Jump to content
MigL

ISIS leader al-Baghdadi killed

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Curious layman said:

Ive no idea what to do instead, but this just seems counter productive and pointless. 

If I read you correctly, though, you actually ARE proposing we do something else instead. You appear to be proposing that we do nothing, and I don't get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say do nothing, but having drones scaring the shit out of the local population, and killing innocent civilians in the process just makes it easier to recruit new terrorists. We're using terror to defeat terror. Since 911 the terrorists have gotten bigger and stronger. This strategy isn't and won't  work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Curious layman said:

I didn't say do nothing, but having drones scaring the shit out of the local population, and killing innocent civilians in the process just makes it easier to recruit new terrorists. We're using terror to defeat terror. Since 911 the terrorists have gotten bigger and stronger. This strategy isn't and won't  work.

'Not scaring or killing civilians' is not the opposite of 'killing the leaders.' It sounds like it is the methodology we've used to kill past leaders you are opposed to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curious layman said:

I didn't say do nothing, but having drones scaring the shit out of the local population, and killing innocent civilians in the process just makes it easier to recruit new terrorists.

I'm unclear on the relevance of this reply. You rightly highlight the problems of civilian death and drone attacks. We're agreed, those are serious problems that often make matters worse.

In this operation, however, we specifically went in with helicopters and put Delta Force boots on the ground to avoid the very civilian deaths and uncertainties you lament. 

You seem to be arguing to leave these leaders in power indefinitely. I want to understand your position. It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, and I'm interested in correcting my confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Yes but it was a big dog, a very very big dog, the biggest dog we had and it chased him down the longest deepest tunnel of all and it ran fast faster than the other dogs...  

Trump said, over and over again, Baghdadi died "like a dog" and "died like a coward" BUT at the same time he commends the dog for being beautiful and talented, and key to catching the thug.  The logic is that dogs are cowards (if Baghdadi (B) = D (dog) and B = C (coward) then D = C, because, in his twisted mind, to die like a dog is to die like a coward.  This can only come from a person with a severe personality disorder.

Also at the top of the list for Trump to thank in public was Russia, then Turkey, then Syria, and at the bottom of the list was the Kurds, who provided the intelligence, and should be at the top of the list.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Trump said, over and over again, Baghdadi died "like a dog" and "died like a coward" BUT at the same time he commends the dog for being beautiful and talented, and key to catching the thug.  The logic is that dogs are cowards (if Baghdadi (B) = D (dog) and B = C (coward) then D = C, because, in his twisted mind, to die like a dog is to die like a coward.  This can only come from a person with a severe personality disorder.

Your first mistake is applying logic to the speeches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Allow me to translate:

Service Dog good.

Al-Baghdadi bad. 

Well, there is a non-zero chance that at some point we will have "there are good/bad dogs on both sides".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, there is a non-zero chance that at some point we will have "there are good/bad dogs on both sides".

Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my dictionary "coward" is defined as "a person who lacks the courage to do dangerous or unpleasant things"

For Baghdadi to bring 2 children into a dead-end cave and blow himself up is not cowardly.  He was doing dangerous and unpleasant things EVERY DAY.

Now I figured out Trump's repeated remark that Baghdadi fled "whimpering, crying, and screaming."  Trump facing impeachment is figuratively "whimpering, crying, and screaming" every day in his tweets (blunt language with all caps with many exclamation points is screaming, always being the victim is whimpering and crying).  He is projecting his own anxiety about impeachment on Baghdadi.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

In my dictionary "coward" is defined as "a person who lacks the courage to do dangerous or unpleasant things"

For Baghdadi to bring 2 children into a dead-end cave and blow himself up is not cowardly.  He was doing dangerous and unpleasant things EVERY DAY.

Now I figured out Trump's repeated remark that Baghdadi fled "whimpering, crying, and screaming."  Trump facing impeachment is figuratively "whimpering, crying, and screaming" every day in his tweets (blunt language with all caps with many exclamation points is screaming, always being the victim is whimpering and crying).  He is projecting his own anxiety about impeachment on Baghdadi.

To me, he's a coward. He took his own life as immediately and painlessly as he felt possible in order to avoid what he considered a very unpleasant future, and took the lives of 3 children with him.

I don't know what else to call it but you are welcome to your definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To me, he's a coward. He took his own life as immediately and painlessly as he felt possible in order to avoid what he considered a very unpleasant future, and took the lives of 3 children with him.

I don't know what else to call it but you are welcome to your definition.

Trump calling Baghdadi a "coward" was simply Trump projecting his own, well-known, and obvious cowardice.  Trump always lived in a bubble of privilege, sheltered from all "dangerous or unpleasant things."  He avoided Vietnam.  Everyday of his life he rolled out of his bed of roses, in his golden tower, to do whatever the hell he wanted.  His life was a blurred series of orgasms.  Never anything dangerous or unpleasant.

What Baghdadi did during his public life as Caliphate, and taking 2 children with him, was always despicable, self-serving, and evil.  You may also call it cowardly, because he did that to avoid an unpleasant future.  It doesn't make sense taking those 2 children, what was to be gained by that? :confused: Terrorists are not rational.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Trump calling Baghdadi a "coward" was simply Trump projecting his own, well-known, and obvious cowardice.  Trump always lived in a bubble of privilege, sheltered from all "dangerous or unpleasant things."  He avoided Vietnam.  Everyday of his life he rolled out of his bed of roses, in his golden tower, to do whatever the hell he wanted.  Never anything dangerous or unpleasant.

That in no way makes al-Baghdadi less of a coward.

