The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't have a point.

OK.

Then never mind.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Apparently, we're claiming that the hospital airstrike was called in by Afghan forces.

If true, then this is one I blame on the President. He's the guy who made the decision to remove most ground troops while continuing to provide air support. That means a higher percentage of strikes are called in without having U.S. eyes on the target, and that's on him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...us-general-about-troop-levels-in-afghanistan/

 

[gourimoko]

Apparently, we're claiming that the hospital airstrike was called in by Afghan forces.

If true, then this is one I blame on the President.

Well, surprise surprise!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...us-general-about-troop-levels-in-afghanistan/

lol @ foxnews.com

 

[Maximus]

So a Nobel Peace Prize winner bombed another Nobel Peace Prize winner?

 

[Sebastian]

So a Nobel Peace Prize winner bombed another Nobel Peace Prize winner?

I would have given you a Funny if I wasn't dying a little inside over all this.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I would have given you a Funny if I wasn't dying a little inside over all this.

That award is a joke anyway.

The President thinks he can fight a war while keeping both our hands clean and our troops safe, and it is not possible.

But I'm also not a fan of how we surrender so easily on the propaganda side of things. Yes, we should apologise, but we should also run off the litany of Taliban atrocities/repression that we are trying to prevent so there is some context to what we are doing. Draw a distinction between horrible but inadvertent mistakes, and war crimes committed as a matter of policy.

Instead, we just hang our heads and give the Taliban a propaganda victory.

Although I suppose it's possible the President doesn't take that tack because he doesn't really see us as the good guys.

 

[macbdog]

Apparently, we're claiming that the hospital airstrike was called in by Afghan forces.

Which, of course, calls into question exactly who called it in on the Afghan side, how they call it in (can it be intercepted or mimicked) and what their motivations were.

 

[bcort]

Apparently, we're claiming that the hospital airstrike was called in by Afghan forces.

If true, then this is one I blame on the President.

Not an Obama fan but that statement is ridiculous and shows a real lack of knowledge on the us-Afghan working relationship on targets.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Which, of course, calls into question exactly who called it in on the Afghan side, how they call it in (can it be intercepted or mimicked) and what their motivations were.

May
Have been one of those things where they were taking so.e

Not an Obama fan but that statement is ridiculous and shows a real lack of knowledge on the us-Afghan working relationship on targets.

Okay - why?

Regardless of what other checks exist higher up the approval chain of command, competent eyes on the ground for CAS missions are still another way to reduce the risk of targeting errors.

 

[bcort]

Okay - why?

Regardless of what other checks exist higher up the approval chain of command, competent eyes on the ground for CAS missions are still another way to reduce the risk of targeting errors.

I'm not willing to talk admit the process the us and Afghan militaries use to decide targets on this forum. But saying you blame the president for not having a JTAC ar every corner is ignorant.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not willing to talk admit the process the us and Afghan militaries use to decide targets on this forum. But saying you blame the president for not having a JTAC ar every corner is ignorant.

I know something of the process, at least in terms of how Marines used it in Afghanistan. And there is a difference between CAS missions and other missions in terms of how, and by whom, the attack is initially requested.

The first "check" for CAS missions that are targets of opportunity - as this one seems to have been - is the unit that visually identifies the target and calls it in. There is a process above that for coordination/verification/safety, but the first step is still eyes on the ground that have identified the target.

And simply put, the less involved we are on the ground, the higher percentage of CAS missions will be called in by troops other than our own.

 

[Jordan]

The new roundup I published... Really tried to trace increasing Russian involvement from August to October.

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/22876/foreign-policies-media-roundup-(august-october)

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@jking948

So maybe you can explain to me what is going on at the Temple Mount.

I read today that there is some agreement that only Muslims may pray there. Jews are permitted to visit but are not allowed to pray.

The idea that members of a religion should not be permitted to pray at a site that is holy to them is completely foreign to most Americans, including me. We here in the U.S. are required by law to make all sorts of accommodations for the religious practices of other people. Prohibiting prayer at a particular site is a huge "WTF?"

What really boggles my mind is why the Israeli government agreed to that, so I'm clearly missing something.

What gives?

 

[Jordan]

@jking948

So maybe you can explain to me what is going on at the Temple Mount.

