Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:19 PM Sep 2014

By the way, Syria almost certainly is perfectly fine with the US bombing ISIL.

Want clues?

1) No howls of outrage from Tehran, Damascus, or Moscow

2) Jordan is participating.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-airstrikes-syria/story?id=25686031

Several Arab nations are involved in the ongoing U.S.-led operation, a defense official said. A diplomatic source identified the nations as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


Jordan would not be bombing targets in Syria unless they had a lot of assurances that this would not get Iran and Syria pissed at them.

52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
By the way, Syria almost certainly is perfectly fine with the US bombing ISIL. (Original Post) geek tragedy Sep 2014 OP
We'll see. It is unclear what any other nation's "involvement" is at this point. morningfog Sep 2014 #1
who gives a fuck? ibegurpard Sep 2014 #2
the violation (or lack thereof) of Syria's sovereignty is a huge deal when assessing the wisdom geek tragedy Sep 2014 #3
Yet. moondust Sep 2014 #4
I'm sure if there was genuine outrage in Damascus and Tehran and Moscow, they'd have had geek tragedy Sep 2014 #5
"Is almost". ????? How will we pay for this? grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #6
Of course they are. We're going to "degrade and destroy" one of Assad's enemies by involving us neverforget Sep 2014 #7
No doubt Assad and the boys see that if the coalition bombs ISIL/ISIS et al into the ground, hedda_foil Sep 2014 #8
And now, Putin can bomb, too RobertEarl Sep 2014 #16
Was that an accident? woolldog Sep 2014 #17
We wonder, don't we? RobertEarl Sep 2014 #18
Are you talking about the Syrian government or people? gratuitous Sep 2014 #9
You seem confused as to the meaning of 'indiscriminate' geek tragedy Sep 2014 #11
So, everyone we bomb is who we meant to bomb? gratuitous Sep 2014 #14
Firing into a crowd is an example of geek tragedy Sep 2014 #15
No it doesn't gratuitous Sep 2014 #22
You are disagreeing with the dictionary. Nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #27
No, I'm arguing with the inevitable results gratuitous Sep 2014 #33
If you're looking for a mathematical answer geek tragedy Sep 2014 #35
Well, something is "facile" here gratuitous Sep 2014 #44
6:1 ratio of combatants to non combatants geek tragedy Sep 2014 #45
I gather you had no problem with the Israeli bombing of Gaza n/t cali Sep 2014 #31
You gather incorrectly. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #36
I was being sarcastic. cali Sep 2014 #37
The statements themselves are true. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #40
I'm not playing "gotcha". I'm pointing out the obvious. cali Sep 2014 #46
What is obvious is usually not salient. nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #47
What an absurd statement. nt woo me with science Sep 2014 #49
of course DustyJoe Sep 2014 #26
Damn it sucks to be right . . . gratuitous Sep 2014 #48
I don't think so Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #10
Any public reax from him? nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #12
previously on the record Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #29
Syria will take credit for helping by staying out of the way flamingdem Sep 2014 #13
Well you know Assad, he'll take any good publicity he can get davidpdx Sep 2014 #21
Given ISIS stopped killing FSA their usefulness for Assad is over. joshcryer Sep 2014 #19
Correct! freshwest Sep 2014 #20
Isn't it wonderful Caretha Sep 2014 #23
Iran condemns the attacks as illegal. morningfog Sep 2014 #24
The post was headlined "almost certainly" gratuitous Sep 2014 #34
The protests by Iran and Russia seem pro forma. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #43
Syria, as in the government? Or Syria, as in the people? marmar Sep 2014 #25
Do you think the Syrian people support ISIL? nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #28
IS is the local government in portions of Syria. morningfog Sep 2014 #39
I don't think anyone asked Syrians if they wanted to be part of a caliphate, either. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2014 #42
Just don't expect any secular sanity to prevail seveneyes Sep 2014 #30
and the U.S. will continue bombing at will n/t cali Sep 2014 #32
Except many of the Russian people are not happy with it... kentuck Sep 2014 #38
Um, hotair? geek tragedy Sep 2014 #41
Well then that makes it sound foreign policy. SomethingFishy Sep 2014 #50
As long as it's ISIL and not civilians getting killed geek tragedy Sep 2014 #51
Like you would know if any civilians get killed... SomethingFishy Sep 2014 #52

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
2. who gives a fuck?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:38 PM
Sep 2014

how many hungry people in this country could the money used for all those bombs buy food for?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. the violation (or lack thereof) of Syria's sovereignty is a huge deal when assessing the wisdom
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:40 PM
Sep 2014

of military action. you disagree?


moondust

(19,917 posts)
4. Yet.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:55 PM
Sep 2014

Just started a few hours ago. And there may be some "private" agreements behind closed doors in this operation in order to protect local populations from wacko retaliation.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
5. I'm sure if there was genuine outrage in Damascus and Tehran and Moscow, they'd have had
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:59 PM
Sep 2014

their talking points and draft UN resolutions already drafted and ready for release.

Iranian state news agency headline:

The United States and its allies have started airstrikes against the ISIL terrorist group in Syria, the Pentagon says.


