Snowden Scam is a Zionist Scare Tactic Make no mistake about it Edward Snowden is a fraudster and fabricator, just like the rest of the scam artists who have been elevated to heroic status recently, foisted upon the American people on false pretense. There is nothing heroic about his acts: it is a set up. He has been fed his lines, and he is doing so for monetary gain. Powerful Zionist Jews, including talk show hosts Michael Savage and Alex Jones, have given Snowden great support. English Zionsts have been his major backbone, including Glenn Greenwald and collaborators at the UK’s The Guardian. Would the Zionists give such tacit support to their arch-enemy? Whether whistle blower or not Snowden, has apparently revealed issues of a top secret nature. Savage and Jones find this to be grand. Top secret or not, Snowden has revealed nothing new. Whatever he has said has amount to the creation of agitation. His father was a big man in the Coast Guard and is running cover for the scam. None of what Snowden has said or any of the supposed consequences are believable. No matter: what perfect timing as a distraction. Plus, blame it all on American institutions, the NSA and/or CIA, but say nothing about that exceedingly corrupt, murderous spy agency, the Mossad. See more: http://nodisinfo.com/snowden-is-a-zionist-mole-proof/Entire point undermined by obvious bolded falsehood. The fact that we knew of none of the illegal programs before he exposed them, nor would we have dared to imagine the extent to which they have developed, renders his revelations "new." Every news item is not a zionist conspiracy theory... I don't necessarily believe this is Zionist plot, I really have no way of knowing for sure either way, but the claim that no one knew about these programs before Snowden came forward is absolute bullshit. I remember reading about the PRISM program over ten years ago. In fact almost nothing he revealed was not already under discussion by those that took the time to educate themselves on the subject. I explain more here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1145833.msg12073084#msg12073084There is nothing substantive there about Snowden's revelations being old except your statement that it is. Further, I find it unlikely you read about PRISM over ten years ago when the program is at most 8 years old ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/how-congress-unknowingly-legalized-prism-in-2007/). Even if the programs were publicly known long before Snowden shed a light on them, an assertion that is called into question by your lack of sources and now disproven anecdote, the extent of how robust the programs were and how much data the NSA had access to, with the seeming complicity of major US technology firms, is the real Snowden revelation. If you have any actual evidence to support the claim that Snowden's revelations in this vein were not new, I'd be happy to review them and amend my understanding of the situation accordingly. |
|
|
|
The question that always begs to be asked is "why?" If you can provide a compelling reason why the shadowy "gloablists" want to create one world government (and I haven't seen one that stands up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny), then you have to deal with the far more troublesome issue of "how?" We don't even have a single political party that can dominate American politics, what makes you think that "globalists" inside the government can not only manipulate ours so purposefully (where political parties that actively and openly try regularly fail), but also every major government on Earth to derive the desired result of an international government? Europe can't even rule the Eurozone without nationalist tension, the idea that "globalists" can overcome that, plus politically conquer America, and then overcome nationalist tendencies in the rest of the world seems extremely unlikely, to put it politely. Even acknowledging it as a possibility gives the idea far more credit than it deserves.
