The bad guys apparently are on the ground. Its almost as if not having a UN Led approach has led to countries pursuing their own agenda in the name of 'Destroying IS'. Its turned from stopping IS it seems into Operation Kill Brown People.

The irony of course is that IS is far less likely to be 'disrupted' by airpower as the Loyalists and Rebels.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Oct 2015 11.19am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

[Link]

Yep....really works.....

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Pretty sure that the people who followed them didn't regard themselves as bad guys though, is the point. Obviously I agree with that list, but everyone thinks they 'doing the right thing and are good guys'. Usually until its no longer in their best interests.

White hats and black hats, are for movies and childrens stories. But in reality, its the kind of mentality that ends up justifying things like the holocaust or Year Zero.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Right on the money. Now literally everyone on the ground is 'the enemy'. It was even true before really. Assad was quick to abuse his own people when it helped his interests. Russia to back him and crush all others. The States with a 'better dead than red' attitude towards Syria being a Russian Ally, arming any tom, dick or harry who opposed Assad. All helped to shape this destablised mess of a country.

Of course it is not simple. There are no absolute goods and no absolute bads, there are degrees. No person is absolutely good or absolutely evil. But it is quite justifiable to judge someone as principally evil - say Ian Brady. The bombing of Japan and the bombing of Germany were part of an effort to destroy evil movements. To argue that those actions themselves were intrinsically evil is like saying it is evil to amputate a gangrene limb. I don't think it is evil that the state of Israel exists. Yes, Stalin helped to defeat Hitler - only because he had been attacked, he would have been quite happy to have sat back and watch us defeated and the Jews exterminated - one of the most evil b******s who ever lived.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Pretty much how I see it.

You also have to know a) who your enemy is b) how you intend to defeat them and c) that your actions aren't actually going to make the situation worse. The last part is really important. In Afghanistan there was a nasty tendency to determine that it was 'us against Taliban' but we were actually very poor at determining who was and wasn't Taliban.

The factional tribal nature and lack of 'clear front lines' meant that factions were reporting that such a tribe was Taliban, and the US ended up fighting a lot of different factions that hadn't been Taliban from the start.

A similar situation exists when you hit 'IS' targets. How do you actually determine they're IS targets? Especially when your 'sources on the ground' aren't reliable. A lot of the areas that are sometimes reported as IS, are held by other factions that may or may not be allied to IS to some degree (ie they'd rather be fighting the Syrian Regime than IS). Not every armed Sunni group in Syria is going to be IS.

But then when you drop a 500lb bomb on a target that maybe isn't quite 'the enemy' you think it is, they soon become the enemy when they're picking up the bits of their friends and relatives.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]