Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
On September 18 2014 06:28 xDaunt wrote: See, as much as I like the idea of bombing ISIS, I get the sense that Obama's doing this for all of the wrong reasons without any real end game in mind. In particular, it looks suspiciously like his entire ISIS strategy is just a political ploy to look like he's "doing something."
The ploy is to look like you're doing something without committing massive amounts of resources to the effort. Basically he wins from all angles doing this. Seems like the smartest political decision.
Sure, it is politically smart in the short term. There's no denying that.
What I'm wondering is whether this is something that will haunt us potentially in the long term. Bombing ISIS is something that I'm all in favor for doing. It is unlikely to cause long term problems, and, frankly, someone needs to start killing ISIS members and leaders. What I'm more concerned about is arming other rebels in Syria. That just seems like an invitation for trouble at this point. I'm also concerned about our end game. What are we committing ourselves to? What are the parameters for success? What are we really expecting to accomplish and at what cost? All of these important strategic considerations have been left wildly open-ended. Historically, this has proven to be a recipe for disaster.
Waste as little money as possible while still look like you're doing something is what you're committing too. The less $ you waste and the more other people do the work for you the better. There's no profit to be had so why bother is the stance but since ISIS is so outrageous there is pressure to do "something". So long as ISIS is weakened so much that they don't infringe on w/e the US wants to accomplish over there, then they don't really give a shit I'd imagine.
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and additionally you claim I said something I never actually said. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes against ISIS-occupied towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ + Show Spoiler +
For future reference, if you must insist to be an ass to someone else, at the very least, don't be an idiot in the process.
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
So in essence, it seems like my main gripe is that 1. You single out ISIS as 'using human shields' when that is false 2. Singling out ISIS with your revised definition of 'human shields' is a ridiculous attempt to detract from the legitimacy of ISIS's actions. There are tons of things that ISIS does that can be considered unethical. Having soldiers living in towns would not seem to be one of those things, as literally every country that has a military does that and therefore is using human shields by your definition.
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is 100% fact. However, there's also some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
This is NOT Israeli propaganda. Hamas admits it themselves lol! Don't blame the Israelis.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes the hypothetical argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding your defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to civilians if you are caring their lives (i presume this was all about for isis: to protect arabs from evil murica), just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too. And do you realize MEMRI has a lot of Islamic "sand n*****s" working for them, too, including some of the directors? It's a fairly informative organization of happenings in the Mideast.
In any case, that's irrelevant. It wasn't them talking about what Hamas does, it was a guy from Hamas talking about what Hamas does. lol
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
you have a MASSIVE ego
lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too.
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
If the response to shutting down aggressive and incorrect posts is to say I have a massive ego, then I'm okay with that. You puffed up your chest with that original post, but I seemed to have knocked the air out of you. Eh, just be happy it wasn't literally. lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
1. Human shields = human shields 2. Hostages = hostage These are distinct concepts. Hostages can be used as human shields, but people being used as hostages does not mean they are human shields. ISIS has hostages. The hostages of ISIS have not been used as human shields, and you have not provided an argument other than hostages=human shields, which is incorrect.
As to Hamas, you have MEMRI as a source, which would be labelled a hate group if they used the same modus operandi in pursuing 'translations' of selective Israeli media. Unfortunately the translator's attempt to claim human shields is directly contradicted by the rest of the translation. People freely move onto the roof of their own will. That is not using human shields, that's called passive resistance. Who's worse, the people who would voluntarily risk death for their countrymen and a better life for future generations or the ones who slaughter them because they're "in the way"?
Simple facts m8 Also lol @ the "terrorists" part. If they succeed in taking and holding a fair bit of the world oil supply you can bet we'll stop calling them that. Better to call them what they are - ruthless rebels.
On September 19 2014 10:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 09:42 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too.
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
you have a MASSIVE ego
If the response to shutting down aggressive and incorrect posts is to say I have a massive ego, then I'm okay with that. You puffed up your chest with that original post, but I seemed to have knocked the air out of you. Eh, just be happy it wasn't literally. lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
1. Human shields = human shields 2. Hostages = hostage These are distinct concepts. Hostages can be used as human shields, but people being used as hostages does not mean they are human shields. ISIS has hostages. The hostages of ISIS have not been used as human shields, and you have not provided an argument other than hostages=human shields, which is incorrect.
