General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe are already making things worse with our air strikes in Iraq.
When I suggested only two days ago that our starting new air strikes against the Islamic State fighters in Iraq would only make matters worse for the people of Iraq, that opinion was soundly rejected by some on these boards. Sad to say, but it appears my prediction is already coming true for at least some Iraqi civilians. As noted in the article below, Islamic State authorities have rounded up hundreds of non-Sunni Iraqi women and are holding them one assumes as hostages against further air strikes. Whether these women will be executed if more strikes are made, or if they will just be used as human shields to try and deter such future strikes, there is little doubt their lives (at least) have definitely gotten worse since our decision to re-intervene.
Hundreds of Yazidi minority women taken captive by ISIS in Iraq
Hundreds of Yazidi sect women have been captured by militants from the Islamic State group, formerly known as ISIS, according to media reports citing Iraqi officials. Kamil Amin, a spokesman from Iraq’s Human Rights Ministry, says hundreds of women from the Yazidi religious minority have been taken captive. He said that the women are under 35 years old and are being held at a school in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which is now under IS control. The ministry learned of the situation from the victims' families, AP reports.
It comes after the US carried out limited airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) artillery, which had been targeting the Kurdish capital Erbil. An end date for the strikes has not yet been established, the White House said in statement on Friday.
Some 50,000 residents of the Yazidi community have been forced to flee their homes in northern Iraq, and their capital Sinjar is now under the control Islamic State Sunni jihadists. Up to 40,000 are stuck up Mt. Sinjar, where they are surrounded by IS fighters who have threatened them with death. Many women and children, as well as the sick and elderly, have already died on the mountain from hunger and dehydration, although the US dropped some food supplies earlier on Friday.
The president of the autonomous Kurdistan region, Fuad Hussein, confirmed on Friday that IS militants now have control of the Mosul dam, the biggest in Iraq, which may give them the ability to cut off vital water and electricity supplies.
(snip)
Read more at: http://rt.com/news/179104-captive-yazidi-women-iraq/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That your plan?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No, wait . . . that ship has sailed.
Barring that, however, we need to accept that our guns, bombs and Special Forces types will only intensify the anger and hatred which has been fueling this Iraqi civil war since it began, shortly after our ill-advised invasion. We will not save anyone by killing more people in Iraq, to suggest we can is insanity. There may have been a time once when the United States could act as a force for good in Iraq, but that time is long past. Despite what we may wish to be true, the best we can do for Iraq is stay the hell out of its problems.
As a wise man recently said: "The cause of a problem can never be the solution."
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Sadly, we do not have such means, and recent history proves that conclusively.
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)You just haven't thought hard enough, If we owe a debt to ANYONE in the world it is the Native American, and the Iraqi Kurds, I would rather bring them over en masse than shelter one border crosser. They don't actually want to leave, they want a nation and I think we need to look at that hard. The other choice is let grunts do what grunts do and just look away for a year or two.. problem solved.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Our drones and bombs won't make anything better.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)You are wanting to treat a symptom with a remedy that has steadily bought us to ever worse passes.
We don't have a fucking clue what we are doing and we also know we can't put the toothpaste in the tube and that resources are not infinite to piss into this black hole which is we left. Now, this reaction was predicted a long time ago, we knew it would melt down when we left when we first went there, it was an important reason to avoid the folly in the first place but we went and after way too fucking long we left so what the hell is the impetus to return to the mess again? If we were going to actually fix it, we would have done so already but now folks want another bite of the poison apple claiming it will be different this time. As is claimed every time.
No, enough is enough. They need to figure it out for themselves or we can pull together a global coalition to subdue and occupy the region for 75 or a hundred years under a semi Gaza like fashion as we set up and force at gun point a or several new governments and see how that goes or live test the neutron bomb.
There will be no "fixing" by popping in every few years to mow the grass.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I don't think it would be like "mowing the grass." Many Sunni Iraqis have tried to distance themselves from IS. IS is not yet perceived to be the "leadership" of Sunni Iraq.
