My point is that us bombing their terrorism camps and them bombing civilian targets aren't both "terrorism". Maybe bamccaig was saying that they (civilians in radical-infested countries) can't tell the difference, I don't know.

Well, what do you propose then? I mean seriously, what is the alternative besides crushing on them really hard. And I'm afraid that a ground operation will be necessary, because no war was ever won by airforce. These people understand only blunt force, you can't reason with them nor you can apologise to them. Apologise for what?

WikiLeaks.

Do you have any idea what the civilian casualty count was like for Afghanistan or Iraq?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties

These are just the estimates. Who knows what the real number is. Let alone trigger happy Americans bombing allied forces, etc...

Worse is watching video of allied forces' behavior there. They often have video recording devices inside of tanks, aircraft, etc. It records the voices and often the movements of the soldiers or the equipment. There's several leaked videos of soldiers knowingly bombing or shelling people with no idea if they're hostiles or not, as well as just generally firing tank guns and heavy machine guns into or around cities all night long (while listening to rap music on the stereo...really). Not necessarily shooting at anything. Just because it's fun, and they can. Can you imagine what that would have been like for any civilian to live through (if they were even so lucky)?

It's looks just like they're playing a video game and their attitude seems about the same as somebody you'd expect to meet on Xbox Live...

Look for video leaked by Wikileaks. The governments definitely don't want to release this stuff themselves... These are the things they cover up and deny.

Yeah. War is hell. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something.

Causalities are to be expected whenever you are at war, and if that makes you uncomfortable as a citizen, you should be voting against war.

I may have dwindling faith in our police, but our troops are some of the most well meaning people you'll see. Want to see what our troops are really like?

Watch This Is What Winning Looks Like. A 2-3 year long documentary in Iraq with the soldiers that show them completely handcuffed by politicians against doing their job, and how little Iraqi soldiers actually give a crap about discipline and our/their cause.

I'll never forget this mans face:

{"name":"vb4lb7M.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/2\/f2ccf597f6336950a2e88a4cb984a45e.png","w":938,"h":526,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/2\/f2ccf597f6336950a2e88a4cb984a45e"}

As he tried and to argue over and over and failed, to save children from being molested and (murdered when they try to escape) by Iraqi soldiers. He had no authority to break peoples faces. All he could do was use words and make an impassioned plea to their leaders and it would fall on deaf ears. He said "Let's just go early in the morning and get these kids!" and once the leader agreed the meeting was over. That night he got a phone call by military brass that said his operation was cancelled.

He ended up telling the reporter these horrible stories... you could see him hold back because military brass told him what he couldn't tell the reporter (to make the military/politicians look bad) but you could see a battle in his eyes and where his words get choked up... like something inside him was screaming, clawing at him "Just tell the reporter! I've seen so many things that I've been told to look away. Please! Someone listen! Anyone! Make this horror stop."

Obama inherited the wars and immediately cut off all contact with the proper new governments. They were on there own and he wouldn't even provide advice. Bush, to his credit (and people know I'm not a Bush fan!) would actually regularly give lectures and discussions to the new Iraqi leadership with how to be politicians and serve the people. Obama cut off all contact and left them to rot.

[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3teoqh/after_the_killing_of_a_chinese_hostage_in_syria/

CHINA IS JOINING THE FIGHT! Woo! ISIS, get ready to know what it feels like to have all three major world powers knocking on your door.

That's what happens when entire countries are in a global scale war. Destroy or be destroyed. We can all only hope the likes of WW2 never happens again.

Err... It's about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I remember reading an article about the Iraq War years ago... I think it might have been this one . I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be above-average journalism, as it's based on interviews of 50 Iraq-war-veterans.

Oh, and have you heard about the above-average rate of miscarriages & cancers in some regions of Iraq, which might be due to the use of depleted uranium ammunition by coalition forces? I think there were even actual scientific studies about that.
So, yes, war is hell. Even years afterwards.
However, if the situation is already totally fucked up, there's nothing else you can do.

If reading that doesn't enlighten and enrage you then there's no hope for mankind. You can imagine what witnessing that could do to a man. I'd say the Americans (and others) went over there and gave them a whole lot more reasons to hate us and want to destroy us. Going over there and doing more of the same is sure to keep fueling the fire, not extinguish it.