I read today that there is some agreement that only Muslims may pray there. Jews are permitted to visit but are not allowed to pray.

The idea that members of a religion should not be permitted to pray at a site that is holy to them is completely foreign to most Americans, including me. We here in the U.S. are required by law to make all sorts of accommodations for the religious practices of other people. Prohibiting prayer at a particular site is a huge "WTF?"

What really boggles my mind is why the Israeli government agreed to that, so I'm clearly missing something.

What gives?

So, I'll begin by admitting Israel-Palestine isn't my specialty. It's not that I don't know about it. But I haven't necessarily read the documents.

Nonetheless, I believe the agreement came after the 1967 War as a means of appeasing the Muslim population. Effectively, Jews gained political sovereignty and Muslims retained religious sovereignty of the Temple/Mosque. It was also furthered that Jews are allowed to visit whenever they want; but, due to the religious nature of the structure, would not be allowed to pray. The corollary was also true of the Western Wall.

This status quo continued for thirty or so years, until the Second Intifada occurred, which really effected a lot of the relations. This lead to two independent things occurring: first, the Israeli Likud Party (right wing party that had ended up in a coalition with the ultra right) skyrocketed in popularity; and second, Palestinians began to fear for what sovereignty they had.

The combination of these two factors led Palestinian terrorists (Fatah and Hamas, mainly) to launch attacks from the top of the Mosque. Additionally, the heads of the Mosque/Mount began to limit days and times when Jews and other non-Muslims could actually visit the Mosque.

This lead to the Likud Party to begin public discussions about removing the Muslim religious sovereignty over the Mosque. The reason this is a big deal is Palestinians view the Mosque as the only source of sovereignty they have in Israel/Palestine. On the other hand, Israelis are beginning to view it as a security threat.

In my view, the Mosque/Temple Mount is not the actual issue. The frustration boiling in both societies is and the debate over the Temple/Mosque is just a straw breaking the proverbial camel's back.

That's my understanding of it, anyways. If someone else has more first-hand experience with this stuff I'd love to hear it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So, I'll begin by admitting Israel-Palestine isn't my specialty. It's not that I don't know about it. But I haven't necessarily read the documents.

Well, you know.more than I do, and I trust you to be honest on the facts even if we don't ultimately agree.

Nonetheless, I believe the agreement came after the 1967 War as a means of appeasing the Muslim population. Effectively, Jews gained political sovereignty and Muslims retained religious sovereignty of the Temple/Mosque. It was also furthered that Jews are allowed to visit whenever they want; but, due to the religious nature of the structure, would not be allowed to pray. The corollary was also true of the Western Wall.

This status quo continued for thirty or so years, until the Second Intifada occurred, which really effected a lot of the relations. This lead to two independent things occurring: first, the Israeli Likud Party (right wing party that had ended up in a coalition with the ultra right) skyrocketed in popularity; and second, Palestinians began to fear for what sovereignty they had.

The combination of these two factors led Palestinian terrorists (Fatah and Hamas, mainly) to launch attacks from the top of the Mosque. Additionally, the heads of the Mosque/Mount began to limit days and times when Jews and other non-Muslims could actually visit the Mosque.

This lead to the Likud Party to begin public discussions about removing the Muslim religious sovereignty over the Mosque. The reason this is a big deal is Palestinians view the Mosque as the only source of sovereignty they have in Israel/Palestine. On the other hand, Israelis are beginning to view it as a security threat.

In my view, the Mosque/Temple Mount is not the actual issue. The frustration boiling in both societies is and the debate over the Temple/Mosque is just a straw breaking the proverbial camel's back.

That's my understanding of it, anyways. If someone else has more first-hand experience with this stuff I'd love to hear it.

Thanks. I'd actually understand it better if there was an agreement that Jews couldn't even go there, based on the idea that it isn't their land.

But the ban on praying seems just indefensible to me. I mean, if there is one thing that should be an exception to normal rules of sovereignty, it should be the freedom of prayer for all religious pilgrims. This just smacks of pretty blatant religious intolerance. I was honestly wondering if there was something more to it than that, but I guess not.

I think someone in one of these threads mentioned previously that there were some Jews living in the west bank, not in settlements, that were actually Palestinian citizen. Are they barred from praying there as well?