this enlightening quote:
I recently joined a discussion on Dutch television where former Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra made a telling slip of the tongue. As we spoke about ISIS, Hoekstra insisted that the United States needed to deny them “sanctuary in Cambodia.” He quickly corrected himself to say “Syria,” but the point was made.
Former Republican Congressman. Thank $Deity for small favors. But this does bring to mind a very pertinent quote by Mark Twain: "Imagine you are an idiot; then imagine you are a congressman, but, I repeat myself."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:58AM
http://notabugsplat.com/ [notabugsplat.com]
A HAUNTING, somber art project set up in a war-torn reigion of Pakistan.
Perhaps a Syrian version of this can be set up there.
Surely ALL the people in Syria aren't involved with ISIS.
Unfortunately, the innocents either know or are related to ISIS personnel or are (un)knowingly being used as 'human shields' putting them at grave risk....
Is a continuous supply of oil worth their shed blood/deaths while being 'written off' as 'collateral damage'?...
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:26PM
Those children grow up to be adults. The adults cause us harm, support other adults causing us harm, and make more children who in turn will become adults.
We need to break the cycle. That child is thus a legitimate target.
(Score: 2) by velex on Thursday September 25 2014, @03:09AM
That child is thus a legitimate target.
I would like to disagree. Targeting children never solves anything. Targeting children is what causes the surviving brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers to grow adversarial.
Children are innocent. Sure, some aren't, be true. One must be judged as an individual, but bombings hardly pick and choose among individuals whom to kill and whom to merely maim.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:59AM
Sell weapons to X(0).
Sell weapons to X(1) to fight X(0).
Sell weapons to X(2) to fight X(1).
...
Also:
Sell weapons to own government to help X(n) fight X(n-1)
After at least half a dozen iterations, it's undoubtedly intentional.
(Score: 1) by Username on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:13AM
Ah, the American way.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:15AM
Law? You mean the thing that says if a father marries off his little daughter to a man, the man is then abducted and sent to be raped in a prison by homosexuals for the rest of his life?
Fuck the Law. The law is written by Faggots and Feminists.
FUCK THEM. FUCK THEIR RELIGION (Law).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:46AM
Dude! What happened to you? Are you in need of assistance?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by velex on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:09PM
Holy cow, man! For some reason this cracked me up. I almost got tea on my keyboard!
What the hell is it with you people who believe that feminism is in any way, shape, or form aligned with homosexuals? Are you the same AC who believes systemd is a feminist plot? (No, I don't like systemd either, but just install Gentoo or roll a Linux from Scratch FFS.)
Wow, just wow.
Sorry, nothing to add to the topic at hand except that I wonder how close we'll come to nuclear war this time. hmm... "Chances of survival in 100 years: less than one percent. Those aren't very good odds." Maybe good old John Titor was right. The walk to the gas station might be for our own good.
Somebody please mod this offtopic. I just didn't want to post AC.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:10PM
Shoot. Forgot to disable karma bonus. D'oh!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:58AM
To all military personnel, and terrorists: remember, war crimes have no statute of limitations, and there is universal jurisdiction. You can be tried when you are eighty, you bastards. Try not to break international law, especially that "crimes against humanity" one, please?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @06:04AM
Laws and "constitutional constraints" are for the people that can't afford true freedom, for everything else there's Mastercard.
And since you mentioned it.. systemd may very well be a feminist plot against the Gentoo-men.
Anyways, with a name like O'Bomber whacha expecting from the Prez?
Probably already lucky enough he's not dropping bombs on ya moms.