I lived in Israel for fifteen years, including those when there were terrorists attacks on literally daily basis, while I was studying in a school in one of the most targeted cities(Tel Aviv). I think my bus route exploded only once though.

Once I & a friend got down from the bus because we one man looked to suspicious to us. Fairly selfish, but come on.. What are you as kids gonna do? (nope, nothing exploded then)

That was all background to provide a proof I'm involved enough.

Nevertheless, I really dislike the fact everyone relates to killing civilians as towards more of a sin than killing militants. France, Russia, U.S- bomb ISIS. More than this, I believe majorities of populations support the operations(in Russia I'm certain about it).

So.. Soldiers(pilots) are sent on an operation of killing, they are sent by a government elected by people who pay taxes for it. I agree kids are innocent, but the innocence ends there. Then people color their avatars into threecolors to show compassion to those died in terrorist attacks, not thinking the death count in series is three orders of magnitude higher.

Also couple of words about how I think the ISIS came to power.. Well, clearly I blame the U.S, but it's not as simple as Thomas(I believe) has written above: I believe in the U.S. plans ISIS could solve two problems.

1. Assad.
2. Terrorism. Drawing a conflict line between arab/arab is beneficiary for U.S, and is highly preferable for it than a line of conflict of the west/arab. Putin has successfully implement this tactic in Chechnya, he has a local lord Kadyrov who controls the area pretty much using the area's own rules, in conflict of those european people are used for(human rights suffer), but there is peace.

Unless equipped with much better long range missiles(which is probably the case, but then you barely care what plane you're sending)- it's not a plane(old, no vector thrusting) you wanna send to dogfight modern Russian fighters which are deployed in Syria.

I think you're at least partially right, although I think it's fair to say Obama severely downplayed the threat of ISIS far too long and there's no denying it now that ISIS has struck Russian and French targets and drawn their retaliation. If countries don't fight back against terrorists, they're seen by terrorists as easy targets. When countries fight back, the terrorists might distort reality to blame them for violence and brainwash more recruits for their cause, but the terrorists aren't going to leave their enemy alone just because there's no retaliation. They'll keep attacking until the enemy is destroyed.

I don't think any reasonable person believes that Israel's worst enemies would be satisfied with anything less than the complete annihilation of Israel, whether or not Israel protects itself. To quote a particular movie: "All the a**holes want is to sh*t all over everything."

Edit: I found this article a bit interesting:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-pilots-confirm-obama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes/

Pilots are saying Obama has a "0 civilian casualty" type of policy with airstrikes and this is extremely hindering the fight against terrorism (like his administration's rules of engagement in other theaters of war have been). This completely validates the terrorists' cowardly human shield policy, but it's suspected that France and Russia aren't going to be so timid fighting back and will hit the targets we won't and more civilians may die than if the US had conducted its low-casualty airstrikes. This seems to me to be similar to how environmentalists demand the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline on the grounds that tar sand oil is bad for the environment, however if we don't buy it, it will still get sold and exported to another country by a method with a greater pollution risk.

According to random statistics that Google returned the birth rate in France is approximately 12 per 1000 people per year and the death rate approximately 9 per 1000 people per year. The population is about 66 million. Meaning every year approximately 594000 people die and approximately 792000 babies are born (if my understanding of the rates and maths are correct). This approximates a growth in population of 198000 every year (ignoring immigration and emigration).

Let's ignore the fact that the death rate might already factor in the results of terrorist attacks. According to Wikipedia the November 13 attacks totaled 130 deaths (with approximately 500 other injuries). It doesn't really make much of a dent in the population. And that's just one country. The terrorists aren't just targeting France, but most of the Western world. And in every case you'll find similar statistics. The threat is negligible to our populations, both individually and especially as a whole.

Unless the terrorist attacks significantly increase in frequency or death toll they are no real threat to our nations. They are only a relatively low threat to small groups of people that happen to inhabit high population areas that make for better targets (many of us on the planet are sparsely populated, especially in North America, so terrorists are even less of a threat here). French people are probably far more likely to die in a car crash or from heart disease or the like. You get the point. Just like the rest of us.