Another prominent Sunni, Ali Hatem al-Suleiman (emir of the large Dulaim tribe), claimed "It is the tribal rebels who are in control of the situation in Mosul. It is not reasonable to say that a group like ISIS, which has a small number of men and vehicles, could be in control of a large city like Mosul. Therefore, it is clear that this is a tribal revolution, but the government is trying to force us all to wear the robe of the terrorists and ISIS."
A member of insurgent held Mosul's governing council, a former colonel in the Ba'ath era military alleged that the opposition to the government was composed of multiple Sunni Arab factions, most of which are lead by officers from the disbanded military. The former officer claimed that the various opposition factions were working to minimize ISIS influence and appoint officials capable of restoring services in insurgent held areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Northern_Iraq_offensive#Sunni
-Laelth
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)that will continue to vomit up new bile regularly. We are in a game of whack a mole and will not be isolated to any particular sect or country.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It hasn't worked once yet.
Say no to another Iraq war!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Depending on how much of our own resource we want to put on the line...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)However, we really can't kill our way out of this mess.
It's time to face facts.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I hope more people come to understand this will never be the answer.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)I thank god that President Obama isn't heartless as you 2.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We supplied the weapons and funding and support - much as McCain was wont to do - and now we get right in the middle of it --- but just as long as it isn't Israel and it's just brown people, suddenly some get morals?
When you land over there with your combat gear, send us an email, k?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)And as far as landing over there with my combat gear? Been there, done that twice in Iraq.
You were saying?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And so now you are an arm-chair general?
Were it up to me, you would have been no more than a peace corps volunteer. I am against Empire and the first step is to eliminate empire's soldiers by making them into peace loving hippies like all the best people are.
My points on Israel are right on.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Arm chair general? Not hardly, just someone who's supporting our President in his mission in the ME.
Guess what? My career choices aren't up to you, I'm a proud US Marine Reserve, I'm also a proud Firefighter/EMT-P, if you choose to be a peace loving hippy, that's your business, and I respect your choice, don't criticize me for my choices.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Want to know why? Because even the harshest Obama critic knows he has limited ability to act unilaterally in that situation because of the Israelis and the lack of political will in this country to halt aid to Israel.
It's always fun to bludgeon a president you despise with a problem you know he can't solve. And they know he can't solve it.
And incidentally these same folks whining about the air strikes would be foaming at the mouth in pure ecstasy if we were targeting the IDF.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)"...a president you despise"???? How many regular posters on DU even come close to that absurd statement?
"...in pure ecstasy if we were targeting the IDF"????? Another BS statement.
I won't alert on it, but it is contemptible.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You see military force as the answer here, but I'm afraid it's already been tried repeatedly, and it has failed miserably every time.
Just how many wars in Iraq to you expect the ordinary people of our country to support?
Give it up already. Its time to try something else.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)ISIS has stolen from the Iraqi Army while at the same time, equipping the Kurdish Army with the necessary weapons to counter the armor they're facing, after that, then we keep them supplied.
It would seem a majority of DU'ers disagree with you on airstrikes against ISIS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359668
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 10, 2014, 08:59 AM - Edit history (2)
Most people, I'm sure you realize, believe what they want to be true. I guess I may be just a little bit more honest with myself than some.
BTW: Your suggestions for how to apply our military in Kurdistan make good tactical sense, at least in the short term. In the middle and long term, though, they will only lead to a yet greater strategic disaster for our country.
Say no to another Iraq war!
IronGate
(2,186 posts)can pull itself together and we supply the necessary anti armor weapons in quantity, then end the airstrikes and let the Kurds take the fight to ISIS, while at the same time, we can supply intelligence, sat photos, etc.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the heavy artillery and equipment we left behind that ISIL seized. Without all of the stuff we left behind, they'd be a lot less heavily armed.
Destroying artillery, munition stockpiles, vehicles and the like will do a lot more to debilitate ISIL than actually killing any of them will.
randome
(34,845 posts)And not a well-organized gang of murderers. Okay, then.