As to Hamas, you have MEMRI as a source, which would be labelled a hate group if they used the same modus operandi in pursuing 'translations' of selective Israeli media. Unfortunately the translator's attempt to claim human shields is directly contradicted by the rest of the translation. People freely move onto the roof of their own will. That is not using human shields, that's called passive resistance. Who's worse, the people who would voluntarily risk death for their countrymen and a better life for future generations or the ones who slaughter them because they're "in the way"?
Simple facts m8 Also lol @ the "terrorists" part. If they succeed in taking and holding a fair bit of the world oil supply you can bet we'll stop calling them that. Better to call them what they are - ruthless rebels.
Hostages can be used as human shields, as you say yourself, and that is something that for sure ISIS is 100% irrefutably doing and what they admit to doing, regardless of the gray area of whether or not they're doing the same with common civilians.
You're saying ISIS aren't terrorists? u wot m8? Going by your logic, I guess Al Qaeda is a humanitarian, anti-imperialist freedom fighter organization, going by your logic.
As I already stated, MEMRI is stock full of Islamic "sand n*****s". I didn't realize so many Muslim directors and employees would work what you claim is practically an Israeli-run propaganda channel. Still, why do you keep denying the fact that they showed what a guy from Hamas said himself? And why do you continue to deny ISIS's own actions and rhetoric.
And I'd say Hamas is worse than the Israelis. Please tell me, what is Israel supposed to do? High-five Mahmoud Abbas for killing Israelis? If Israel took no action against Hamas, then please explain to me what they're supposed to do.
What is the Iraqi military and its allies, including the United States, supposed to do against a terrorist organization so savage, even Al Qaeda condemns them? High-five them? Good logic, m8.
But still, I'm having trouble understanding your support for Islamic terrorists. Now you're not even considering them terrorists. And you almost sound like you hope they succeed.... but the reality is, ISIS in Iraq is losing ground practically everyday. I'm sorry to disappoint, but those terrorists will not be successful.
By the way, please lets not play same old song over and over again. Regardless of their CASUS BELLI against USA, they are still terrorists.
The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear....
They beheaded many civilians, as i posted before, using this system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas which is simply a "justice" served with violence and terror.
Sometimes they name it as Islam or Christianity or RELIGION.
On September 19 2014 10:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 09:42 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too.
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
you have a MASSIVE ego
If the response to shutting down aggressive and incorrect posts is to say I have a massive ego, then I'm okay with that. You puffed up your chest with that original post, but I seemed to have knocked the air out of you. Eh, just be happy it wasn't literally. lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
1. Human shields = human shields 2. Hostages = hostage These are distinct concepts. Hostages can be used as human shields, but people being used as hostages does not mean they are human shields. ISIS has hostages. The hostages of ISIS have not been used as human shields, and you have not provided an argument other than hostages=human shields, which is incorrect.
As to Hamas, you have MEMRI as a source, which would be labelled a hate group if they used the same modus operandi in pursuing 'translations' of selective Israeli media. Unfortunately the translator's attempt to claim human shields is directly contradicted by the rest of the translation. People freely move onto the roof of their own will. That is not using human shields, that's called passive resistance. Who's worse, the people who would voluntarily risk death for their countrymen and a better life for future generations or the ones who slaughter them because they're "in the way"?
Simple facts m8 Also lol @ the "terrorists" part. If they succeed in taking and holding a fair bit of the world oil supply you can bet we'll stop calling them that. Better to call them what they are - ruthless rebels.
Hostages can be used as human shields, as you say yourself, and that is something that for sure ISIS is 100% irrefutably doing and what they admit to doing, regardless of the gray area of whether or not they're doing the same with common civilians.
You're saying ISIS aren't terrorists? u wot m8? Going by your logic, I guess Al Qaeda is a humanitarian, anti-imperialist freedom fighter organization, going by your logic.
