They suffered defeat after defeat, and may have just been dealt the killing blow by Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, President of Turkmenistan. The personal military contributions of the President are well documented in this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_EVnvSVU4

 

Now if only Trump did a similar video....I could die a happy man, for I have seen all.

 

 

So you're saying you prefer Assad over ISIS?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of ISIS or any other extremist/conservative/alt-right group, BUT, we need to support ISIS against Assad in Syria. That's my take on the situation in mid-east. You take out Assad and his supporters using ISIS; then you take out ISIS.

Uuuh, what? The point of this thread was to post a hilarious video of the tinpot dictator of Turkmentistan playing commando (rather badly and theatrically).

 

If for the content of your post, I hope you're not being serious.

 

 

Uuuh, what? The point of this thread was to post a hilarious video of the tinpot dictator of Turkmentistan playing commando (rather badly and theatrically).   If for the content of your post, I hope you're not being serious.

 

I get it, I know it was a propaganda video.

 

But we need to remove Assad. For that; sadly whatever it takes. Even ISIS. 

Are you kidding? Assad is IMMENSELY preferable to ISIS. He is a butcher, no doubt, but all he wants is to stay in power, and has no desire to expand his territory beyond the original borders of Syria, has no desire to conquer other countries or any desire to export violence and terror to the fartherst reaches of this planet. He might be hell for Syrians, but still the lesser of two evils. In fact, I'd rather have Assad remain in power, than to have any other Islamist take his place (for the aforementioned reason).

 

Your logic was the driving force for Western FP in Lybia ans Syria, and both countries, (and Europe) is far worse for it.

curtains down on ISIS..

well you can say that for there strongholds in Syria and Iraq

 

but new challenges has arrived since then, as attacks has became more localized which are even harder to anticipate

All over the world, it is taking new names and new forms

see Abu Sayyaf in Philippines 

 

we can't kill an idea, It is going to stay until we stop its spread and defeat the ideology

Totally agreed, but It seems people keep missing the irony in the original post

lol.. I just realized there was link too

So you're saying you prefer Assad over ISIS?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of ISIS or any other extremist/conservative/alt-right group, BUT, we need to support ISIS against Assad in Syria. That's my take on the situation in mid-east. You take out Assad and his supporters using ISIS; then you take out ISIS.

Then let the country turn into Libya? I think I would much rather support the legitimate secular government of Syria. Assad is organized and easily the best option for stability in Syria. e's not perfect, but his opponents are far worse. 

 

 

Assad is IMMENSELY preferable to ISIS.

 

 

Wow. Seriously? I didn't expect this from a fellow liberal..... Neither are preferable.

 

 

 

He is a butcher, no doubt, but all he wants is to stay in power, and has no desire to expand his territory beyond the original borders of Syria, has no desire to conquer other countries or any desire to export violence and terror to the fartherst reaches of this planet.

 

 

You just said it. He's a butcher who'll do anything to stay in power even gas his own people. HIS OWN PEOPLE who want democracy in the country.

 

 

 

we can't kill an idea, It is going to stay until we stop its spread and defeat the ideology

 

You can if you kill all the people who believe in that ideology/idea..... 

 

 

 

Then let the country turn into Libya? I think I would much rather support the legitimate secular government of Syria. Assad is organized and easily the best option for stability in Syria. e's not perfect, but his opponents are far worse. 

 

Legitimate? Secular? Wow I need to hit the dictionary cuz I think I know the wrong meanings of these words or do you?

We get rid of Assad using ISIS. Then we take out ISIS. And install democracy in Syria.

 

 

Libya turned out this way cuz no one cared about Post-Ghaddafi situation much. There needed to be a proper model on power sharing/transfer between the people fighting against Ghaddafi. 

Uuuh, what? The point of this thread was to post a hilarious video of the tinpot dictator of Turkmentistan playing commando (rather badly and theatrically).

 

Atleast he redid the names of the months >_>

Legitimate?

 

Yes legitimate, as in the internationally recognized government of Syria. That would be Assad or the Syrian Arab Republic.

 

 

 

Secular?