The solution to murderers is not to cross your fingers and hope for the best, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Judging from their actions, the Islamic State is composed of the worst kind of murderers and monsters. Nevertheless, that does not make me want to see our country again mired in yet another Iraq war.
randome
(34,845 posts)I very much think he would prefer to stay out of other countries' problems and focus on our own. But that's not the hand he was dealt.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
IronGate
(2,186 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)Or is Hamas a nobel group of freedom fighters?
Gman
(24,780 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I think that is pretty clear.
politicman
(710 posts)I asked this in another thread but wanted to ask it here also.
Do you or anything thing that air strikes from the U.S will change anything on the ground?
ISIS is battling Syria, Iraq and the Kurds all at the same time. They are holing off all these 3 forces and even worse they are advancing on these forces.
Look, bombing ISIS will not yield an iota of the success that bombing Saddam yielded, because the Iraqi people were not willing to keep up the fight for Saddam, thus the U.S bombing was the incentive for the Iraqi army to not fight to the death, but these ISIS fighters are more than happy to fight to the death for their vision of an Islamic caliphate.
Some might think that these fighters being ready to die will make it easy for us to get rid of them, but its not that easy, these fighters will not just all come out into the open to be bombed, they will blend into the civil population and use the population as a camouflaging tactic to overrun towns as they have done numerous times in Syria and Iraq.
These ISIS fighters don't wear uniforms, they are not distinguishable from the civilian population, all they wear are scarfs around their faces and if they sense they might be in a weak position, they just take off the scarfs and becomes indistinguishable from the local population.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Our airstrikes are certain to kill far more innocent noncombatants than they will Islamic State fighters. That, of course, will be used by them as an ever more valuable recruiting tool. As in: "See, the Americans are again killing Muslims with their cowardly air strikes. Join us and drive the Godless infidels from our lands once and for all!"
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)Target rich zones I might add, where the right munitions will cut swathes through their most energetic players.
Us doing half measures and political theater is the problem.. go big or go home as they say.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)"Our airstrikes are certain to kill far more innocent noncombatants than they will Islamic State fighters"
I think every time you make an assertion without evidence I will highlight and repost it with a note to that end
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)And make a strong statement.
Meet horror with horror if it must be met.
Otherwise change the channel and forget that Iraq ever had a a Kurdish population.
politicman
(710 posts)There are no right kind of air strikes.
Air strikes are not like bullets where you can direct it to the bad guy and cut him down, air strikes need bigger targets. After the first few air strikes, ISIS will learn and adapt to not have their fighters or military hardware out in the open for U.S missiles to blow up, they will conceal themselves and their weaponry into the local population, which will mean that the only targets available will result in massive civilian deaths and just make the local populations remember how they hated America during the years of the invasion.
Also, ISIS operates as a guerrilla force, albeit a powerful enough one to take on the Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds at the same time and hold their ground and even continue their advance. They don't have and will not provide the kind of targets that air strikes require to weaken them, instead they have managed all their advances and takeovers without providing the Syrian and Iraqi air forces many targets to bomb.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)
It is led by former Saddam Hussein army officers and is using artillery and other heavy weaponry captured from the Iraqi army.
politicman
(710 posts)I cant believe I need to explain this to you.
Just because the ISIS leader is an ex army officer does not mean that he operates his group like a conventional army.
And just because ISIS now has artillery and other heavy weaponry, does not mean that they subscribe to the idea of using that weaponry out in an open battlefield away from the local population.
Plus, to get that weaponry they had to be formidable enough to defeat enough Syrian and Iraq army personnel who originally had that weaponry. And to defeat them and make them flee and leave their weapons behind, ISIS has to be a competent and formidable guerrilla force who could also rely on elements that they had infiltrated and cultivated in their opponents forces.
Look, if you want to believe that the U.S can just fly over Iraq with their planes, drop some bombs and change the situation on the ground, then go ahead, be gullible, because even the U.S itself has admitted that air strikes will not change the facts on the ground, at most it show the world that the U.S hit a few targets but as usual most of the casualties will be civilians and give rise to even more anti-American sentiment in the sunni population.
