While the media talks about the Jordanian pilot, the US burns a 13-year-old to death - Polidicks

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125187]Since most of FP considers Israel borderline genocidal, that analogy doesn't help whatever point you may have been trying to make at all.[/QUOTE] How does my point relate to what FP thinks?

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125153]If you're talking about efficiency, let me put it to you this way. To send those drones in costs a huge amount of money, as well as their maintenance and fuel. Each missile costs over a hundred thousand dollars, unless I'm very much mistaken. Sending in a sniper team would be infinitely cheaper. Also, every time the drone 'crashes into an orphanage', hundreds of willing new recruits rise up to join the enemy's cause. Ergo, the sniper team's the best option every time.[/QUOTE] While drones and missiles are exensive they are not as expensive as the training the soldiers

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125153]If you're talking about efficiency, let me put it to you this way. To send those drones in costs a huge amount of money, as well as their maintenance and fuel. Each missile costs over a hundred thousand dollars, unless I'm very much mistaken. Sending in a sniper team would be infinitely cheaper. Also, every time the drone 'crashes into an orphanage', hundreds of willing new recruits rise up to join the enemy's cause. Ergo, the sniper team's the best option every time.[/QUOTE] Human life is far more valuable than whatever the cost of the drone strike. Though, I somehow think it costs more to fuel and maintain a helicopter to drop the sniper teams off than the comparable costs for drones. Thus, the only possible additional cost for the drone is the missile it shoots vs. the sniper's bullet. However, that's disregarding the higher risk of the sniper team being killed (and their equipment being lost), along with the risk of the helicopter (and crew) being lost, and whatever supporting elements being lost (you know, the "if shit goes south and we need to extract the sniper team ASAP under enemy fire because they got detected while trying to sneak through a city with a sniper rifle to get to their target and shockingly someone happened to notice them or similar"). [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;47125177]It's naive to think military action from the us against isis will REALLY help[/QUOTE] I was under the impression that the fight against the IS wasn't going too well until the airstrikes started, though I admittedly haven't been following it that closely.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;47124636]hate to tell you but ISIS was funded completely by saudi's government not the US.[/QUOTE]It was actually funded by US to take down assads regime

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125187]Since most of FP considers Israel borderline genocidal, that analogy doesn't help whatever point you may have been trying to make at all.[/QUOTE] I think people don't like Israel's actions because they continue to actively provoke the other side far beyond the context of killing terrorists.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47125233]I think people don't like Israel's actions because they continue to actively provoke the other side far beyond the context of killing terrorists.[/QUOTE] 'actively provoke' is calling a hurricane a light breeze.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47125233]I think people don't like Israel's actions because they continue to actively provoke the other side far beyond the context of killing terrorists.[/QUOTE] How do you destroy weapons that are being hidden inside schools and hospitals effectively turning children and ill civilians into targets, without provoking the people there?, you don't. Israel can't win in anyway here, but the safety of our citizens comes first. I can give fuck all about everything else if I'm not safe. My safety > everyone else's safety.

[QUOTE=Muskof;47125276]How do you destroy weapons that are being hidden inside schools and hospitals effectively turning children and ill civilians into targets, without provoking the people there?, you don't. Israel can't win in anyway here, but the safety of our citizens comes first. I can give fuck all about everything else if I'm not safe. My safefy > everyone else's safety.[/QUOTE] I was referring to the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements, not to Israel attacking sources of rocket attacks and what not.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47125330]I was referring to the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements, not to Israel attacking sources of rocket attacks and what not.[/QUOTE] I disagree with the settlements if that means anything.

[QUOTE=Muskof;47125337]I disagree with the settlements if that means anything.[/QUOTE] Also, Israel is building settlements into the Fatah controlled West Bank, while mostly making war with Hamas controlled Gaza. There are no settlements in the Gaza Strip.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47125177]It's naive to think military action from the us against isis will REALLY help[/QUOTE] If bombing ISIS' military forces, the faction that bases it's strength on their military forces and the terror they can sow with it, what will according to you? What will REALLY help?