As I already stated, MEMRI is stock full of Islamic "sand n*****s". I didn't realize so many Muslim directors and employees would work what you claim is practically an Israeli-run propaganda channel. Still, why do you keep denying the fact that they showed what a guy from Hamas said himself? And why do you continue to deny ISIS's own actions and rhetoric.
And I'd say Hamas is worse than the Israelis. Please tell me, what is Israel supposed to do? High-five Mahmoud Abbas for killing Israelis? If Israel took no action against Hamas, then please explain to me what they're supposed to do.
What is the Iraqi military and its allies, including the United States, supposed to do against a terrorist organization so savage, even Al Qaeda condemns them? High-five them? Good logic, m8.
But still, I'm having trouble understanding your support for Islamic terrorists. Now you're not even considering them terrorists.
It's only terrorism if they start losing m8, you should read up on some history. I'd be willing to call it terrorism if Obama committed 100% that we would crush ISIS if nobody else did.
1. You haven't debunked the fact that the translation you provided informs us that human shields are not being used, as people volunteered of their own accord. Without coercion, the term human shield loses its meaning. If a member of the secret service jumps in front of a bullet headed towards the president, is the president guilty of shooting the man or is the shooter? 2. I am hesitant to believe your claim that there are Muslims in MEMRI. Haven't you also claimed that Jihad against infidels is a crucial part of Islam? As such, wouldn't they be too busy playing jihad to translate videos for the people in America who want to kill all the muslims? 3. Also, an organization started by an Israeli intelligence official with the express purpose of telling people what a threat the muslims are to the world and Israel. Somehow I think there might be a conflict of interest here.
Israel is ez: 1. Give the Palestinians their states. Get a long term UN peacekeeping force to keep order for the first 50 years. 2. Start a civil rights movement. Israel becomes a secular state with equal rights for all citizens, gradually absorbs the Palestinians within its borders. (never going to happen, Israel already votes further right than the tea party, they're not gonna let their pet muslims have a say) 3. Finish the ethnic cleansing they started 70 years ago 4. Keep up the status quo, where Israel keeps gradually strangling the West Bank and appropriating their territory till they have a Gaza sized piece of land left, and then construct a new wall around it. Keep the palestinians in their cages and give the smart ones privileges if they work for Israel. Keep the media machine oiled (lucky for them they're the only country which speaks hebrew, eh?) and bomb the Palestinians every few years to drum up nationalist sentiment and political support. Repeat ad infinitum.
Now let me tell you that as a secular jew 1 and 2 are more appealing to me because #4 is binary - either Israel has military superiority or it gets wiped off the map. Think Nazi Germany, but with Germany telling everyone else in Europe it's perfectly willing to kill them while it gathers all the foreigners into camps for a few decades instead of killing them (such restraint, much honor, very humane, so wow!) Think the muslims are still salty about that last bit. Also the fact that Israel has nukes and is fighting North Korea for the right to be the second nation to drop a nuke. But hey, as long as you can count on Israel's military dictatorship over its neighbors why worry about it!
Iraq and any other nation can kill the shit out of them. I don't really care that much. When they start killing civilians to get at ISIS I'll get salty. When they kill civilians by bombing them I'll get even more salty. When they blame someone other than the people who dropped the bomb or the people who ordered that bomb be dropped, I'll be ultra-salty.
Bombs are designed to kill a lot of people, and bombs don't discriminate between civilian and military. When you drop a bomb in a city or town you are deliberately declaring your intent to kill civilians. You can mince around this fact with phrases like "acceptable losses" and "unavoidable casualties" but the reality is that you are choosing kill more civilians with an air strike than you would with a ground invasion. Why? Because it's cheaper for us in terms of the lives of our soldiers, the cost of our equipment, and the political feasibility of an assault. We consciously make the choice to kill the civilians of other nations so that our soldiers live and our politicians thrive. I believe Iraq war was something around 40 civilians to every 1 soldier, and the recent gaza bombardment was about 30 to 1.