The sunni population is already asking why the U.S held off protecting them when they were getting slaughtered by the Syrian regime early on, only for the U.S to now suddenly decide to use military intervention to protect Christians and Yazidis.
Anyway, think what you like if it will make you feel better about this intervention, I on the other hand look back at the last 10 or so years where the U.S had 160,000 grounds troops in Iraq supported by massive air power and was still unable to prevent many sunni towns falling into the hands of sunni extremists periodically.
NickB79
(20,356 posts)For example: http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140612/NEWS08/306120062/How-did-800-ISIS-fighters-rout-2-Iraqi-divisions-
The stunning outcome reflects widespread desertions among the Iraqi units in the north as well as the Sunni-Shiite sectarian tensions that underlie the military battles, experts say.
“It’s a relativity small force that managed to take the city [of Mosul], and it’s shocking that they were able to do that,” said Charlie Cooper, who studies Islamic extremism for the Quilliam Foundation in London.
“To me, that suggests there is collusion or at least deliberate capitulation on the part of Sunni tribes in western and northern Iraq,” Cooper said. “It’s likely that this happened because Sunni tribes in the area let it happen.”
Now that they've moved out of the locations that are most hospitable to their brand of governance (the Iraqi Sunni and Syrian areas), they need the heavy weapons and transports they acquired to move rapidly against any defenses the Kurds or Baghdad attempt to throw up, as we have just seen with the fall of Sinjar and the flight of the Yazidi. Cripple those, and they lose the ability to grab more territory. Airstrikes won't dislodge them from much of what they've already captured, but it will help cauterize the wound, so to speak.
And as for them keeping their heavy artillery out of battlefields and inside cities where it's less vulnerable, reports on the fall of the Mosul Dam stated that ISIS brought a large number of heavy field pieces and vehicles to bear to capture it.
Depending on how believable the reports are, they may also be transferring them to Syria: http://uk.reuters.com/video/2014/06/15/iraq-targets-insurgents-in-mosul-isil-mo?videoId=316250141
politicman
(710 posts)I look at ISIS since its inception and I look at all the forces it has been battling and I see that this group is not some conventional force that relies on power and numbers to achieve its objectives, which by the way it has been achieving with regular consistency in a short period of time.
Syria's Assad has his own army and air force and as we have seen for the last 3 years, he is as brutal as they come and has no regard what so ever for how many civilians he kills with his munitions, YET he hasn't been able to weaken ISIS. At the same time, ISIS has had to battle not only Assad's forces in Syria but they have also battled their former allies when the moderate rebels fought them as well.
Iraq has had help and support from Iran in the form of weapons, money, advisers and even boots on the ground. Iraq has also has support from the U.S in the form of weapons and advisors.
YET ISIS continued to take town after town from the control of the Iraqi government.
Both Syria and Iraq have heavier weapons than ISIS, both countries have more of these have a heck of a lot more heavy weapons than ISIS does, both countries have an air force which ISIS does not, YET both of these countries cannot slow down ISIS's advance .
Which to me suggests that ISIS is not your conventional force where if you apply enough firepower and enough numbers you can defeat or even slow them down.
The only thing that will stop or slow down ISIS is a competent force on the ground that can retake towns and hold and clear those towns, AND the U.S will never commit to doing that again because it is useless in the long run where these kinds of groups return as soon as you remove that competent ground force.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have shown all the doubters two Truths:
One: We failed, in 24 years of military activities on Iraq, to bring peace or democracy or whatever the fuck it was that the bushies claimed to want.
Two: that the bad people there now have control of the weapons we left there and are using them to slaughter people.
Good Job, Hack.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Having a bad day?
No over wrought at all. Just pointing out your efforts at getting to the Truth. Good Job.
riseabove
(70 posts)You think the Chechens don't use guerrilla warfare?
You don't think you can hide heavy weapons? Lol ok.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)They have taken territory and are holding it with fortified positions. They have artillery installations they have coopted from withdrawing Iraqi forces. They have a military command structure consisting of former Sunni military officers.