(though, being the Iranian state news agency, they go on to claim that ISIL was trained by the CIA)

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
7. Of course they are. We're going to "degrade and destroy" one of Assad's enemies by involving us
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:20 AM
Sep 2014

in a civil war regardless of how we term our involvement.

hedda_foil

(16,368 posts)
8. No doubt Assad and the boys see that if the coalition bombs ISIL/ISIS et al into the ground,
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:20 AM
Sep 2014

No doubt Assad and the boys see that if the coalition bombs ISIL/ISIS et al into the ground, they'll simultaneously weaken Assad's more potent enemies. That would leave Assad more able to strengthen his hand and consolidate the power of his government.. Can't say I'd blame him.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
16. And now, Putin can bomb, too
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:50 AM
Sep 2014

This opens the door for Putin to go in and fight Assad's enemies.

Assad is a friend of Russia. Ya think Putin has played this out pretty well? So what happens when one of the Russian bombs hits some cia base or other US friendly area? Remember how we accidentally hit a Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia? It happens.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
18. We wonder, don't we?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 01:29 AM
Sep 2014

What matters is: what do the Chinese think?

We know China looks way into the future. I mean, they have to like that we have gone into Afghanistan and fought their enemies there. And now China has contracts to mine in Afghanistan.

China is not an empire. Why not? They have more people than any other country. Could it be that China knows empire is a losing proposition?

So, if Russia hits a target in Syria, that Cheney can use to make Obama do more war, where will that end?

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
9. Are you talking about the Syrian government or people?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:23 AM
Sep 2014

I'm guessing the Syrians under our indiscriminate bombing raids might have a thing or two to say about it. But since the United States doesn't do constitutional anymore, we the people don't count so why should the Syrians?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
11. You seem confused as to the meaning of 'indiscriminate'
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:27 AM
Sep 2014

It does not mean "any bombs dropped by the United States"

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
14. So, everyone we bomb is who we meant to bomb?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:33 AM
Sep 2014

Never an innocent bystander, never an unintended target, never a misidentified target? I had no idea! We should drop bombs everywhere, since they never ever kill or maim someone who didn't deserve it in some way. God bless America and our faultless military and blameless leaders!

Why can't the rest of the world just get with this program? It's so simple-minded, even a terrorist could get it.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
15. Firing into a crowd is an example of
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:35 AM
Sep 2014

indiscriminate killing.

Targeting military positions is not.

Shooting at a target, or trying to drop bombs on a target, and missing is not 'indiscriminate'

"Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment."

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
22. No it doesn't
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 08:55 AM
Sep 2014

But if it helps you sleep at night to tell yourself that, you keep right on telling yourself that. Then be all rah-rah-sis-BOOM-bah when the U.S. has to go on another round of bombing people, even though it didn't work last time, but who remembers last time anyway except a bunch of dirty fucking hippies who don't know what "indiscriminate" means?

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
33. No, I'm arguing with the inevitable results
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:07 PM
Sep 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025575273

Eight civilians, including three children among the dead due to our bombing. But that's not "indiscriminate." How many more civilian deaths before we get to indiscriminate?
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
35. If you're looking for a mathematical answer
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:42 PM
Sep 2014

the numbers you'll need are number of non-combatants vs combatants killed. If it's 300 dead non-combatants vs 12 combatants, that would be Prime facile evidence of indiscriminate attacks.

If it's 12 dead civilians and 300 dead combatants, then you have a prima facile case that the attack was not indiscriminate.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
44. Well, something is "facile" here
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 05:17 PM
Sep 2014

As long as you're traipsing through the dictionary, and creating rationales for indiscriminate slaughter as you go.

But in this case, the preliminary estimate was 40 dead, then 50, with reports of 8 civilian dead. I'm not sure how the terrorist/civilian divide was made, but that's at least 16% civilian casualties, about four times the rate you deem acceptable - though I notice that by no means did you admit that was your upper limit. It's probably wise not to commit to a number, lest it look like you're endorsing a crime against humanity.

I wonder what the survivors would deem an acceptable terrorist to civilian casualty rate might be? Of course, some folks who considered themselves civilians before the bombing began might come to regard themselves (or be regarded by our military leaders) as terrorists for the feelings engendered by watching their loved ones blown to smithereens.

All part of the game, I suppose.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
45. 6:1 ratio of combatants to non combatants
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 05:20 PM
Sep 2014

indicates this was not indiscriminate as an empirical matter.

Justified, moral, and wise? That is a much more subjective call.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
37. I was being sarcastic.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:45 PM
Sep 2014

your post is exactly the same reasoning as those defending the bombing of Gaza. Exactly.

indiscriminate killing.

Targeting military positions is not.

Shooting at a target, or trying to drop bombs on a target, and missing is not 'indiscriminate'

"Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment."

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
40. The statements themselves are true.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 05:06 PM
Sep 2014

The hundreds of dead civilians, repeatedly bombed UN shelters, and implementation of the Hannibal directive all establish that those statements were not applicable to Gaza.

Your attempt to be clever by finding a 'gotcha" moment is a fail. Proportionality is an issue in EVERY conflict. So, stating the same standards as others have stated them is not evidence of bad faith or whatever. What counts is whether the conduct in question meets those standards. In Gaza, the answer was no.