I believe this is where you and I differ. I would rather see our soldiers die than their civilians. If we are truly the great and glorious authority on humanist conduct that we pretend to be when we export democracy, then our modus operandi should be closer to this ideal where less people die overall. You see the situation and say that we should kill the civilians who are in the way because it's more cost-effective for us even though it will kill more people overall.
TL;DR When you bomb people you are fully responsible for their deaths unless they are being held there against their will (which is the phenomena known as human shields). In that case you are at least half responsible for their deaths because you decided to kill them.
On September 19 2014 10:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 09:42 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 02:53 Jormundr wrote: Well, glad to see the post I typed up to reply to pls no ty would have actually been worth posting. Hammurabi once more reveals his military prowess by asking the obvious question; Why isn't an entirely ground-based force standing in the middle of fields, screaming "Come at me bro!" defiantly at the enemy's missiles?
Truly, the answer must be that they are evil terrible muslims who just enjoy killing people. Not because that tactic was proven to be really fucking stupid in the Revolutionary War over two centuries ago (before air superiority ever came into play). From both a tactical and a logistics standpoint, the (insert iNcontroL idiot voice) "You guys are in a town therefore you're using hoomans as shelds!1!2" argument is utterly moronic. Both here and in the palestinian conflict, it's an attempt to portray the people on the ground as cowards while painting as heroes the bombers who slaughter everyone from a safe distance of around 15000 feet.
Worth a chuckle though
Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too.
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
you have a MASSIVE ego
If the response to shutting down aggressive and incorrect posts is to say I have a massive ego, then I'm okay with that. You puffed up your chest with that original post, but I seemed to have knocked the air out of you. Eh, just be happy it wasn't literally. lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
1. Human shields = human shields 2. Hostages = hostage These are distinct concepts. Hostages can be used as human shields, but people being used as hostages does not mean they are human shields. ISIS has hostages. The hostages of ISIS have not been used as human shields, and you have not provided an argument other than hostages=human shields, which is incorrect.
As to Hamas, you have MEMRI as a source, which would be labelled a hate group if they used the same modus operandi in pursuing 'translations' of selective Israeli media. Unfortunately the translator's attempt to claim human shields is directly contradicted by the rest of the translation. People freely move onto the roof of their own will. That is not using human shields, that's called passive resistance. Who's worse, the people who would voluntarily risk death for their countrymen and a better life for future generations or the ones who slaughter them because they're "in the way"?
Simple facts m8 Also lol @ the "terrorists" part. If they succeed in taking and holding a fair bit of the world oil supply you can bet we'll stop calling them that. Better to call them what they are - ruthless rebels.
Hostages can be used as human shields, as you say yourself, and that is something that for sure ISIS is 100% irrefutably doing and what they admit to doing, regardless of the gray area of whether or not they're doing the same with common civilians.
You're saying ISIS aren't terrorists? u wot m8? Going by your logic, I guess Al Qaeda is a humanitarian, anti-imperialist freedom fighter organization, going by your logic.
As I already stated, MEMRI is stock full of Islamic "sand n*****s". I didn't realize so many Muslim directors and employees would work what you claim is practically an Israeli-run propaganda channel. Still, why do you keep denying the fact that they showed what a guy from Hamas said himself? And why do you continue to deny ISIS's own actions and rhetoric.
And I'd say Hamas is worse than the Israelis. Please tell me, what is Israel supposed to do? High-five Mahmoud Abbas for killing Israelis? If Israel took no action against Hamas, then please explain to me what they're supposed to do.
What is the Iraqi military and its allies, including the United States, supposed to do against a terrorist organization so savage, even Al Qaeda condemns them? High-five them? Good logic, m8.
But still, I'm having trouble understanding your support for Islamic terrorists. Now you're not even considering them terrorists. And you almost sound like you hope they succeed.... but the reality is, ISIS in Iraq is losing ground practically everyday. I'm sorry to disappoint, but those terrorists will not be successful.
You defend Israel by saying "What are they supposed to do, let Hamas rocket them?" Well ISIS is in a similar situation. Either they hide amongst civilians or they lose immediately. They don't really have another choice. You can't expect them to try to fight a conventional war against the US military.
But, ImFromPortugal, basically what pls no ty said. It's a racial slur for Mideastern peoples (not just Arabs, but also Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians, etc.).