Don't post anymore. It's clear you haven't been keeping up.
riseabove
(70 posts)Tell the Vietnamese that!
And it's not just Sunni, or Iraqi's in Isis. From what I've read they have fighters and leaders from all over the arab theater, including those from Syria and Chechnya... where they use nothing buttttttttttt... guerrilla warfare! In fact from what I've been reading thereal commanders in Isis are Chechen and Syrian.
Talk about someone who shouldn't be posting anymore! lol.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677683/The-face-evil-Young-red-bearded-Chechen-recognisable-commander-Isis-terror-group.html
SQUEE
(1,320 posts)First the use of cluster munitions on ISIS personnel and equipment in a rocky and arid climate will most certainly be effective. followed on with incendiary... yeah, the wors images of hell for whatever troops it is brought upon, and it will serve as a deterrent to all types of marshalling for attack. Second we very much can be surgeon precise in targeting, by having to hide amongst the populace, they are pinned and it will allow the Kurds to, reorganize, maneuver and engage. The very heart and soul if guerilla warfare is mobility. Remove that and they are stopped cold and pinned. This is not hard, its COIN 101
Bandit
(21,475 posts)The USA did not send a single ground unit there but we effectively ended that Conflict with targeted Air Strikes..It was one of President Clinton's greatest achievements. No American lives were lost there and republicans howled like crazy. but we ENDED that Conflict.
politicman
(710 posts)Serbia was a conventional government with a conventional army, just like Saddam's.
Conventional governments and conventional armies need visible structures and personnel to assert their control, guerrilla forces which is what ISIS is albeit a very formidable one capable of taking on 3 different forces at the same time and still advancing, can accomplish control without exposing themselves that much to air strikes.
NickB79
(20,356 posts)Much of it obtained from deserting Iraqi police and soldiers. Without equipment to rapidly move hundreds of miles through relatively open desert, they lose their defining edge, that to strike rapidly before effective resistance can be mounted. We're not talking about guerrillas in a jungle somewhere that can blend into the forests.
Take out any military vehicles, or vehicles sporting heavy weapons, inside the areas controlled by ISIS with targeted airstrikes and you buy the Kurds and Iraqis time to regroup, equip, and stage counter-attacks.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)take out the heavy weapons, ie armor, artillery, transportation with pinpoint strikes and you degrade their ability to conduct successful combat ops, while at the same time, supplying the Kurds with anti armor missile systems, night vision, ammunition, and what ever else they need to defeat these terrorist assholes.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts) 
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)...RT adheres to the absolute highest of journalistic standards... 
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)P.S. Fuck Russia Today.
MH1
(19,156 posts)started the air strikes.
One of the most chilling issues with ISIS is that they consider women not people, but property.
At that point, it's hard to see how anything the US does could make their lives worse if they have already seen their husband killed, and maybe one or more of their kids, and then they are "given" to one (or more) of the murderers for his sexual (or whatever) pleasure.
I would like to think that in the same situation, I would pretend to accept it, do whatever I could to get in their good graces, then at the first decent opportunity take myself out, while taking as many of the fuckers with me as I could.
reorg
(3,317 posts)"The ministry learned of the situation from the victims' families, AP reports.
It" (the report) "comes after the US carried out limited airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) artillery."
Date of AP report: August 8.
Date of US bombing: "The airstrikes began just hours after President Barack Obama authorized "targeted airstrikes," saying in a televised address late Thursday (August 7) that the United States had an obligation to protect its personnel in Iraq and prevent a potential genocide of minority groups by ISIS." (CNN)
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"Amin's comments were the first Iraqi government confirmation that some women were being held by the group. On Tuesday, Yazidi lawmaker Vian Dakheel made an emotional plea in parliament to the Iraqi government to save the Yazidi people, saying the "women have been sold in a slavery market.""
Last time I looked, Tuesday came before Thursday, and certainly before Friday....
onenote
(46,142 posts)Which is about the 10,000th reason DU should put an end to posters citing RT.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)when citing rt.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Cha
(319,080 posts)not.
moondust
(21,286 posts)
PragmaticLiberal
(932 posts)But with that being said, why do insist on using RT as your sole source of info?