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125064]Send a sniper, an assassin or a saboteur. It's as much a violation of another nation's borders as drone strikes are.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=archangel125;47125153]If you're talking about efficiency, let me put it to you this way. To send those drones in costs a huge amount of money, as well as their maintenance and fuel. Each missile costs over a hundred thousand dollars, unless I'm very much mistaken. Sending in a sniper team would be infinitely cheaper. Also, every time the drone 'crashes into an orphanage', hundreds of willing new recruits rise up to join the enemy's cause. Ergo, the sniper team's the best option every time.[/QUOTE] That's pretty funny considering over the past few weeks the media has been talking about the civilians who Chris Kyle killed and seemed to have no remorse over. You will be hard-pressed to find any means of assassination as objective, logical, and precise as one which comes with hours of loiter time, no risk whatsoever to the operator, a camera feed combined with intelligence from multiple sources, and AARs to review the operator's actions. Meanwhile the boots on the ground you advocate for have to make split-second decisions in threatening environments with incomplete information and so, time and time again, make mistakes. While we're at it, I have to point out two things about these collateral damage statistics: 1. The media loves to play up the '1 man targeted, 20 men killed' angle to imply that there was one single target and nineteen innocents killed. They often say this in situations where the additional nineteen are bodyguards or soldiers. There could be a drone strike on a Taliban training compound in Pakistan and the media would be talking about how in the attempt to kill its leader, a Hellfire killed fifty innocents. 2. This is an enemy that literally uses children as human shields. If an orphanage gets accidentally blown up, it's because the target is using the orphanage as a base of operations. When the enemy is using civilians as shields, and the civilians go along with it, inevitable civilian casualties can't be pinned entirely on the drones. No, collateral damage is not acceptable, it's not to be trivialized, and it's not something we can just blame other people for. But it's a fact of war, we are at war with a covert and ruthless enemy, and this is by far the best option we have.

While it's informative to know, OP smells like a blog post.

[QUOTE=Apache249;47123914]Thermobaric =/= incendiary. It's not a burn, it's an explosion [editline]yes[/editline] Not to mention that's only one variant of the Hellfire. Most Hellfires use a HEAT warheat instead.[/QUOTE] They have different variants, ranging from Tandem shaped charges to fragmentation.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47125574]If bombing ISIS' military forces, the faction that bases it's strength on their military forces and the terror they can sow with it, what will according to you? What will REALLY help?[/QUOTE] There power isn't in their military force, it's in their belief, their cult killing them will only convince more of their cause. Especially if it's the US doing it, who doesn't have a place there militarily to begin with.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47126990]There power isn't in their military force, it's in their belief, their cult killing them will only convince more of their cause. Especially if it's the US doing it, who doesn't have a place there militarily to begin with.[/QUOTE] Every time I ask someone who says "no the US can't just bomb isis and hope it helps" what should we do instead, they just rephrase what they said earlier. And their power is in their military strength, otherwise no one in there would take their bullshit and they would have been obliterated long ago by the people who live there. How can you say that a faction that does pretty much everything by threatening people with violence does not base their strength on their military force? There's shitload of them and they have lots of military gear. If they didn't have the manpower and firepower they would have been gone by now. Guess what gets rid of that? Bombs.

How the hell do you think they got their numbers and their power to begin with? And yeah I restated what I said before, because it answered the question. All bombing them will do is make martyrs killed by the evil US invaders

lmao if you're killing so many civilians with drones maybe you should consider it's a shit idea

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47127066]How the hell do you think they got their numbers and their power to begin with? And yeah I restated what I said before, because it answered the question. All bombing them will do is make martyrs killed by the evil US invaders[/QUOTE] The answer to the question "What will REALLY help?" is "bombing them will make things worse". That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. I am asking you to tell me what should be done according to you? Let them do what they want?