Yes secular.  Assads government is secular and always has been (at least for a Muslim country). They've actually been trying to steadily progress into more and more secularism but hardline Sunnis who demand Sharia law (like the rebels) always rise up whenever they try to push it. For example, back in 1973, Hafez Assad tried to change the constitution so that being a Muslim would no longer be a requirement for being president. This was met with mass demonstrations and revolts by the Muslim Brotherhood who declared Jihad on his government. Bashar Assad is equally secular. He discourages the use of headscarves and doesn't allow them to be worn by particular public servants, such as school teachers. Syria would probably be a lot more secular right now if not for all the intolerant Sunnis not allowing it, which is really what this is all about. Certain people in the shadows pulling some strings and exploiting the opinions and positions of Sunnis to get them to rise up in a radical religious fervor. Why do you think it was so incredibly easy for groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS to take over huge swaths of territory and form alliances with other rebels? Why were the rebels in Aleppo so fond and protective of Al-Nusra? Probably because there wasn't any real difference between the two. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Syria

 

 

 

We get rid of Assad using ISIS. Then we take out ISIS. And install democracy in Syria.

That sounds like exactly what we tried to do in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. So, no, that is dumbest fucking idea. Common sense and history clearly tell us that this will not work.

Besides tat, ISIS is done for and Assad has effectively secured his victory. The only thing standing in his way are YPG and SDF. And they don't particularly want to fight Assad.  

 

 

 

Libya turned out this way cuz no one cared about Post-Ghaddafi situation much. There needed to be a proper model on power sharing/transfer between the people fighting against Ghaddafi. 

Then explain Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, it turned out this way because the rebels (just like the rebels in Syria) largely don't even like us and had no real centralized leadership. We assassinated their leader with no replacement and surprise surprise. Same thing that has always happened, happened. 

 

Assad is the only leader that has any chance of keeping Syria together. Now, ideally, I'd prefer he resign once this war settles down, but I doubt he will. 

 

 

He's a butcher who'll do anything to stay in power even gas his own people. HIS OWN PEOPLE who want democracy in the country.

 

1. There is democracy in the country. Assad offered to actually let opposition leaders run in an election, and their response was to boycott it. Democracy in Syria might be corrupt, but what democracy isn't?

 

2. Syrian rebels are killing their own people all the same. But even more sad is how many of them aren't even Syrians. Just foreign Jihadis looking to kill people in the name of God. 

 

 

 

You can if you kill all the people who believe in that ideology/idea..... 

We've been trying this for over 15 years (Russia even longer than that) and the only results we've achieved is making the ideology immensely larger. The only thing the war on terror has resulted in is making terrorism 1,000 times (if not more) worse than it's ever been. 

Foxy has my support on this one.

 

Her education on the issue, and a strong history of being right about this stuff, earns my respect. None of these people want democracy, and trying to force it on them is just wasted time, creates more refugees, and gets more people killed.

 

Let's put her in charge.

Fox pretty much summed it up. I want to emphasize just how badly it turned out for everyone involved when the West propped up Jihadist groups to topple people it didn't like. All of these efforts eventually backfired WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

 

However, I don't agree with the part that Assad can keep Syria together (that's not going to happen anyore). He will be able to hold on to his own territories thouh, for an indefinite amount of time.

To be fair, it is Sectarian violence, you have people fighting over which denomination of their shared faith should be followed.

Fox really hit the nail on the head. Removing Assad would be a bad move on our part. Probably the three most important lessons we have learned since 2001 are.

 

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

2. Removing a Dictator creates a massive power vacuum. That hole then gets filled with people who cause more problems than the leader who was removed from power. All sorts of bad guys love the chaos because they thrive best in it, because the original authorities no longer exist to keep them in check.

 

3. The US Military is still the king of 21st Century Conventional Warfare. But we are still fighting Asymmetrical Warfare like its the 20th Century. A lot of core strategies and tactics need to be changed/updated before positive results will be seen fighting a war again an opponent using guerilla maneuvers. Sadly for us, future wars and the continuation of ongoing wars will likely be fought in the same manner as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

"A lot of core strategies and tactics need to be changed/updated before positive results will be seen fighting a war again an opponent using guerilla maneuvers"

 

The issue isn't the training we get or the tactics we use. They work. Otherwise we wouldn't use them.