I get that you're very mistrustful of the West in general but what makes you think RT is presenting the unbiased truth?
And because you only post from RT (as far as I know) one would have to assume you have a certain agenda......
reorg
(3,317 posts)in fact, RT is citing other media outlets as sources: "according to media reports citing Iraqi officials", "AP reports".
That's usual practice in the news media. So, I'm not getting where are you coming from. The story appears to be an objective report on what is known about the situation. Did RT somehow twist or leave out anything that has been reported elsewhere?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)That a number of women of the sect have been taken captive as spoils of war against infidels has been reported, and reported to have been underway since last weekend. The person signing as 'another_liberal' has claimed the seizure of the women is the result of U.S. airstrikes, a reaction to them. In other words, he is claiming an action Friday morning is the cause of an action well underway on the previous Monday, and spoken of in Iraq's parliament the previous Tuesday.
Something done on Monday the 4th cannot be a reaction to something done on Friday the 8th.
reorg
(3,317 posts)the OP states:
"Whether these women will be executed if more strikes are made, or if they will just be used as human shields to try and deter such future strikes, there is little doubt their lives (at least) have definitely gotten worse since our decision to re-intervene."
The date when these women were abducted is obviously irrelevant as to their endangerment due to the airstrikes.
Of course, I am aware that the abduction was reported earlier and I watched on YouTube a female member of parliament in Iraq crying out in tears that Yazidi women are being "taken captive and sold on the slave market" (several times) and warning of an impending genocide. A scene eerily reminiscent of the speech given by the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. in October 1990 and which I watched on TV at the time, finally being swayed a little towards supporting an intervention, after harbouring many doubts about its real purpose.
Likewise, I have little doubt that all of what was reported may well be exactly true. After all, the MP was only asking for solidarity and intervention by the Iraqi authorities, not for the US to drop bombs.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)He knows nothing useful, and certainly does not count as a source for facts concerning any element of the situation in northern Iraq.
What remains clear is that he has claimed an event on Friday caused an event the previous Monday.
Which only reinforces what is already clear: he is simply interested in presenting a view conforming to his ideological preconceptions, without the slightest regard for fact or even reason.
reorg
(3,317 posts)and whether you agree or not, dismissing as "dishonest" the fear by another poster that bombings may make matters worse for women who very well could be used as hostages and pawns is, well, a little overbearing, to say the least.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)His purpose alone is plain and direct, and one can only wish he would be honest, at least, about that.
reorg
(3,317 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)This is the second time in as many days that I've clicked through a headline to read the post and then get to the bottom and see an RT link!
Wasn't there a list of banned sources laying around here somewhere? Someone please find it, dust it off, and scratch RT on there. Please?
In the meantime, I will have to pay more attention to whose posts I'm clicking on BEFORE I click through.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)If RT is indeed publishing propaganda, then it should be very easy to shoot down.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Cha
(319,080 posts)paying attention.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Those women were 1st reportedly kidnapped on the 4th, the 1st airstrike happened on the 8th, so, how is the kidnapping on the 4th related to the airstrike on the 8th?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The President publicly announced we were going to carry out air strikes against the Islamic State on Wednesday. The air strike option had also been openly discussed by the White House and the Pentagon since I.S. forces began their offensive against Kurdistan, at least a week ago.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)but, IMO, this had nothing to do with the threat of airstrikes at the time these women were kidnapped.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I have never claimed there is evidence which proves beyond a doubt that these women were kidnapped to deter air strikes, though I also hope you aren't trying to claim that it could not possibly be the motive which inspired IS action.
I will also stand by my central point offered in this OP. I think there can be little doubt that our escalation of the fighting, by involving American war planes and air-to-ground weapons, has made the danger those helpless women face greater than it was only a few days ago.
reorg
(3,317 posts)A while ago I was informed that RT is no longer admissible as a source in LBN - to my complete and sincere surprise, since I never encountered a single false report in their news section.