Now why would criminal cartels want the ability to supersede national law and have power over the whole globe via controlling a small handful of people at the top? Gee, let me think... These entities infect nations and other centralized organizations like a parasite infects a host, using it until it dies just to jump to another. I already explained most of this and gave examples, but you were too busy trying hard to acknowledge the possibility you must have missed it. They don't have to convince anyone any more than the mafia has to convince organizations to do what they want. They have no loyalties to any nation or peoples. Globalism is by no means a new idea, and has been the goal of many dictators as well as other powerful and well known individuals for several generations. This plan has been in the works for a very long time and has been discussed by many high ranking figures representing various national governments in public. Frankly I find it inevitable with a world filled with so much reckless pursuit of power and control at any cost, and many in power agree. They are just fighting to be the ones holding the reins now. It is unfortunate you haven't spent the time to educate yourself on world events leading up to this point, because I am not sure I can provide you with a full history course via the forum. Sorry I just don't have the time to make up for your lack of education. Additionally I don't owe you an explanation, nor do I give a shit if you believe any of it. I am here to have a discussion, not to butt heads with people acting disingenuously with a veil of false sincerity asking questions just so they can then attempt to deconstruct every word and minute detail in order to fall back upon the ignorant bliss of their confirmation bias. You believe whatever you want. I am discussing this so that people have an opportunity to consider this for themselves, not to convince anyone. Well you've provided absolutely nothing of substance in your response except to double down on rhetoric rooted in conspiracy theory and re-reference a bunch of events that are only linked together because you see a pretty vast conspiracy. Re-referencing the material that has not been shown to be cause or evidence of a conspiracy is not an answer to my skepticism, and there's clearly no point asking for any further elucidation, because it clearly is too much of a burden to substantiate your claims to someone who's not already gulping the kool aid, so this is the place where I disembark this particular crazy train. |
|
|
|
That's the lynchpin of this whole debate. These activist groups don't speak for the majority of LGBT peoples. Most LGBT people would be more than happy to live in an environment of tolerance, like everyone has a right to. What these groups are demanding is acceptance, and no one has a right to force anyone else to accept their own world view. All of these overreaching policies these activist groups are trying to push effect all of us. Opposition to them is not equivalent to bigotry or hatred no matter how much they wish to cast it in this light. You hit the nail on the head and so eloquently. Thankyou. How is "acceptance" and "tolerance" different? They appear the same to me, as a tolerant society is built upon acceptance of all its members. In short, everyone has a right to tolerance. Tolerance means people allow each other to live their lives in peace even if they do not agree. Acceptance is basically synonymous with agreement or approval. There are two very different things. One individual does not have the right to force another individual to approve of their ideology. Everyone however does have a right to tolerance in this country. Without understanding and allowing both, this very diverse nation would rip itself apart, because the fact is we will never all agree on anything.I highly agree with your sentiment here, with the caveat that to me, "tolerance" and "acceptance" seem like synonyms to me. But let's take your differentiation of the two; I think it accurately describes everyone. Strip out gender identity and look at any two politically opposed entities and it plays the same. Liberals and conservatives are tolerant of each other, but they're both fighting for "acceptance" of their ideology by the other group (to use your differentiation of it). This is not a transgender-specific issue, but a question of how any one group interacts with any other group. |
|
|
|
That's the lynchpin of this whole debate. These activist groups don't speak for the majority of LGBT peoples. Most LGBT people would be more than happy to live in an environment of tolerance, like everyone has a right to. What these groups are demanding is acceptance, and no one has a right to force anyone else to accept their own world view. All of these overreaching policies these activist groups are trying to push effect all of us. Opposition to them is not equivalent to bigotry or hatred no matter how much they wish to cast it in this light. You hit the nail on the head and so eloquently. Thankyou. How is "acceptance" and "tolerance" different? They appear the same to me, as a tolerant society is built upon acceptance of all its members. |
|
|
|
I often wonder if the US employs cyber security tactics the same as other countries use against us. Actually, I'm quite certain we do (we'd be stupid not to when everyone is trying to break our systems), but we never seem to hear about it, which raises three obvious initial suppositions:
1) Our hackers are too good to get caught.
2) Our hackers are detected by foreign governments, but disclosure of this fact would embarrass or weaken political power figures in these countries, so the detections are not disclosed.
3) Our hackers are detected by foreign governments and they disclose this fact, but Western Media doesn't report it for any of a myriad of reasons.
Which of these do you think is most likely?
#3 I'd say. I think that's the easiest one to disprove though as well. If other non-Western media was reporting it, it would be easy to find on the internet if you looked for it. |
|
|
|
|
The question that always begs to be asked is "why?" If you can provide a compelling reason why the shadowy "gloablists" want to create one world government (and I haven't seen one that stands up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny), then you have to deal with the far more troublesome issue of "how?" We don't even have a single political party that can dominate American politics, what makes you think that "globalists" inside the government can not only manipulate ours so purposefully (where political parties that actively and openly try regularly fail), but also every major government on Earth to derive the desired result of an international government? Europe can't even rule the Eurozone without nationalist tension, the idea that "globalists" can overcome that, plus politically conquer America, and then overcome nationalist tendencies in the rest of the world seems extremely unlikely, to put it politely. Even acknowledging it as a possibility gives the idea far more credit than it deserves.
|
|
|
|
|
I often wonder if the US employs cyber security tactics the same as other countries use against us. Actually, I'm quite certain we do (we'd be stupid not to when everyone is trying to break our systems), but we never seem to hear about it, which raises three obvious initial suppositions:
1) Our hackers are too good to get caught.