It's particularly funny considering a lot of Mideastern people are tanned or even light-skinned. But racists in the US like to portray "inferior" people as all being dark-skinned and whatnot.
On September 19 2014 11:14 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 11:05 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 10:37 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 09:42 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:15 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 08:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:
On September 19 2014 07:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Uhh, is this post meant to be in reply to me, and to what comment? Could you please point that out? Because it doesn't address anything I've said LOL, and you claim I said something I never said, either. What is with the strawman-construction followed by unwitty sarcasm? It's rather amusing in a sad kind of way but also confusing.
On September 18 2014 11:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: They have been using civilians as human shields, by mining up towns and hiding among the populace. It's made military operations 100x harder than it would otherwise be.
Here you go. You're right, guess I was makin' a man out of straw, I stand corrected! Any army which quarters its troops in a city is using those civilians as shields, because they should have learned by now that the US (and its nato allies) are more than willing to bomb the shit out of civilians because it's cheaper for us than a ground invasion. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just legitimately baffled. I have absolutely zero clues about which civilian-free areas they should be fighting from. I was under the impression that, in order to hold a town you have to actually BE in that town. Feel free to correct me on these specifics of modern warfare, but doesn't a town also give you these advantages in an invasion?
1. Cover 2. Supplies - food, water, shelter 3. In this specific case - recruits 4. Funds
Still having a really hard time coming up with better places to put an army when invading while having zero air presence against. My main argument stems from the fact that the two-time World War champions have a habit of putting a lot of their military bases in cities(and near airfields, but Isis doesn't really need landing strips, do they?)
pls no ty posted an article saying that US has observed that ISIS's strategy is to disperse among the population.
I simply noted ISIS has always been doing that, because, duh, where else are they gonna sit around? I also noted that it's made military operations a lot harder (again for obvious reasons), to a degree that the Iraqi PM has called off air strikes in towns.
So basically, your posts are supporting my own comment. Except you decided to pretend I said something entirely different and be a complete asshole about it.
Well played.
No, you specifically used the phrase "human shields" which has the denotation of humans being used as shields. See:
Since I highly doubt that ISIS members are holding civilians over their heads to ward off airstrikes, then your claim of humans being used as shields is likely erroneous. As I've already stated, this claim is largely counter-factual propaganda intended to cast the blame of inhumane acts of war on the people who are the targets of those acts. And the reason they are guilty is because they lived in a place where other people live. While this is beautiful from a propaganda standpoint, it's a pretty fucking stupid argument.
This is before you get into the rest of the baggage that is automatically tossed in when you claim someone is using human shields. Mostly connotations of cowardice that serve to further paint the killers as angels and the killed as demons.
It's funny because the whole point of my original post was to point out that ISIS has always been dispersing among the civilian population. That much is fact. There's some truth to the tiny point you're going balls to the wall about regarding human shields as well.
So.... are you trying to imply that ISIS are the "angels" here? Since your original post, you were extremely pissed off that anyone could possibly condemn ISIS for its savagery. Do you support ISIS? There's no other reason you could be so inflamed that someone would say something bad about them. The fact of the matter is, you're making a whole hoopla over an article that pls no ty posted talking about something that ISIS has already been doing.
You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
Your analogy with the US military bases is flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound. Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed. And to reiterate, you know the hostages they hold, that they say will kill if so-and-so attacks? Those are human shields too.
