They are fighting to re-establish a califat which follows their version of what the Islam supposedly stands for. Essentially their goal is to establish a pan-arabic nation state.

Would that be Sunni or Shiite?

---

They are fighting to re-establish a califat which follows their version of what the Islam supposedly stands for. Essentially their goal is to establish a pan-arabic nation state.

Would that be Sunni or Shiite?

As I understand it would be Sunni.

---

In other words, a sectarian war, so nothing new then.

---

The Simonator said:

people like Clyde

Jesus forgives for slights likeee dat. Now, gO Kiss A CrOss.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Unfortunately, it has always taken an almost genocidal response from the attacked Country's/People's to stop them. At least temporarily.

The World has yet to see "The Great Satan" unleash total unrestricted homicidal war. Hiroshima could have been Tokyo and Truman could have let McArthur win in Korea. The "hearts and minds" thing keeps getting in the way.

---

..

Ask any mother, of ANY Country/Culture, how many innocent baby's she is willing/insisting to kill, to save hers?

This particular mother doesn't think you should sell weapons to people who want to kill her children.

Remember the British/American Fire Bombing, and burning to death of innocent children during WW2. The British/American's are not worse than anyone else. They just had the means.

Yeah, that was a war crime.

The temporary ending of the present situation will be the same.

Oh, you think another war crime is the way to go?

I always found that fundamentalism and fanaticism is best dealt with through education and tackling poverty, not through bombing the sh*t out of people. Its no coincidence that there is a rise of fascism in Europe at a time where the governments are imposing austerity on people. Hitler's rise to power was enabled because of very similar circumstances, not because people weren't bombing Germany enough.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Remember the British/American Fire Bombing, and burning to death of innocent children during WW2. The British/American's are not worse than anyone else. They just had the means.

Another one from Ork! We'll have to rename you Dork, goes well with Mork!

The deaths of those "innocent children" can be laid squarely on their parents. They're the ones who stood by & let "little Adolf" attempt to takeover Europe.

To blame the Americans & British for attempting to end the war as fast as they can by the means they used is totally laughable.

Just think on this:-

Had Adolf succeeded, there would have been a link up with the Japanese & America would still be in isolation now, or worse!

---

I always found that fundamentalism and fanaticism is best dealt with through education and tackling poverty, not through bombing the sh*t out of people.

Where have you found this to be true? You should go to Nigeria and educate "the religion of peace" I"m sure you will be welcome with open arms.

---

I always found that fundamentalism and fanaticism is best dealt with through education and tackling poverty, not through bombing the sh*t out of people.

Where have you found this to be true? You should go to Nigeria and educate "the religion of peace" I"m sure you will be welcome with open arms.

I'm handing this over to my son who is planning to join the marines, he has something to say that he thinks is important on how to not create more terrorists:

I'm not 100% sure how the American military conducts themselves when entering or occupying someone else's country but when the royal marines enter an Afghan village they remember that respect is important. you must ask permission to speak to the village elders and it's actually part of their culture to say yes to the meeting. now when they refuse to tell you anything about the taliban you must understand that they have probably been personally threatened by them. It is also probably best that the ANA be accompanying the NATO soldiers so that the people in the village see that you have actual soldiers from their country and are not an evil imperialist that they may or may not believe you to be. also you must be aware that the Taliban are a guerilla force and are probably watching the meeting from closer than you might think. another cultural difference is that they don't like it when foreign men talk to their women so a new strategy that a lot of NATO forces have began to use is the "female engagement team" which is a squad of non combatant female personnel whose soul purpose is to talk to and empower the woman of Afghanistan. this seems like a lot of effort, but they will notice that effort. they will see that you are here to help. in the 7 part documentary "Royal Marines: Mission Afghanistan" this strategy works wonders as civilians begin to point out IEDs to the marines, thus preventing NATO casualties. Now, unfortunately this ideal strategy is not common practice throughout NATO. In fact, the Americans like to use their massive military power to blow the sh*t out of the area and call any civilian casualties "collateral damage". now don't get me wrong, i have the utmost respect for the American military personnel and in fact the only civilian casualties caused by the Americans were accidents in air strikes. but you have to see this from a point of view of these farmers. they know very little of the outside world and all they know of America is "that thing in the sky that killed their family", accidental or not, this WILL create resentment and WILL cause support for the taliban. America has great soldiers, they should use them more rather than using their terrifying war machines designed for open conflicts. - signed a future service member

---

Reality Internet Personality

As all history has shown: It will be considered War Crimes, after the fact.

Then only for the losers.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the Infantry, ask the dead" Ernest Hemingway.

---

soul purpose

or sole purpose?

---

I'm not 100% sure how the American military conducts themselves when entering or occupying someone else's country but when the royal marines enter an Afghan village they remember that respect is important.

In a few years that country and your own won't remember you were there much less care. You heard it here first.

---

soul purpose

or sole purpose?

I'll let him know you found a spelling mistake.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'm not 100% sure how the American military conducts themselves when entering or occupying someone else's country but when the royal marines enter an Afghan village they remember that respect is important.

In a few years that country and your own won't remember you were there much less care. You heard it here first.

Feel free to talk him out of signing up. I'm not exactly thrilled about it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Feel free to talk him out of signing up. I'm not exactly thrilled about it.

My youngest wanted to join the Marines but I talked him into joining the Coast Guard. If he really wants to help people and get a special mission badge try out for rescue swimmer.

---

Remember the British/American Fire Bombing, and burning to death of innocent children during WW2. The British/American's are not worse than anyone else. They just had the means.

Another one from Ork! We'll have to rename you Dork, goes well with Mork!

The deaths of those "innocent children" can be laid squarely on their parents. They're the ones who stood by & let "little Adolf" attempt to takeover Europe.

To blame the Americans & British for attempting to end the war as fast as they can by the means they used is totally laughable.

Just think on this:-

Had Adolf succeeded, there would have been a link up with the Japanese & America would still be in isolation now, or worse!

WW2 was the first usage of smart bombs, who knew? How else could the bombs have targeted Nazi sympathizers and their offspring?

It seemed clear to me in this documentary that at least one of the architects of the US fire bombing campaign against Japan has had second thoughts about his contribution to the war effort.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It seemed clear to me in this documentary that at least one of the architects of the US fire bombing campaign against Japan has had second thoughts about his contribution to the war effort.

What is clear to you bobby is usually not in accordance with the facts.

---

It seemed clear to me in this documentary that at least one of the architects of the US fire bombing campaign against Japan has had second thoughts about his contribution to the war effort.

What is clear to you bobby is usually not in accordance with the facts.

From the transcript of the film:

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Meh it kinda depends on how you define 'war crimes'. Is it a lot of civilian casualties? Okay, but what if those civilians form the basis for the war economy on which a country is running its war engine?

That was in the end the reason why the allied bombed cities. People are resources for the war in a total war scenario, therefor people become viable military targets in such a scenario. Its gruesome, but then again, the concept of total war is gruesome. Naturally its effects and results will be gruesome then as well. Is it the allies fault that they acted in accordance with a total war scenario? Well no, they weren't the ones that escalated to that point, they had too because the Axis did so first.

Obviously had the Allies lost the war the architects to the bombing strategy would be tried for war crimes. At the same time, Hitler and his Nazi party would have been turned into the heroes. That is just victors justice. Its what you are required to do after defeating an enemy like this, completely discredit what is left of him.

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.

The link was about Robert S. McNamara, he was a middle level officer in WWII and never flew a plane, he just compiled statistics. I find it self serving blame shifting by declaring the loser a criminal as if that justifies their own crime. Who was the "we" LeMay spoke of, the entire US?

---