2) Our hackers are detected by foreign governments, but disclosure of this fact would embarrass or weaken political power figures in these countries, so the detections are not disclosed.
3) Our hackers are detected by foreign governments and they disclose this fact, but Western Media doesn't report it for any of a myriad of reasons.
Which of these do you think is most likely?
|
|
|
|
Decide how the candidates will be based on the decisions and actions they have made in the past when they weren't being paid for or the propaganda machine wasn't trying to paint a picture for you.
The fact that they've been elected before means they've always been part of a propaganda and lobbying machine. Since no decisions they've made before were ever free of this influence, basing your decisions on their past actions and rhetoric would be just as unsound as doing so based on what they do and say now, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Snowden Scam is a Zionist Scare Tactic Make no mistake about it Edward Snowden is a fraudster and fabricator, just like the rest of the scam artists who have been elevated to heroic status recently, foisted upon the American people on false pretense. There is nothing heroic about his acts: it is a set up. He has been fed his lines, and he is doing so for monetary gain. Powerful Zionist Jews, including talk show hosts Michael Savage and Alex Jones, have given Snowden great support. English Zionsts have been his major backbone, including Glenn Greenwald and collaborators at the UK’s The Guardian. Would the Zionists give such tacit support to their arch-enemy? Whether whistle blower or not Snowden, has apparently revealed issues of a top secret nature. Savage and Jones find this to be grand. Top secret or not, Snowden has revealed nothing new. Whatever he has said has amount to the creation of agitation. His father was a big man in the Coast Guard and is running cover for the scam. None of what Snowden has said or any of the supposed consequences are believable. No matter: what perfect timing as a distraction. Plus, blame it all on American institutions, the NSA and/or CIA, but say nothing about that exceedingly corrupt, murderous spy agency, the Mossad. See more: http://nodisinfo.com/snowden-is-a-zionist-mole-proof/Entire point undermined by obvious bolded falsehood. The fact that we knew of none of the illegal programs before he exposed them, nor would we have dared to imagine the extent to which they have developed, renders his revelations "new." Every news item is not a zionist conspiracy theory... |
|
|
|
Money can do a lot of things
May be. But only idiots will spend money like this. The oil money will not last for an infinite period of time. Right now, the price of Brent Crude is $49 per barrel, which is down from $110 in 2014. The Arab population is increasing, and it is doubling every 15 or 20 years. These people need to save some money for the future generations, rather than wasting it in building indoor ski slopes. "Wasting" it building indoor ski slopes is not a waste at all. They're building a tourist destination and retooling the economy to be based on tourism instead of oil. This is exactly what they need to be doing, as thee oil is finite. The added benefit of appealing to tourists is that it will require moderacy in the Middle East because instability is a death knell for tourism. |
|
|
|
I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition. Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.  The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple? Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said... When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious? Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction. I edit out all the stuff that has no relevance to a point, since you tend to drone on and on about unrelated things. (see for example: listing 24 definitions of a word you're using incorrectly). And I'm not the one pretending to know how neurons work, you are, remember? My calling your explanations out doesn't mean I'm representing myself as a neurologist. I'm just recognizing when someone else isn't. |
|
|
|
Democrats Seek Federal Investigations of Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos
--------------------------------------------------
As expected...
Republicans are engaging a political a witch hunt, turnaround is fair play. "According to press reports, the Center for Medical Progress created a fake limited liability corporation in advance of the meeting it recorded with a Planned Parenthood doctor. The video was captured by actors using fake identification to pose as buyers from that fake human biologics company. This elaborate scheme raises serious questions about whether any federal or state laws were violated in securing the LLC or the personal identification that were part of its execution.
The video was also filmed without the consent of the Planned Parenthood doctor, which may violate California law."