 

The issue is the politics allowing the rules of engagement to literally be up to lawyers and politicians discretion. It's not solid. It's not consistent. It encourages the use of human shields because they work. When you punish a troop for downing a terrorist because he hide behind a female, so you just send a bullet through both of them; it makes other troops not want to go that route. In turn, these fucks just hide behind children and women. When you're only allowed to shoot when they present a direct threat, it leave a lot to interpret. Is a armed man whose watching you like a damn hawk standing near an ISIS flag with several buddies all dressed and blocking their faces a direct threat? No. But if you dropped the group, you'd save yourself some future problems. But not allowed to do that. To me, the problem isn't the tactics or training the military provides. The problem is the ever changing RoEs that have no consistency and seem to punish troops for doing their job and reward guerilla warfare.

 

 

The issue is the politics allowing the rules of engagement to literally be up to lawyers and politicians discretion. It's not solid. It's not consistent. It encourages the use of human shields because they work. When you punish a troop for downing a terrorist because he hide behind a female, so you just send a bullet through both of them; it makes other troops not want to go that route. In turn, these fucks just hide behind children and women. When you're only allowed to shoot when they present a direct threat, it leave a lot to interpret. Is a armed man whose watching you like a damn hawk standing near an ISIS flag with several buddies all dressed and blocking their faces a direct threat? No. But if you dropped the group, you'd save yourself some future problems. But not allowed to do that. To me, the problem isn't the tactics or training the military provides. The problem is the ever changing RoEs that have no consistency and seem to punish troops for doing their job and reward guerilla warfare.

 

So you're suggesting we return to the same deprived tactics of punishing and mass murdering entire villages of people who are victims of the enemy like we did in Vietnam? That's not only disgusting, but it completely contradicts, in absolutely every imaginable way, why we are fighting this war. 

I'm just guessing here, but I assume you don't have any combat vets as friends. Such actions are just as destructive to their minds as it is to anyone else who might witness it. Some people struggle to justify it, others outright regret it. Both of them live with it for the rest of their lives. Knowing they've killed woman and children in some land they barely understand for some cause they struggle to understand. 

Your words actually make me depressed, as I'm very close friends with both a Vietnam and Afghanistan combat vet. The moral things things they struggle with are nearly identical. Like they've lived the same war in different generations..... Both of them are very good people.... Both of them carry memories of killing and death they'd rather not have.... Knowing what I know about them and their service, comments like this really disturb me, to say the least....

 

But morality aside, let's speak of pure statistics. Since 9/11, and our declaration of war on terror, terror attacks and terrorist ideology has only increased multiple times over. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/fivefold-increase-terrorism-fatalities-global-index

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/28/bloody-tide-terror-deaths-increased-8-fold-since-2010-says-study.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/are-we-any-safer/492761/

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-we-safer-now-than-on-911-2016-9

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447882/terror-attacks-rising-immigration-safe-havens-play-role

 

I can cite and cite this trend endlessly. The very obvious and clear fact is that what we've doing is only making the problem worse. And it has nothing to do with RoE. It has entirely to do with our lack of it and the Muslim worlds perception of our interventions. When we invaded Vietnam, the southern government was already hated by the huge majority of Vietnamese. However, our invasion inspired far more of them to take up arms or otherwise actively work against us. To the Vietnamese, the conflict had nothing to do with America. It was their own war, and our intervention was not welcome. The Vietnamese have an ancient history of reppelling foreign invasions. An unconquerable land if there ever was one. 

We lost that war, and ironically, everything I've just said about Vietnam can equally be said about Afghanistan (and in some sense Iraq). Our war on terror inspired a massive rise in Salfi Jihadism, especially with the Iraq war. Because to Muslims all over the world, our war was completely unjust and a declaration of war on their religion itself. 

 

Fact is, the more we deprive ourselves of common decency, the more we lower ourselves to their level of bloodlust, the more we kill Muslim people in things that do not directly concern us, the more gunpowder we give our enemies to load new shells. New generations of what we are fighting. 

 

Loosening the RoE is one of the worst things we could possibly do at this point. We tried the body count tactic in Vietnam. It proved to be an utter failure when it became clear we could not face the entire country of millions of pissed off people. Now in this case, we're talking potentially hundreds of millions of people. 

That is absolutely not a war we can possibly win through a body count strategy. Nor should we be lowering ourselves to such disgusting depravity and inhumanity to achieve it. Otherwise, we are exactly the enemy we're fighting. 

Never did I say I'm for killing innocent Civilians? Please point that out. My post is about the inconsistency of the Rules of Engagement. And if you're telling me you have combat buddies that are saying the RoEs are perfect the way they are, they're delusional. The shit is a mess.