That doesn't make the threat something we should completely ignore. We should certainly do our best to address it. Bombing in the Middle East doesn't do much to prevent it though. There's relatively little we can do with force to prevent terrorist attacks. The best tactic is likely trying to prevent the development of terrorist minds. And that means cooperation, peace, sharing and giving. Understanding, tolerance, etc. More of the good stuff, less of the bad stuff. Life's not fair. There's always going to be somebody pissed off at the world (for good reason) with no regard for other people. Fortunately, they appear to be a relative minority.

To exaggerate the situation and make it seem like it's them or us and that we need to retaliate and go to war with the terrorists to survive is dishonest and irresponsible. You can't really go to war with terrorists. It doesn't work that way. They're terrorists. They live in your own country. Some of them. Not many. Should our governments start dropping bombs on ourselves?!

You say it's a problem that we refuse to drop bombs if we risk killing civilians too. Surely then you'd support the government dropping a bomb on your house, killing you and your family, just in case there's a terrorist living next door! I'm obviously being facetious. Surely you don't believe that.

In fact, if you happened to live where the terrorists were centered you would surely be opposed to imprecise attacks that risk killing you and your family. These people live among civilians. You can't go to war with that. It's not a job for the army. It's a job for the police. And unless you take away all of the rights and freedoms that afford us our human rights the police can't really do anything to prevent terrorists either... All they can do is clean up the mess afterward. That's just the way it is. It's not perfect. If you have a problem with it take it up with "god".

When I think about it, I love life, and humans, and relations.

But if the target has been validated and was proven to be a source for terrorism, be it a training camp or a petrol pump, then I would like the coalition to shut it down. With bombs if needed.

You can argue as you want here, on a forum, or in a common developed country. But these guys do not want to argue with us. They want to kill us. End.

You're asking yourself what they would do if they take some nuclear or biological dirty power add on ? They'll use it. ASAP !

They're terrorists. They don't care to break an egg or two.

You're essentially saying that emotions make us irrational. We already know this. Should we make decisions based on raw emotion or critical thinking? Obviously if somebody that I knew was harmed I would want to pick up a gun and shoot a motherfucker's head off. But would it solve anything? Not really. It would just keep the cycle going (probably I'd regret it after a few years of reflection). The people that are emotional about it need to work through their emotions and should not be making important decisions on the matter until they've had a chance to work through it. That especially goes for people in positions of power, such as political leaders whose decisions are wide reaching and may have serious consequences that affect the whole planet.

How does dropping bombs on them do this? Do you expect those bombs to get everybody? Do we plan to massacre an entire people to ensure there's nobody left to hate us? There will always be more hate to go around. Dropping bombs on them is only going to give them even more ammunition. "The French dropped a bomb on your family! The French are the reason your brother is dead! Join us and fight back!" The more pain and suffering we deliver to the region the easier it is to find people that want to bring pain and suffering back to us. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

So you admit that some of their justifications are correct. We've, or at least some of the people that represent us, have fucked them over good. Should we not try to atone for that? If we are guilty why should we not at least try to apologize and work it out peacefully? We know they have reasons to be angry. Whether or not they have reasons to be angry with us is debatable, but they are likely just as in the dark about the absolute truths behind it all as the rest of us.

All they know is they're angry and they have pain enough to spread around and they think we're partly responsible. Keep in mind that people are irrational, unintelligent beings. The majority of the planet believes in a magical being the sky of some kind. He never responds to them, he never helps them, but they're all delusional and believe he's there. It's quite simple to see how this steer people in the wrong direction. We must be very careful to not let it steer us in the wrong direction too. We're just as fallible as they are.

Tell them to get in line. Much of our "culture" and products are absolutely horrible. They're bad for the planet, the people, our health, our minds, and our wallets. For the most part, it's about corporate America keeping individual chosen ones wealthy and healthy while keeping the rest of us impoverished and sickly. There's a lot to hate about it.

Of course, I imagine you'd find a lot of blind hatred towards their culture as well. It goes both ways. Are you so sure we're bombing them for the right reasons?

So more or less their leadership is about as selfish and corrupt and evil as our own. The thing is the leadership isn't really where the power is. The power is in the numbers of pawns that support them. And while the extremists at the top of hierarchy might be die-hard murderers and pure evil, odds are the many confused men within their ranks are just doing what makes sense to them now. They are likely able to be talked out of it if you can offer them a better deal than the one they're getting now. The same is true of our own pawns.