I don't like the way these people went about it, because it leads to things people can pick at. However, an example, if you illegally obtain a video of someone committing murder, should people really be this focused and pissed at the one who illegally obtained the video and just ignore the murderer going free? I don't put any stock into the criticism of how the footage was obtained. It serves a public interest as furthering the debate on a fiercely controversial issue, and for that reason and discussion of wiretapping laws is misplaced in my opinion. The same would be for an illegally obtained video of a murder, not to remark on the legitimacy of the analogy. People may be pissed about how the video was obtained, but ultimately the public service the video provides towards the administration of justice should override the "legality" of how the video was obtained. And note there is marked difference for illegally obtained video by the government as opposed to individuals. |
|
|
|
i see no problem with this. Why let fetus parts go to waste? Fetuses aren't people anyways
Not people... But have value for life for other people, ready to buy this "waste"... Illogical. Waste has no value. If it does then it is not waste. Why creating a law forbidding people from buying or selling baby body parts? Do it openly if it is waste. Anything can have value. Do you throw away garbage or recyclables that have no value? They have value to the companies that sort and sell it, or to the dumps that harvest methane from decomposing garbage. When does this garbage stops being garbage and have value for a buyer? 10 weeks? 15 weeks? 20 weeks? Or is it after the garbage took its first breath on its own? http://news.nationalpost.com/health/end-of-life-debate-turns-to-newborns-postnatal-abortion-morally-acceptable-in-some-cases-ethicist-saysYou're the one who defined it as waste. I don't know what you're asking me for. |
|
|
|
These are legitimate questions that I would like to see answered, at this point, just to eliminate doubt that is being manufactured, as evidenced by the increasing hysteria displayed in the headlines being posted in an attempt to create a reality that doesn't exist. Why are the questions coming from the House Energy and Commerce Committee though? Another legitimate question, from a comment on youtube: I'm a bit confused. If they don't do this, and don't sell the stuff, why did the good doctor agree to meet with folks posing as buyers looking for organs a medical biotech start up looking for research tissue?No hysteria. I fixed your quote to remove all the hysteria and spin and return it to reality. And I will NEVER edit anything from you in my replies...  Not hysteria. Would it be easier for you if I just recopy the text in a new message and strike it out to show which part I was objecting to? It would effectively be the same, but I was being lazy. In either event, no one would confuse the fact that you did not say the words, so any fear of that is misplaced, and I cannot think of another reason to object except you don't like the contents of my post. |
|
|
|
I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."
And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.
Yeah, I would rank ISIS a million times worse. As uncouth as they are, the W.B.C. congregation is just expressing an opinion peacefully. I use DAESH for a few reasons. Most of my experience with them has been in the middle east and they are always called DEASH there. But the main reason is that calling them ISIS is showing support for them. In the Islamic state it is forbidden to refer to them as DAESH. The punishment for this is that "your tongue will be cut from your mouth." They hate being called DAESH because it is a play on words in Arabic. It is the acronym for ISIS, but also sound like you are saying the word meaning to trample or crush under foot. Arab culture is weird about feet and this term is considered very disrespectful. As this war plays out over the next 10-20 years I think you will see this term replacing ISIS or IS or ISIL. All of which acknowledge the existence of the Caliphate. For me they are not a caliphate and are better described as the ones who trample everything. Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!
Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not. I was being sarcastic. As pointed out above, I was referencing the logical fallacy of making a rule from one example. Yours is a fair point, I'm actually inclined to believe in it. That is to say, I do believe that people who operate under a particular label don't speak for other groups that are not affiliated with them. It is striking though that we continue to have people this day and age that are savagely murdering in the name of religion. I suppose being from the West, where we have seemingly having advanced beyond the period of holy wars, the Middle East seems particularly anachronistic. I do wonder though how violence and religion continues to mesh. Is it violent people who seek out a religion to justify their violence, or a violent religion that seeks out violent individuals to advance its political agenda? Interesting explanation on Daesh. I knew that they hated to be referred as it, but didn't know why. A fundamental characteristic of many religions is "to spread outwards,to grow." Thus in ancient times they existed in a sort of zero sum game of who gets the most land and how. There is no way to ignore the fact that Muslim sects have and are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior overall. Remember that even in wartime Germany WWII, ten percent of the population may have been in the armed forces. Of those, no more than ten percent was on the front lines actually fighting. So one percent of the population - a tiny percentage - was "violent."  See the logical errors? Relate this to your own arguments. www.thereligionofpeace.comYes, Muslim sects are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior now of any religious group (that I am currently aware of). I agree with that. The difference for me is I don't associate the crimes of the violent sects as being crimes of the non-violent ones. Re Germany, I also don't hold civilian Germans as being "violent" during WWII because they were born in Germany. I differentiate inside of a group between those who commit and condone violent actions, and those who don't. If all Germans were guilty of violence by association of the outwardly-defined group, they bombing of civilian centers by the Allies would have been justifiable. I don't consider them to be. The violent Germans were the violent ones, just like the My Lai massacre is attributable to those who committed the atrocity, and not all American soldiers who served in Vietnam. See the association error? Relate it to your own arguments. |
|
|
|
Are you surprised by the revelation that the loan was used to pay the current Greek debt holders, or that Greece borrowed money from the IMF and ECB? Were you under the impression that the loan was going to be used for anything else? If so, why? |
|
|
|
Flat-earthers say there is a dome above the Earth, that people can not go through. This is why other countries were not able to go to the moon, and the one country that did was a country that is large in motion pictures productions. The claim is we cannot go through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
If this was true, then the Soviets would have exposed our lies during the Cold War for a badly needed public victory and to prove how evil the United States was, which they were unconvincingly preaching to the rest of the world for several decades in an attempt to prove the ideological superiority of communism. But I'm sure some idiot has a half-baked conspiracy theory about why the Soviets colluded, right? I mean, there would have to be, because we wouldn't want any reality to seep in to puncture that cocoon of delusion. Honestly, living in such a delusional world must be absolutely exhausting because every fact that contradicts the false reality has to be explained away with another conspiracy theory. Coming up with counter-reasons for all the facts is a never-ending prospect. I can't imagine the effort required! |
|
|
|
All our technology and understanding of physics only works with a spherical planet. And it's verifiable for the whole world, it's not like such a huge conspiracy could be perpetrated. To believe so is to be especially removed reality. To be so ignorant of all the proof to cling to a disproven "theory" is a level of stupidity I don't need to engage.
I recently posted this thread, based on this article: NASA scientist says we may be living in a Matrix-like digital imprisonment designed by Aliens . NASA scientist says we're living in a Matrix-like digital imprisonment, because "The idea that our Universe is a fiction generated by computer code solves a number of inconsistencies and mysteries about the cosmos." There are a number of inconsistencies and mysteries about the cosmos. "Another mystery explained by Dr Bostrom’s Matrix-like theory is the role of Dark Matter.
US theoretical cosmologist Michael Turner has called the hypothetical material “the most profound mystery in all of science”.Dark Matter is one of many hypothetical materials used to explain a number of anomalies in the Standard Model – the all-encompassing theory science has used to explain the particles and forces of nature for the last 50 years." There are a number of anomalies. "If it exists, it would explain why galaxies spin at the speed they do – something which remains unexplained based only on what we can currently observe.The Standard Model does not yet hold an explanation for the force of gravity." This information is from May 13, 2015, and from a NASA scientist. They don't even know why gravity works the way it does. They're still trying to explain the mysteries away. So you're suggesting that one theory that is not by any means respected as "likely" by anything approaching a majority of scientific peers, and that happens to solve some inconsistencies without addressing all inconsistencies, should be considered credible enough to be assumed valid? |
|
|
|
ISIS bans execution videos because of image backlash? cution-videos-isis/2015/07/20/id/657960/]
ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has banned any more execution videos by the Islamic State, but the orders reportedly have created a division with the organization's ranks.
ARA News reported that, according to sources, al-Baghdadi was responding to the feelings of Muslims who regarded the videos as "disgusting and scary to children."
...
"Some of IS militants supported Baghdadi's decision, taking into consideration criticism of the public that describes scenes of beheadings as barbaric," wrote ARA News' Jan Nasro. "While other militants rejected the decision saying that such scenes are meant to intimidate their enemies, represented by western powers, and not the common folk."
According to the website Middle East Eye.net, a number of Arabic-language news agencies said on Friday that Baghdadi explained his decision in a statement delivered to media offices in Syria and Iraq.
The website said Baghdadi ordered that his followers don't include scenes of the actual executions in their videos and limit them to moments before or after the act.