I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
So you're pretending to 'rek' me with 1. A channel which parrots the official statements of the Saudi government providing speculation on the fate of missing children. "Were they eaten by dragons? Did they turn into adults? Are they being used as human shields? We have no fucking idea but hey fuck those ISIS guys who might fuck up our oil trade." 2. According to unspecified 'authorities' (who used to be untrustworthy/cowardly when we were invading them 10 years ago) ISIS used students as human shields. Also according to the story, most of the 1200 students left the university before ISIS arrived, and "nearly 20 students were slightly injured", which seems to contradict the whole human shields thing. Gonna chalk this source down to a maybe (we're rounding in your favor here) 3. Sorry, but I'm not going to take Mr. "If there is even one more act of Muslim terrorism, it is then time for Americans to start slaughtering Muslims in the streets, all of them." as a reliable source. Furthermore this source doesn't support your argument that ISIS was using human shields (no evidence). 4. ISIS may end up using Indian captives as their first line of defense. They may also shit gold. More at 11! 5. Breitbart. Has people who are willing to be in Iraq. Near muslims. HA! They almost had me, those tricksy wannabe reporters! 5a. O lets just listen to MEMRI, whose official motto is "Fuck the sandniggers, also we don't actually speak arabic" [sarcasm]#rekt[/sarcasm] + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You do realize that having hostages you say you will kill IF you are attacked is using human shields, right? You seem to entirely ignore this fact, and arguing from ignorance is not an excuse. Since ISIS themselves state this is something they do, it makes your argument that "ISIS doesn't use human shields" null and void.
The 49 captured Turks right now are human shields. ISIS says they will kill them if Turkey makes a move against them. Hence, they are being used to shield ISIS from Turkey. Haven't you even read this thread? pls no ty, StealthBlue, and Laserist mentioned that specific hostage crisis a few times. It's literally making Turkish military action against ISIS impossible at this moment.
You do realize how the English language works, right? In this system, each word has specific meaning(s). Today's words are hostage and human shield! Now repeat after me class: hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield, hostage, human shield! + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Your analogy with the US military bases is terribly flawed as well. The US military bases are in very noticeable and separated places. If you hit a US military base, you know you're hitting the base. The US military base isn't in a market or housing complex, it's an entirely separate compound.
Then you get into a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about how soldiers (specifically those of the US) don't live in towns(you didn't specify whether you meant domestically or in the case of invasions overseas), which wait - wat? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Not only that, but ISIS-occupied towns are to various degrees depopulated. There's entire neighborhoods and even entire villages that are entirely empty thay they could hole up in and turn it in to a makeshift base, but nope, they choose to be where literally all the people are, as shown by the civilian casualties whenever an ISIS position not out in the countryside is bombed.
Then you say (according to your extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground or your massively inflated ego concerning all things related to Islam, pick one) that apparently ISIS is stationed in ghost towns but (according to you) they probably made camp right next to the only retirement center for nobel peace prize winners in all of Iraq because evil Muslims 'murica. You then go on to state that people die when you bomb cities. Knowledge. Bomb. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm very sorry that the terrorist organizations you support are murderous and evil cunts, but that's the truth of the matter. Don't get mad when people call them out for it. You have shown the most support for terrorist organizations that I've seen on this forum, even implying that they are "angels" while the forces fighting them are "demons".
I don't support ISIS, I don't like it when they engage gross acts of violence (similar to how I don't like it when the United States, Israel, and Russia partake in far more heinous acts). I also don't support people throwing bullshit around because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with an argument. There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticize the four states I just mentioned for the terrible shit they do. You don't have to make shit up or copy paste from the people who make shit up. By the mere act of doing so you diminish the validity of your arguments, because if you're willing to lie about one thing, how can anyone trust the rest of it? + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 08:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But serious question: What prompted your original sarcastic and caustic post in the first place? Do you hold some grudge against me for having destroyed some argument of yours in another thread? Come on dude, get over it >_> You could have calmly stated your views regarding defense of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Hamas.
As to your final comment, I don't really care about you. You're a strange bird for sure, and you have a MASSIVE ego and obsession with Islam, but IDGAF. Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Faulty 'human shield' arguments have become a pet peeve of mine after the recent Gaza party.
Except the scenario we have here does include human shields, which you seemed to have ignored. ISIS themselves says they're using human shields. What part about "Don't attack us or we will kill these civilians/hostages" don't you get about human shields?
In any case, your entire last post that didn't actually make any argument. And completely ignored all the points made regarding ISIS using hostages to prevent attacks from countries or forces, most prominently Turkey. Also the fact that Hamas even states themselves endorses use of human shields. lol. A Hamas member himself says they use human shields, and you somehow reject Hamas' own words? I'm sure you can find other examples too.