Holy shit dude, I don't really know, but this way isn't effective. The US didn't have troops there or any military force there

[QUOTE=Sableye;47123863]honestly 9/10 people in the US don't know about the "secret" wars in pakistan and yemin and africa where our drones are being deployed on counless sorties, and because these missions fall under the CIA, theres virtually no transparency yet obama has passed rules for the next president to obey regarding future transparency[/QUOTE] Well frankly the breadth of US operation in the horn of Africa since 2003 got leaked and is publicly available if you want to do some minor digging, if I remember correctly aside from drone strikes theres also been well over a hundred ops on the ground carried out by SEALs and the like too. The thing is its less that 9/10 people dont know, its that they do not care. I mean think about the scope of the shit that has been leaked about the US government and was expected to bring revolt to the streets of America, but what actually happened? A few vitriolic blog posts, some minor media parading and everyone switched off when Nicki Minaj started shaking her ass again.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47126990]There power isn't in their military force, it's in their belief, their cult killing them will only convince more of their cause. Especially if it's the US doing it, who doesn't have a place there militarily to begin with.[/QUOTE] Their power is in paying people far more than they would otherwise earn - IS is essentially a business; coalition bombing disrupts supply lines and operations and hinders IS' ability to pay its people. If those people aren't going to get paid and are instead going to have a JDAM land on their house, they aren't going to be signing up for too much longer.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47127126]Holy shit dude, I don't really know, but this way isn't effective. The US didn't have troops there or any military force there[/QUOTE] So let me get this right. It's better if we let the countries close to ISIS and kurds fight them without the air support of the US because if the US would bomb ISIS, that would make it worse because there would be martyrs? Is that what you're saying? Like there won't be martyrs if the surrounding countries and factions fight them. Like they won't lie to the people they are brainwashing that the US and Europe are attacking them too. Like even if there were no martyrs they would not lie about and claim there are to the people they want to control/brainwash. Like they require martyrs IN THE FIRST PLACE for the brainwashing to be successful.

The connection between the Kasasbeh and Jahmi is a bit thin, Kasasbeh was used as an image and brutally locked in a cage and forcibly immolated to push the agenda of a terrorist organization, while Jahmi's death was an accident along a string of actions aimed at preventing terrorism. [B]I am not devaluing the seriousness of Jahmi's death by stating this.[/B] His death is sad an unfortunate and undeserved, but he wasn't caged like an animal and burned to death and filmed as a fear/intimidation tactic. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] I find it odd that UsedCarSalesman still opts to take residence in the US given his/her blatant hatred/bias towards our nation's practices. I feel like if anyone were to want to leave the country/renounce citizenship due to their passionate disagreements with our practices, it'd be him/her.

[QUOTE=Ylsid;47127106]lmao if you're killing so many civilians with drones maybe you should consider it's a shit idea[/QUOTE] Drones have killed less civilians than any other way that has been used before.

[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47124400]Where were you during math class? So if terrorists kill innocent people, you're going to turn around and kill innocents while trying to kill those terrorists.... because they killed innocent people? So now we've got more deaths on our hands. And this is exactly what a terrorist would want. For us to react, and end up hurting more innocent people.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with math, lmao

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47124727]Take no action and the terrorists continue to kill innocent people; take action and end up killing innocent people in the process, and in turn make more terrorists (hopefully less than you killed though). I would argue there's no "right" decision, nor is there a clear best decision. However, at this point, it seems that just leaving the terrorist be to terrorist their own part of the world isn't a winning strategy because it just allows them to grow stronger and makes it easier for them to build up the resources needed to make their part of the world bigger. So, while the US drone campaign may not be a perfect solution due in large part to collateral damage, I don't think it's a particularly bad solution given the situation.[/QUOTE] See, you're playing into their game, exactly how they want you to. They're manipulating you. You're not going to save lives by killing innocents, that's what they want you to believe.

Considering that Drones offer a more precise answer to neutralizing targets while reducing collateral damage. We could jump back to 1944-45 with our carpet fire-bombings of Japanese manufacturing cities. Or the Napalm of Vietnam. Conducting war time operations has never been more surgically precise. Less people die now than ever before. Sure, any unnecessary deaths needs to be as few as possible--we should really have zero tolerance for any; however, we are improving with advancements in intelligence gathering and weapons technology. The US wasn't celebrating this kid's death--and to compare it to the execution of the Jordanian Pilot is obscene at best. These drone strikes are meant to incapacitate and neutralize threats as instantaneous as possible. What ISIS does is cruel and unusual, they intend to make their victims suffer while making political and religious points.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47123943]Actually when the US kills civilians it is highly publicized.[/QUOTE] not nearly as much as when any other group or nation does it

[QUOTE=Muskof;47125176] I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting Terrorists get away with no punishment or resistance against it?"[/QUOTE] you're still talking about israel right