Full Article: http[Suspicious link removed]cution-videos-isis/2015/07/20/id/657960/
Sounds like banning the execution part of the videos is to prevent eroding popular support. Cuz what would they be if they lost that?whats the point?.. they are still killing people like removing the part that they are beheading people will change their image as non violent org. And if they become accepted as the authority of the region, the rest of the world has little choice but to negotiate and enter diplomatic relations with them. Which is why measures should be taken now, before it's too late. Good point. I think that's kinda their motivation in their decision to not show beheadings. They want to instill fear to prevent people from contemplating violent resistance, but don't want to inspire so much anger and revulsion that people actually violently oppose them. |
|
|
|
You can't say that guerrilla tactics are conventional. Guerilla warfare by definition is unconventional and irregular fighting. My question at this point is where are you finding information about them fighting open battles? Every time they come out in the open, they are bombed into oblivion by all the air forces targeting them. Their only asset is to remain unknown and not easily identifiable, otherwise they will be obliterated by the superior militaries targeting them. I can't imagine they have "uniforms," because if we could easily identify who is ISIS from who is a regular civilian, we wouldn't have such a hard time engaging them. There are stories of them dressing in Kurish uniforms to infiltrate an area undetected before they start fighting, but as soon as they come up against superior forces, they disintegrate out of necessity. That's not conventional fighting at all, even if it's the norm for insurgencies (which is nothing new, that's how America colonials were effective against the militarily superior British in the Revolutionary War).
I see what your saying. In the past guerrilla warfare was characterized as special warfare or even unconventional warfare. But modern warfare tends to draw the line at who they targeting and if they fight in uniform. Special forces are our equivalent irregular forces. DAESH forces do wear uniforms and primarily target military targets. They also practice terror by distributing horrifying videos to scare the population. Although they have now stopped this practice and no longer will show decapitations. But they do fight open battles from fixed positions in uniform. They use artillery, anti-air missiles, light and heavy armor, etc. These things are even beyond guerrilla fighting Their forces are arguably the most competent in the regional fighting. They know how to hide and when to move in a way that we can do little about. For example there is a lot of talk about air-strikes. Well, that window has closed a lot. 75% of the air sorties now return without dropping any ordinance. We really have few actionable targets. Even though you can see them walking around everywhere, we can't hit most of them because they are in civilian areas or the targets are not cost effective. We would go broke trying to kill all 100,000 of them with $10,000 hellfire missiles. The time has now come for ground forces to fight, but it is not clear who that will be. The YPG is often seen as the group who will fight. However they are only interested in defending the country of Kurdistan, and frankly the Peshmerga are overrated. The next most effective force is Iran. However they are interested in controlling Iraqi territory and spreading their influence. That leaves the U.S. and the Iraqi army. I don't see how that is going to work. The U.S. is not going to commit the hundreds of thousands of ground forces needed to win and the Iraqis don't have the fighters. Forget about training them, we have been doing that for like 11 years and have about 2600 reliable fighters. At that rate it will take a century. I really don't see how we are going to do this. "Unconventional and irregular" fighting is the definition. Conventional warfare is still considered to be fought by "official" armies furnished by nation-states (official meaning the army is a proxy or extension of the political rulers), where a formal surrender or treaty is signed upon the defeat of one side. Conventional warfare doesn't really happen anymore because nation states rarely go to war anymore for many different reasons, not least of which is there is no economic reason to, but that doesn't mean the norm of guerrilla warfare by insurgents is now "conventional" warfare. Guerrilla warfare by default is unconventional because there usually is no nation-state the fighters represent, or at least no traditionally recognized nation-state. Perhaps that is all a designation of guerrilla warfare has ever meant, as opposed to two nations that formally agree they are at war and will fight until one surrenders. That's how I take "traditional" war to function, the formality of it really. The things you described Daesh doing are certainly more conventional (use of artillery, light/heavy armor, uniforms in battle), but do you have any reports of this? I haven't seen any reports of them using these tactics recently, and only vaguely remember ever seeing any. My understanding of the situation is that these tactics have largely been abandoned because it makes them too easy to target by air. I agree with your third paragraph. Daesh is not defeatable at this time without ground forces, and the ground force by proxy has been a disaster. That still doesn't lead me to believe our ground forces should be committed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