 

Honestly I have a shitload of combat buddies I talk to daily. I can tell you without a doubt no 2 are the same. Just because one thinks one way doesn't mean they all do. But I can tell you 100% every one of them agrees the RoE are trash.

Never did I say I'm for killing innocent Civilians? Please point that out. My post is about the inconsistency of the Rules of Engagement. And if you're telling me you have combat buddies that are saying the RoEs are perfect the way they are, they're delusional. The shit is a mess.

 

Honestly I have a shitload of combat buddies I talk to daily. I can tell you without a doubt no 2 are the same. Just because one thinks one way doesn't mean they all do. But I can tell you 100% every one of them agrees the RoE are trash.

Completely agree. I think virtually anyone who knows the RoE and can decently imagine how they may play out in combat situation would agree, that the RoE is not perfect, to say the least. War is chaos. War is hell. However RoE is not static. It can vary in detail with each combat operation, and if so, can make it even more confusing. 

At the end of the day, aside from legalities, I really don't see how the RoE is so flawed. It seems reasonable and when it all comes down to it, it's really up to the man with the gun to decide on whether or not he should pull the trigger. If he makes a tough call and it turns out to be in line with RoE, that's it. If he makes a tough call and it's not in line with RoE, he either doesn't give a fuck, or was just stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he makes a not so tough call and slaughters a bunch of civilians, then perhaps he should never have been in position to make the order in the first place. 

I believe our military justice system is rather fair. More fair than many others. I think if I were getting shot at, the last thing on my mind would be whether or not I'm being punished later. And more so on whether or not I genuinely need to pull the trigger. 

 

I mean, you directly referenced their use of human shields and then mentioned how "taking out the whole group" is probably a better solution. Problem is, we've done that before. Particularly from the air. And too often do we rain hell on unsuspecting civilians for no reason at all. Just because some guy watching some people on small TV screen can ever so vaguely pick out a silhouette of what he thinks may be a weapon.

 

So if the RoE is terribly flawed what should be changed?  

The problem with the RoE is moreso the system behind them. To say the military justice system is fair is completely dependent on the command. The one I served in? My command was amazing in every which way from our CO down. Others? Not so much. Ultimately there are too many steps in place before people can engage (short of opening fire. Once bullets start flying, I don't know a damn soul who would sit there and think "can I shoot back?" They teach you early on, this is clearly allowed.) The problem lies in situations like I mentioned with the group. I used it as a scenario of your on foot patrol and you can clearly tell groups of people are staking you out. RoEs I learned stated we cant shoot them. Despite the fact you are 100% certain they are the enemy. You still cant. Does it make sense in war to know when your looking at the enemy and let them go? Because you're ass is going to Leavenworth if you open fire before they do.

 

Now obviously if they aim a weapon at you, you're good to open fire. But essentially the biggest problem is the inability to fire at an enemy you KNOW is an enemy because they didn't shoot first. The other problems arise when micromanaging gets invovled. Benghazi is the best example. Instead of allowing the field commanders to make a decision, people in suits across the ocean made decisions on a situation they had little information on. Does that make sense? Field commanders are essentially useless if they have to radio the command or even higher to get permission to engage. Some situations I understand. HVT? Yes. Get permission to ensure the command has everything setup when you pull that trigger on a HVT. But reinforcement calls? Ensuing? Those should be at a field level like they have throughout history until recently.

 

Keep in mind also, our SOP is to give heads up to a city that we are rolling in soon to give civilians adequate time to leave. Some cities (Fallajuh) they scatter. Others (Sangin) they don't. But by doing this, it eliminates a chunk of the civilian casualties and makes it more.obvious who is who. The area that has the most civilian casualties though is planes and drones. Ground troops can see better and identify situations faster. But Planes and drones usually have a quicker Green Light.

Sadly planes and drones do have alot more civilian casualties. It's a better way of keeping our troops safe, but you have problems like a plane shooting a hospital because they didn't get video feedback. (True story) and killing 30 civilians. That, in all aspects, was a clear violation of RoE. You never shoot without a visual.

 

My reference to human shields was more me speaking on the ideology behind it. If you were to fire at them while they had a human shield, you obviously run the risk of hitting an innocent civilian. But you also hit the terrorist. Therefore it idea to use a shield to save himself didn't work. Eventually they don't use shields if it doesn't work.

