6 ms·

IS = an ideological network of individuals hiding among civilian populations across the globe US = an nation state with an identifiable military subjected to r

IS = an ideological network of individuals hiding among civilian populations across the globe US = an nation state with an identifiable military subjected to rule of law >and both sides are very clearly not very precise in who they actually target (the bombing on Doctor's Without Border, anyone?). Both sides cause tons of civilian casualties For better or worse the US is operating on intelligence specifically designed to avoid/minimize civilian populations, which is very difficult when IS doesn't wear military uniform (as required by the laws of war to distinguish military actors from civilian populace) and hides among civilians. I don't know if it is "tons" or what that even means in relation to human death figures, but I'll concede it happens, still it should be defined as collateral damage because the goal of US operations is not to kill the civilian populace but those individuals bearing the most responsibility. On the other hand IS specifically designs its quasi-military attacks to be inflicted directly on the civilian populations with the goal of maximizing civilian casualties. These are not just differences in justifications, but differences in actions...at least according to the law. Now I could see your issue if the US was secretly funding, training and arming non-identifiable combatants and recruiting/embedding them all over the globe to specifically orchestrate indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations.

drumdance 11y ago
I donn't think the US is exactly the same as ISIS, but the fact remains that our invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. When you're under attack from a vastly superior military, your options for response are very limited. It's hard for us in the US to even conceive what it would be like to be in that situation. The only analog is a War of the Worlds style invasion by aliens.
- tome 11y ago
  This is certainly a fair point as far as it goes[1], but let's not forgot that Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! [1] and I still hold the idea that I held in 2003, that the Iraq war was a completely idiotic veture
  - drumdance 11y ago
    > Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the Persian Gulf War. (Aside: Bin Laden offered his irregular forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Saddam. He was rejected. That pissed him off some, but the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca pissed him off even more.) Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms."
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the first Gulf War. That was a position used to justify action, rally supporters, and which was quite overtly an instrumental (rather than terminal) goal in their grand strategy --- which was -- like that of Daesh -- to achieve a pan-Islamic caliphate. (It's worth noting that al-Qaeda was formed several years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that prompted the creation of those bases, and adopted the position of opposing the bases after the Saudi government turned down bin Laden's offer for al-Qaeda fighters to defend the Kingdom against Iraq in favor of accepting aid from the United States. And both al-Qaeda's long-term goals and their anti-Western rhetoric existed before those bases.) > Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms." Sure, but not for the reasons you propose: al-Qaeda's opposition to the West is because their strategy for achieving dominion in the Islamic world is the time-tested strategy of totalitarians everywhere -- sell the target population on the threat of an external enemy, and use that to sell the idea that the totalitarian leaders and their proposed system of rulership are necessary to combat that external threat. Its not a response to anything the West does, although anything that the West does that creates (or can be fuel for propaganda to create) widespread grievances (legitimate or not) in the populations in which al-Qaeda seeks to establish its caliphate will be leveraged. Daesh is much the same in this respect.
      - drumdance 11y ago
        Yes of course they're long term goal is a caliphate. But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. Back in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I remember thinking "why the hell do we have to solve the problem? Why not force Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to take responsibility for their security?" Practically all the Islamist terrorism that the US has experienced since then has flowed from that decision. The likelihood of terrorism should be part of any decision making process when it comes to the Mideast, no different than estimating potential body counts from land invasion. At least Eric Shinseki wasn't afraid to estimate the real costs of the Iraq war.
baddox 11y ago
Even if the US military is subject to the "rule of law" (which is another argument), how does that in any way excuse or lessen any atrocities it commits? I try hard to be open-minded, but that is one commonly-expressed view that deeply disturbs me.
- will_brown 11y ago
  >how does that in any way excuse or lessen any atrocities it commits? Rule of law does not excuse or lessen atrocities, it defines them. Moreover, the laws of war are specifically designed to lessen/avoid atrocities by limiting: 1. When a nation-state may engage in the use of armed force, and 2. How a nation-state may actually use armed force. Having an open mind, I ask you to look within and ask whether the US is specifically targeting civilians, or has simply targeted military actors hiding among civilian populations? No matter what you answer, you must acknowledge IS is responsible for planning/executing military style attacks against civilians specifically. We can agree to disagree, certainly there is nothing wrong with an all life is sacred approach, but you should not feel deeply disturbed that the law distinguishes between responding to a military attack with the use of force targeted at those most responsible and a non-state actor engaging in terrorist/quasi-military attacks against civilian populations?
  - baddox 11y ago
    > Rule of law does not excuse or lessen atrocities, it defines them. Are you saying that codified law is the only thing that determines what is and isn't an atrocity? As in, anything that's legal isn't an atrocity? I certainly do not agree with that. > Having an open mind, I ask you to look within and ask whether the US is specifically targeting civilians, or has simply targeted military actors hiding among civilian populations? I don't have any clue, but I don't think that's the primary concern. I think there can be unacceptable civilian casualties even if there is a legitimate military target in the middle of civilians. > No matter what you answer, you must acknowledge IS is responsible for planning/executing military style attacks against civilians specifically. Of course, but why is that relevant? The existence of a worse actor does not make the acts of another actor more excusable. > We can agree to disagree, certainly there is nothing wrong with an all life is sacred approach, but you should not feel deeply disturbed that the law distinguishes between responding to a military attack with the use of force targeted at those most responsible and a non-state actor engaging in terrorist/quasi-military attacks against civilian populations? That's not what disturbs me. What disturbs me is the notion that a formal law in any way determines the acceptability of a violent act.
xorcist 11y ago
The leader of one of these organizations is known to have said: "God told me to bomb (them), so I did. God is on our side." It's not always easy from the outside to tell them apart from their propaganda.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I'd looked away from this thread for a while, then came back. Upon return your comment was the only one visible and until I scrolled up I did not realize who 'the leader of one of these organizations' was, I thought you were talking about Bin Laden...