DustyJoe

(849 posts)
26. of course
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:45 AM
Sep 2014

I mean, our personnel do type in the gps coordinates into the weapon before firing.
Bad time for a typo or dyslexia ya know.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
48. Damn it sucks to be right . . .
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 03:57 PM
Sep 2014

Two days ago, I said our bombing raids were going to be indiscriminate, and . . .

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/09/23/240813_syrian-rebels-angry-that-strikes.html?rh=1

{Col. Hassan Hamadi, a defected Syrian army officer}and other rebel commanders are taking heat from their own troops and anti-government Syrians for what may have been an erroneous strike – the destruction of temporary housing for internally displaced civilians in Kafr Daryan in Idlib province, which caused the deaths of 10 – and eight attacks on installations belonging to the Nusra Front, al Qaida’s affiliate in Syria but an effective ally in the fight against the Assad regime. U.S. officials said the strikes were aimed at Khorasan, a Nusra unit that includes senior al Qaida figures who allegedly were plotting an attack on Western targets.

The deaths of the civilians evoked an emotional response.

“People see there was a massacre in which innocent people were killed,” Hamadi said. “They are asking, ‘Who is responsible, the (U.S.-led) coalition or the Assad regime?’ ”

Who was in the building at the time was unknown. One media activist told McClatchy that the missile killed at least 10 “emirs” of the Nusra Front, but another activist denied that any Nusra leaders were in the building.


It "may have been an erroneous strike." Seems to me that if you're going to avoid being called "indiscriminate" in your bombing, you'd better make sure what it is you're bombing. Which would be a war first whenever it happens.
 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
29. previously on the record
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 03:52 PM
Sep 2014

"In recent weeks, Syrian officials insisted that any international strikes on its soil must be coordinated with Damascus or else they would be considered an act of aggression and a breach of Syria's sovereignty."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syria-washington-informed-strikes-25690412

(note you have to slog through the war propaganda to get to the actual meat of the article)

flamingdem

(39,304 posts)
13. Syria will take credit for helping by staying out of the way
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:28 AM
Sep 2014

and according to CNN guy they'll highlight getting rid of chemical weapons.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
19. Given ISIS stopped killing FSA their usefulness for Assad is over.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 02:21 AM
Sep 2014

So yeah, Assad and Syria do not mind in the least.

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
23. Isn't it wonderful
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 09:58 AM
Sep 2014

We armed ISIS (ISIL)!

Now we get to fight them - oh joy oh joy. How happy the Military Industrial Complex and all their stockholders must be.

And guess what! We, the U.S. taxpayer funded them. Surprise - surprise - surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/15/isil-captured-52-us-made-howitzers-artillery-weapo/

ISIL captured 52 U.S.-made howitzers; artillery weapons cost 500K each
By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Sunni radicals with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) may have captured as many as 52 U.S.-made M198 howitzers in their march across Iraq in June.

“They shouldn’t have too much trouble shelling large area targets like a city if they have sufficient ammo,” Jeremy Binnie of the British military consultancy HIS Janes told McClatchy news service Monday.

The artillery weapons, which cost roughly $500,000 each, include GPS aiming systems.

Mr. Binnie told McClatchy that the Islamic terrorist organization would have a difficult time figuring out exactly how to use the technology’s pinpoint accuracy, but that members would still be able to do significant damage. Each howitzer has a range of 20 miles and can fire two rounds per minute.

In addition to the stolen artillery weapons, ISIL is also in possession of 1,500 armored Humvees, McClatchy reported.




That ain't even the half of all the weapons and equipment they toted from Iraq to Syria. Could we have taken out those supply lines and destroyed these weapons. Sure we could have, but we didn't. Now think boys & girls why would that be?

Even little ol me, even though I'm not a military strategist or General or hell...I don't even work in one of those Pentagon think tanks could have figured that one out - simple, destroy the weapons before they fall into the hands of the bad guys.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
34. The post was headlined "almost certainly"
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:39 PM
Sep 2014

So, you know, escape hatch. Sort of like the slippery meaning of "indiscriminate."

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
39. IS is the local government in portions of Syria.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:57 PM
Sep 2014

But, neither Syria nor the Syrian people asked for, condoned or gave permission for this attack.

 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
30. Just don't expect any secular sanity to prevail
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 03:58 PM
Sep 2014

They will continue to teach their children to hate and destroy those who don't share their religious insanity.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
50. Well then that makes it sound foreign policy.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:06 PM
Sep 2014

Keep shooting at the terrorists, eventually you'll get them all.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
51. As long as it's ISIL and not civilians getting killed
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:16 PM
Sep 2014

there's not any downside to killing the bastards.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
52. Like you would know if any civilians get killed...
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:23 PM
Sep 2014

Please... If the American Media actually showed the level of "collateral damage" we have been causing in the "War On Terror" ,which by the way we have already lost since we are shitting in our collective pants over an massive army of 30,000 fucking cave dwellers, then you wouldn't see near as much support for your "Kill Em' All" policy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»By the way, Syria almost ...