How are we at a point where we're denying the simple facts? When terrorists themselves are saying and doing things themselves, even without any Israeli or American propaganda, how can we deny that it's happening? I don't understand your insistence on vindicating ISIS of heinous crimes they themselves admit to.
you have a MASSIVE ego
If the response to shutting down aggressive and incorrect posts is to say I have a massive ego, then I'm okay with that. You puffed up your chest with that original post, but I seemed to have knocked the air out of you. Eh, just be happy it wasn't literally. lol
Anyways, I was going to respond further, but, pls no ty basically said whatever else needs to be said. | | V + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2014 10:10 pls no ty wrote: JudicatorHammurabi was right when he said they are already doing this, and of course i knew keeping 49 of my fellow citizens as hostages means they are using them as shields. You have probably seen it but check this:
In the video while ISIS members walking inside and the around of the city, the people are cursing Esad's regime and still they say that they are not sided. I know some few citizen beating videos from ISIS but more than a year ago we were watching many videos of regime soldiers beating, torturing the citizens of Syria. Its hard to believe hence you will criticize me a lot but ISIS members are completely neutral to them and sometimes good to them by providing foodsupply and filling the service gap of Syrian government that they lost years ago. These fake acts may result with a good propaganda which i described as similar to one that HAMAS does, or else they would be throwing rocks to ISIS members to force them out of the city.
Now consider, ISIS will not be completely perished. Syrian rebels will not fight against them. Neither kurdish or syrian forces will be able to defeat ISIS on ground. Jets can kill 500 or even 1.000 fighters, but they cant neutralize 15 to 35.000 members at all.
Even if you empty a city or village of off the isis, who will take control? Syrian regime? No they cant. They are too busy with dropping bombs on civilians already. Kurdish forces? We say America and lots of countries are against the idea of Kurds getting lands to rule. Syrian rebels? Its all started when their generals and soldiers started to join ISIS with the arsenal they took from Syria and West. You cant guarantee anything about them, they can give back what you earned easily back to ISIS yet Esad is not accepting an election without himself in it, citizens dont want him, this is fact, this is what they were fighting for. FSA existence wont stop regime to bomb those places, they are still enemies.
Pick one:
1- ISIS will declare cease fire. They will create a wing (by cooperating with FSA ) like Hamas did at GAZA and will start the game Hamas playing with its military wing - political wing. This takes us to official or unofficial declaration of CALIPHATE. Many nations will recognize them, many wont. And the main point is, will we leave those people in a corrupt medieval system taking over slowly but surely in exchange of no more beheading videos on the internet and border enlarging news?
There are a number of reasons, including American opposition, but a big one is oil. They don't yet produce enough to be economically self-sufficient (but they might), and they don't have legal authority to sell it directly on the market.
3- OLD FOLKS TURKS. President Erdoğan underlined during his speech that TSK (turkish armed forces) is preparing itself for buffer zone. However, it would be the biggest mistake of our foreign policy if we lose those 49 hostages. (by the way i smell bad things about this hostage situation)
So, there are lands that Esad will never have again. Next year or 10 years after, there will be a new regime controlling those. Considerably peaceful ISIS, socalledfreesyrianarmyofisis, apoist-left minded kurds, colonialistwannabetu-tu-tu-turkey!
EDIT: If you have no guts to make a ground operation, you cant say ISIS is using humans as shields, thats also true. But you cant hide your guns into schools or very close to citizens if you are caring them, just because you know they wont attack there when civilians around.
1. Human shields = human shields 2. Hostages = hostage These are distinct concepts. Hostages can be used as human shields, but people being used as hostages does not mean they are human shields. ISIS has hostages. The hostages of ISIS have not been used as human shields, and you have not provided an argument other than hostages=human shields, which is incorrect.
As to Hamas, you have MEMRI as a source, which would be labelled a hate group if they used the same modus operandi in pursuing 'translations' of selective Israeli media. Unfortunately the translator's attempt to claim human shields is directly contradicted by the rest of the translation. People freely move onto the roof of their own will. That is not using human shields, that's called passive resistance. Who's worse, the people who would voluntarily risk death for their countrymen and a better life for future generations or the ones who slaughter them because they're "in the way"?