...and in my dictionary "dangerous" and "unpleasant" can be found under "Trump".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm unclear on the relevance of this reply. You rightly highlight the problems of civilian death and drone attacks. We're agreed, those are serious problems that often make matters worse.

In this operation, however, we specifically went in with helicopters and put Delta Force boots on the ground to avoid the very civilian deaths and uncertainties you lament. 

You seem to be arguing to leave these leaders in power indefinitely. I want to understand your position. It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, and I'm interested in correcting my confusion.

'In this operation, however, we specifically went in with helicopters and put Delta Force boots on the ground to avoid the very civilian deaths and uncertainties you lament' - how cool, I'm sure it will make a great film, and I cant wait for the book. (we'll just ignore the children that died) 

Ever heard of the IRA or FARC. There's been huge progress made recently, and guess what? it wasn't because we kept killing their leaders. At no point in this war on terror has killing our 'enemy' done anything but make them more determined to fight. We've been killing them for years now, IT. DOESNT. WORK. But hey, as long as it makes you feel good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump was originally talking about Muslim dogs. 

Of course, good Christian dogs are brave, loyal and strong. 

I don't see why it should be a bone of contention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Curious layman said:

At no point in this war on terror has killing our 'enemy' done anything but make them more determined to fight. We've been killing them for years now, IT. DOESNT. WORK. But hey, as long as it makes you feel good.

It is interesting that you think "killing our enemy" "DOESN'T. WORK." when it comes to ISIS. I don't think many would agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That in no way makes al-Baghdadi less of a coward.

...and in my dictionary "dangerous" and "unpleasant" can be found under "Trump".

All you can say is that his death was a cowardly death, to avoid the dangerous and unpleasant future he faced. 

His life was constantly on the run, slinging an AK47, with a suicide vest 24/7, wearing heavy robes in hot climate, for how many years?  He must have been some charming Charlie-Manson-type, a smooth-talking, manipulative genius, to get so many brutal thugs to dedicate their lives to you, and follow you in battle.  That is a whole lot of dangerous and unpleasant living.  He was also a cleric, descended from Mohammed.  So few clerics can replace him.

He was THE Caliph for his faith on this earth.  His cause was righteous in his mind and worthy of extreme behavior.  Their ends justifies their means.  By taking 2 children to their death with him when he exploded, was that to deliver them into paradise with him?  Was he a true believer in the promise of paradise for dying in battle in such a manner?

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Curious layman said:

'In this operation, however, we specifically went in with helicopters and put Delta Force boots on the ground to avoid the very civilian deaths and uncertainties you lament' - how cool, I'm sure it will make a great film, and I cant wait for the book. (we'll just ignore the children that died) 

They didn't die because of US troops. They died because al-Bagdadi held them close himself when he blew up his explosive vest.

3 hours ago, Curious layman said:

Ever heard of the IRA or FARC. There's been huge progress made recently, and guess what? it wasn't because we kept killing their leaders. At no point in this war on terror has killing our 'enemy' done anything but make them more determined to fight. We've been killing them for years now, IT. DOESNT. WORK. But hey, as long as it makes you feel good.

This isn't about things making me feel good. No need to make it personal. You appear to be arguing not to eliminate these threats and leaders. I don't think that makes sense. I want to understand your reasoning. You seem to be arguing we ought to ignore them and leave them in place, that things will be better if we bury our heads in the sand. 

If I'm misunderstanding you, then all you need to do is clarify and answer the actual question I've asked you about 5x now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

His life was constantly on the run, slinging an AK47, with a suicide vest 24/7, wearing heavy robes in hot climate, for how many years?  He must have been some charming Charlie-Manson-type, a smooth-talking, manipulative genius, to get so many brutal thugs to dedicate their lives to you, and follow you in battle. 

I of course didn't know al-Baghdadi but I'm guessing from your description neither did you. This sounds like you got your information from a very biased "news" station. Reality is always more complex than caricatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the beginning one small tactical nuke could have killed them all at once and prevented ISIS from gaining any power and saved tens of thousands of lives. No guts no glory!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is interesting that you think "killing our enemy" "DOESN'T. WORK." when it comes to ISIS. I don't think many would agree with you.

You might take a look at the history of the "Easter Rising" in Dublin in 1916. 

In Ireland at the time, few people were supporters of the independence movement. But after the British lined up the leaders and killed them by firing squad, (including one injured man, tied to a chair), the mood in the country completely changed, and Ireland eventually fought for and won it's independence. 

These kinds of things stick in the minds of people, whether justified or not. 

On the other side of the coin, how was it ok for the American generals at the end of WW2 to creep around the Japanese Emperor Hirohito like adoring groupies, when he should have been dangling from a lamp post, with his legs kicking? If ever a man deserved to die, he did. 

If you're going to take out the leaders, at least get it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You might take a look at the history of the "Easter Rising" in Dublin in 1916. 

 

You might want to look at a map of the territory ISIS controlled in 2015 and how much they control today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You might want to look at a map of the territory ISIS controlled in 2015 and how much they control today.

Bin Laden didn't control any territory. He still took out Manhattan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Bin Laden didn't control any territory. He still took out Manhattan. 

In what way does that negate the fact that killing ISIS members has severely weakened them? Where do you think we'd be in Iraq and Syria wrt ISIS if we hadn't been hunting down and killing every one of them that we could find?

52 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Bin Laden didn't control any territory. He still took out Manhattan. 

How active has al-Qaeda been since bin Laden was taken out?

Edited by zapatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

How active has al-Qaeda been since bin Laden was taken out?

How active have the IRA been, since the Good Friday Agreement ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.