Granted, I don't read them very often, and some of their shows are obviously biased - they don't even pretend to be "well-balanced", conservative, Republican or even Democratic, they're mostly headed by independent leftists and that's that. Well, except Larry King has found a nice little niche there, too, with interesting guests. I am able to watch his shows again after I couldn't bear him any longer on CNN for quite a while.
RT is often quicker with the news than others, they report more widely than especially the US news media, but much of what they report finds its way into many other news channels or papers at some point.
So, please help me out - the LBN hosts couldn't or wouldn't do it: why on earth do you think RT is unreliable? Could you give just one example? Why do you believe a news channel should be banned altogether here? At least in GD they are not (yet), and I can see not the slightest reason to ignore them.
Renew Deal
(85,165 posts)That is an old story.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)
. . . according to media reports citing Iraqi officials. Kamil Amin, a spokesman from Iraq’s Human Rights Ministry, says hundreds of women from the Yazidi religious minority have been taken captive. He said that the women are under 35 years old and are being held at a school in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which is now under IS control. The ministry learned of the situation from the victims' families, AP reports.
It comes after the US carried out limited airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) artillery, which had been targeting the Kurdish capital Erbil. An end date for the strikes has not yet been established, the White House said in statement on Friday.
Where is your link?
reorg
(3,317 posts)exactly when it happened. The Iraqi official talked about it on Friday, it may well have and presumably has happened at least one day earlier.
In somewhat ominous terms (Yazidi women held captive to be sold on slave markets), the same incident, presumably, has been referred to in a statement by the Iraqi MP, Vian Dakhil, which was posted on YouTube (and MEMRI TV) already on August 5.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Almost nothing is known for certain about this whole situation.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Since this is a repeated practice of the OP's I'd like to say that rhetorical exploitation of people in great peril for dishonest ends is an act without honor.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I would like to see what you mean.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I don't find anything like that.
BTW: It is one and the same article. You've linked to the same twice.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)yourself. It is you who came here making an assertion that has been challenged and debunked over and over again.
Rhetorical exploitation of people in great peril for dishonest ends is an act without honor. Asking for a link a hundred times does not restore that honor.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The President publicly announced we were going to carry out air strikes against the Islamic State. The air strike option has also been openly discussed by the White House and the Pentagon since I.S. forces began their offensive against Kurdistan, at least a week ago.
BTW: Where did this "honor" shit come from anyway?" I don't belong to your religion or to your army, so you can wad that up right now and toss it in the circular file. Got it?
reorg
(3,317 posts)riseabove
(70 posts)supporting ground troops.
They can't win a war by themselves unless the enemy waves the white flag, which I don't see ISIS doding.
It would really be a political nightmare for Obama if we start seeing them behead and execute people in retaliation for airstrikes and he does nothing but keeps bombing and they keep beheading people.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ERBIL, Iraq—Hundreds more of the tens of thousands of Iraqis besieged on a northern mountainside by Islamic militants managed to escape on Saturday, guided mostly by Syrian Kurdish fighters who helped them cross the border into Syria and then back into Iraqi Kurdistan, according to relatives of those who fled.
The evacuations came as new U.S. airstrikes aimed at defending members of the Yazidi religious minority highlighted the threat posed to them by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-besieged-yazidis-evacuated-in-northern-iraq-1407628728?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303800604580082030637027898.html
Blaukraut
(5,998 posts)I watched it. So this is no retaliation. RT and ISIS would just like to make it look like it is.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I read can still read a little German. Have a link?
Blaukraut
(5,998 posts)This is a link from 3 days ago which talks about 300 women having been captured mere days after pushing into northwestern Iraq, causing 200,000 to flee into the nearby mountains. The capture of the women happened before any airstrikes.
http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=4081
The news report I watched was on zdf.de, mediathek. Look for the heute journal from either Tuesday or Wednesday. You should be able to forward to the relevant section in the newscast.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I will see what I can make of it.
roamer65
(37,953 posts)The Iranians will have no choice. They won't want these nutbags near their border and neither would I.