Simple facts m8 Also lol @ the "terrorists" part. If they succeed in taking and holding a fair bit of the world oil supply you can bet we'll stop calling them that. Better to call them what they are - ruthless rebels.
Hostages can be used as human shields, as you say yourself, and that is something that for sure ISIS is 100% irrefutably doing and what they admit to doing, regardless of the gray area of whether or not they're doing the same with common civilians.
You're saying ISIS aren't terrorists? u wot m8? Going by your logic, I guess Al Qaeda is a humanitarian, anti-imperialist freedom fighter organization, going by your logic.
As I already stated, MEMRI is stock full of Islamic "sand n*****s". I didn't realize so many Muslim directors and employees would work what you claim is practically an Israeli-run propaganda channel. Still, why do you keep denying the fact that they showed what a guy from Hamas said himself? And why do you continue to deny ISIS's own actions and rhetoric.
And I'd say Hamas is worse than the Israelis. Please tell me, what is Israel supposed to do? High-five Mahmoud Abbas for killing Israelis? If Israel took no action against Hamas, then please explain to me what they're supposed to do.
What is the Iraqi military and its allies, including the United States, supposed to do against a terrorist organization so savage, even Al Qaeda condemns them? High-five them? Good logic, m8.
But still, I'm having trouble understanding your support for Islamic terrorists. Now you're not even considering them terrorists. And you almost sound like you hope they succeed.... but the reality is, ISIS in Iraq is losing ground practically everyday. I'm sorry to disappoint, but those terrorists will not be successful.
You defend Israel by saying "What are they supposed to do, let Hamas rocket them?" Well ISIS is in a similar situation. Either they hide amongst civilians or they lose immediately. They don't really have another choice. You can't expect them to try to fight a conventional war against the US military.
Of course we can't expect them to fight a conventional war. In Iraq at least, they couldn't fight a conventional war against anyone at this point in time lol. Even with their asymmetrical warfare, they're losing ground in Iraq faster than the Minnesota Vikings' defense last year.
The difference is, Hamas politically "represents" the Palestinian people. Hamas is a political party in Palestinian politics. Basically, they're making themselves and the Palestinian people of Gaza they represent, an enemy to Israel.
It's a lot more complex with ISIS. This is a pan-Islamic terrorist organization that conquered sovereign territory who do not appear to have any noticeable popular support and whose only supporters are some pragmatic Sunni fighters, brutally oppressed by Maliki's sectarian policies and de-Baathification, who are already turning on ISIS anyways.
The people from their conquests are Iraqi citizens. It makes the situation a lot dicier for the Iraqi military and government. While Israel is killing Palestinians, not Israelis, the civilians who die as collateral from Iraq's fighting against ISIS are Iraqi citizens. Just this simple fact gives ISIS a significantly larger strategic advantage than Hamas could ever hope to have, since Iraq does not under any circumstances want to harm its own people. Al-Abadi has stopped Iraqi airstrikes against urban areas and has urged the US to do the same due to these grave concerns.
Still, despite this, the Islamic State appears to be losing its hold in Tikrit, one of its most bunkered-down strongholds between Iraq and Syria. The Anbar leaders are more and more starting to take the fight against ISIS, and those in the Haditha region have fought alongside Iraqi military forces since the start.
ISIS's days in Iraq are numbered. Their morale and numbers were bolstered by their successes in June, but the reformation of the Iraqi government and military, the counter-offensive by Kurdish peshmerga, Arab militias, and the Iraqi and US military forces are removing their gains in territory, reputation, and forecasted degree of success and a wide coalition of nations, in particular the United States and Russia, have been arming Iraqi forces.
But, ImFromPortugal, basically what pls no ty said. It's a racial slur for Mideastern peoples (not just Arabs, but also Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians, etc.).
It's particularly funny considering a lot of Mideastern people are tanned or even light-skinned. But racists in the US like to portray "inferior" people as all being dark-skinned and whatnot.
Well.. i think i need to sleep. Thanks for the definition and will be checking the thread in the morning for updates.