drumdance 11y ago

I donn't think the US is exactly the same as ISIS, but the fact remains that our invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. When you're under attack from a vastly superior military, your options for response are very limited. It's hard for us in the US to even conceive what it would be like to be in that situation. The only analog is a War of the Worlds style invasion by aliens.

tome 11y ago
This is certainly a fair point as far as it goes[1], but let's not forgot that Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! [1] and I still hold the idea that I held in 2003, that the Iraq war was a completely idiotic veture
- drumdance 11y ago
  > Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the Persian Gulf War. (Aside: Bin Laden offered his irregular forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Saddam. He was rejected. That pissed him off some, but the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca pissed him off even more.) Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms."
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the first Gulf War. That was a position used to justify action, rally supporters, and which was quite overtly an instrumental (rather than terminal) goal in their grand strategy --- which was -- like that of Daesh -- to achieve a pan-Islamic caliphate. (It's worth noting that al-Qaeda was formed several years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that prompted the creation of those bases, and adopted the position of opposing the bases after the Saudi government turned down bin Laden's offer for al-Qaeda fighters to defend the Kingdom against Iraq in favor of accepting aid from the United States. And both al-Qaeda's long-term goals and their anti-Western rhetoric existed before those bases.) > Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms." Sure, but not for the reasons you propose: al-Qaeda's opposition to the West is because their strategy for achieving dominion in the Islamic world is the time-tested strategy of totalitarians everywhere -- sell the target population on the threat of an external enemy, and use that to sell the idea that the totalitarian leaders and their proposed system of rulership are necessary to combat that external threat. Its not a response to anything the West does, although anything that the West does that creates (or can be fuel for propaganda to create) widespread grievances (legitimate or not) in the populations in which al-Qaeda seeks to establish its caliphate will be leveraged. Daesh is much the same in this respect.
    - drumdance 11y ago
      Yes of course they're long term goal is a caliphate. But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. Back in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I remember thinking "why the hell do we have to solve the problem? Why not force Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to take responsibility for their security?" Practically all the Islamist terrorism that the US has experienced since then has flowed from that decision. The likelihood of terrorism should be part of any decision making process when it comes to the Mideast, no different than estimating potential body counts from land invasion. At least Eric Shinseki wasn't afraid to estimate the real costs of the Iraq war.

baddox 11y ago

Even if the US military is subject to the "rule of law" (which is another argument), how does that in any way excuse or lessen any atrocities it commits? I try hard to be open-minded, but that is one commonly-expressed view that deeply disturbs me.

will_brown 11y ago
>how does that in any way excuse or lessen any atrocities it commits? Rule of law does not excuse or lessen atrocities, it defines them. Moreover, the laws of war are specifically designed to lessen/avoid atrocities by limiting: 1. When a nation-state may engage in the use of armed force, and 2. How a nation-state may actually use armed force. Having an open mind, I ask you to look within and ask whether the US is specifically targeting civilians, or has simply targeted military actors hiding among civilian populations? No matter what you answer, you must acknowledge IS is responsible for planning/executing military style attacks against civilians specifically. We can agree to disagree, certainly there is nothing wrong with an all life is sacred approach, but you should not feel deeply disturbed that the law distinguishes between responding to a military attack with the use of force targeted at those most responsible and a non-state actor engaging in terrorist/quasi-military attacks against civilian populations?
- baddox 11y ago
  > Rule of law does not excuse or lessen atrocities, it defines them. Are you saying that codified law is the only thing that determines what is and isn't an atrocity? As in, anything that's legal isn't an atrocity? I certainly do not agree with that. > Having an open mind, I ask you to look within and ask whether the US is specifically targeting civilians, or has simply targeted military actors hiding among civilian populations? I don't have any clue, but I don't think that's the primary concern. I think there can be unacceptable civilian casualties even if there is a legitimate military target in the middle of civilians. > No matter what you answer, you must acknowledge IS is responsible for planning/executing military style attacks against civilians specifically. Of course, but why is that relevant? The existence of a worse actor does not make the acts of another actor more excusable. > We can agree to disagree, certainly there is nothing wrong with an all life is sacred approach, but you should not feel deeply disturbed that the law distinguishes between responding to a military attack with the use of force targeted at those most responsible and a non-state actor engaging in terrorist/quasi-military attacks against civilian populations? That's not what disturbs me. What disturbs me is the notion that a formal law in any way determines the acceptability of a violent act.

xorcist 11y ago

The leader of one of these organizations is known to have said: "God told me to bomb (them), so I did. God is on our side." It's not always easy from the outside to tell them apart from their propaganda.

jacquesm 11y ago
I'd looked away from this thread for a while, then came back. Upon return your comment was the only one visible and until I scrolled up I did not realize who 'the leader of one of these organizations' was, I thought you were talking about Bin Laden...