 

On the flip side. They use shields we stop firing. What does that show them? "Grab the nearest kid or woman and they'll stop." This puts children and women constantly in this situation and now, they're in harm's way 100x more than they would've been. Now you see them CONSTANTLY using human shields. It's sickening. Yes it's sickening to have to shoot an innocent civilian to get to a terrorist, but it's theoretical. If we killed 10 terrorists with 10 civilian shields to prove it doesn't work anymore, how many civilians can we save from being shields later on? Again theoretical. Beyond that, we typically have snipers for a reason. They can avoid the shield and get the terrorist. The problem lies when there isn't a sniper accessible.

 

I agree as well. Anyone willing to slaughter a village doesn't belong. Sadly they exist though, but limiting the RoEs won't stop that. History has shown it wont. It just prevents those that can take out the actual enemy BEFORE they are a problem from doing so.

 

Hope I made sense and cleared up my initial post

What SBG is essentially raising here is a sort of Trolley problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

An action that may seem moral in a certain situation (letting the terrorist go to save the human shield) will in the future lead to even more innocents getting in harm's way, as you are rewarding this depraved tactic. Absolute answers are clearly bad here, but how can you find that optimal middle road?

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world.

 

Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway...

 

 

Yes legitimate, as in the internationally recognized government of Syria. That would be Assad or the Syrian Arab Republic.

 

If Assad is legitimate ten so are KSA, Iran and North Korea but they too get bashed for human rights violations, well not KSA cuz of the oil but you get the point. The point here is that legitimate doesn't mean right. He's killing his own people. How does that make him right. He's a dictator who usurped power and has his family ruling the country.

 

 

 

Yes secular.  Assads government is secular and always has been (at least for a Muslim country). They've actually been trying to steadily progress into more and more secularism but hardline Sunnis who demand Sharia law (like the rebels) always rise up whenever they try to push it. For example, back in 1973, Hafez Assad tried to change the constitution so that being a Muslim would no longer be a requirement for being president. This was met with mass demonstrations and revolts by the Muslim Brotherhood who declared Jihad on his government. Bashar Assad is equally secular. He discourages the use of headscarves and doesn't allow them to be worn by particular public servants, such as school teachers. Syria would probably be a lot more secular right now if not for all the intolerant Sunnis not allowing it, which is really what this is all about. Certain people in the shadows pulling some strings and exploiting the opinions and positions of Sunnis to get them to rise up in a radical religious fervor. Why do you think it was so incredibly easy for groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS to take over huge swaths of territory and form alliances with other rebels? Why were the rebels in Aleppo so fond and protective of Al-Nusra? Probably because there wasn't any real difference between the two.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Syria

 

Gays have no rights, there is no freedom of speech or expression against the government, people aren't allowed to vote, the list goes on and on. Banning headscarves isn't secular that's just fashion or something. When Assad says he's gonna legalize cannabis or make homosexuality legal then we'll talk about secularism.

 

 

 

Then explain Iraq and Afghanistan. No, it turned out this way because the rebels (just like the rebels in Syria) largely don't even like us and had no real centralized leadership. We assassinated their leader with no replacement and surprise surprise. Same thing that has always happened, happened.    Assad is the only leader that has any chance of keeping Syria together. Now, ideally, I'd prefer he resign once this war settles down, but I doubt he will. 

 

 

Well in Iraq power sharing was disproportionate. The Shias though a majority were given way too much power and representation than the Kurds or Sunnis and they also began prosecuting the latter which led to the situation breaking down. And Afghanistan well they're animals to be honest I don't think much of them. Couldn't even get a railway track in their country so nothing will work on them. 

 

 

 

1. There is democracy in the country. Assad offered to actually let opposition leaders run in an election, and their response was to boycott it. Democracy in Syria might be corrupt, but what democracy isn't?

 

That's the problem his democracy is good for him only. It's corrupt and the elections were gonna be rigged in his favor. Hitler also held referendum so are we gonna call him a democratic process supporter?

 

 

 

Let's put her in charge.

 

I thought you didn't want a lady in the white house? 

 

 

I thought you didn't want a lady in the white house?

I didn't want Hillary Clinton in the White House. I would have voted for Carly Fiorina had she won the nomination. I will support any Republican that wins the nomination, and implying that I didn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, is a lie. I'm shocked Rafay... SHOCKED! that you would say something like this to me. Try the racist card next... I'm very familiar with the routine.