According to le monde, French fighters have started bombing isis HQ in racca.
Let's continue and intensify bombing and let's send troops to crush this scum.

Wat's the point of bombing Syria ?

...
It's where they're hiding ...

Quoting sebolino (Reply 2): It's where they're hiding ...

But Paris was an insider job.

Quoting sebolino (Thread starter): According to le monde, French fighters have started bombing isis HQ in racca. Let's continue and intensify bombing and let's send troops to crush this scum.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Why bomb their HQ now, if the location has been known previously why hadn't it been bombed already?

If the French are now dropping weapons on targets that were previously on a "do not strike" list for collateral damage concerns then I don't see why the events in Paris should change that.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 3): But Paris was an insider job.

Was organized by IS. IS is in Syria, or at least their so called "HQ" is. And there is no country called ISIS, so they are bombing where IS is.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4): Why bomb their HQ now, if the location has been known previously why hadn't it been bombed already?

This attack is clearly in retaliation for the events in Paris. Escalation by IS is being met with escalation by the French State.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): This attack is clearly in retaliation for the events in Paris. Escalation by IS is being met with escalation by the French State.

There is no escalation by IS. The threat of local attacks has always been there and the January attacks in Paris, as well as the Canadian and Australian incidents, indicate this will not change.

If the target, IS HQ in Raqqa, had been no strike it would have been so for a reason so striking now after Paris is poor. Why do the morals of the French change now? No strike targets are classified that for a reason and we shouldn't change the way we behave because the other guy has.

If we learnt anything from the last 10 years of Iraq and Afghanistan it is that striking targets with the potential for increased collateral damage just makes the intervention argument harder. It also increases the chance that France and other Western powers will alienate increasingly militant regional populations and potentially regional governments.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7): If we learnt anything from the last 10 years of Iraq and Afghanistan it is that striking targets with the potential for increased collateral damage just makes the intervention argument harder. It also increases the chance that France and other Western powers will alienate increasingly militant regional populations and potentially regional governments.

So what are they supposed to do? Invite these guys over for tea and sandwiches?

If you live near a terrorist organizations compound, maybe you should think about moving.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 8): So what are they supposed to do? Invite these guys over for tea and sandwiches? If you live near a terrorist organizations compound, maybe you should think about moving.

That is an easy claim to make when you have the opportunity to move. With a repressive regime ruling you, I hardly think moving is always an option.

We are talking about air attack here and if reports are correct the French dropped a mix of 10 x GBU-12s and 24s on the IS HQ building. Not everyone living in Syria is a legitimate target and we shouldn't be using airpower to strike targets like this unless we can limit the collateral damage. There may always be innocents who are in the target area for whatever reason and are caught in the crossfire and that is life but given recent events and the rapid response, as well as the fact the target had not been struck until today even though the bombing campaign started over a year ago, speaks more about a knee jerk reaction with whatever was available than a thought out and calculated response.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or Nagasaki and it got results, Why not the same for Syria/Iraq??

I think the situation would have been drastically different then, given a 24 hour news cycle, and anyone with a smart phone being an "on the spot reporter"

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or Nagasaki and it got results, Why not the same for Syria/Iraq??

For starters, it would be legitimising IS to claim they are in any way related to either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Second, the experiences and continual morale debate over the effectiveness of WW2 area bombing continues to this day but I would like to think, outside of a sustained nuclear exchange, that we would not go this route again.

Following your thought, should we have expected the British to flatten most of northern Ireland due to terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by the IRA?

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or Nagasaki and it got results, Why not the same for Syria/Iraq??

That was before the UN and international war tribunals.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12): For starters, it would be legitimising IS to claim they are in any way related to either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

They just killed 129 people in a savage attack. I think they legitimized themselves.
Pat

Quoting sebolino (Reply 2):

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 5): Was organized by IS. IS is in Syria, or at least their so called "HQ" is. And there is no country called ISIS, so they are bombing where IS is.

After 911 Afghanistan was finely "combed" with a destructive brush of bombs on about the same kind of argument.

the result? Much more terror and Heroin production gone from Zero to before unknown heights.

I'd say get at the roots and "Bomb the Saudis"!

Quoting WIederling (Reply 15): After 911 Afghanistan was finely "combed" with a destructive brush of bombs on about the same kind of argument. The result? Much more terror and Heroin production gone from Zero to before unknown heights.

That happened after the US shifted it's attention (and effort) away from Afghanistan and to Iraq. If we'd stayed on mission (stayed in Afghanistan), I like to believe things would have turned out better there. But then, considering the success the Soviets had in the 1980s... *shrug*

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): That happened after the US shifted it's attention

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG
( Which is not unsurprising. Revenue from Poppies is a major source
of uncontrolled income for the CIA and some other unsavory entities.)

All other indications imho too show that the US made a mess
and then trecked over to the next place of mischieve.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4): Doesn't make a lot of sense.

The people are outraged and their helpless government want to be seen doing something before they realize the casual and apathetic way their leaders have been dealing with the growing threat of homegrown terrorism is the cause of all this...

  

Quoting francoflier (Reply 18): the growing threat of homegrown terrorism is the cause of all this...

Home grown, yes. Home trained? No. If you hit the bases in Syria, you reduce their training capabilities in the camps. That would reduce the probability of attack at home as these attackers were trained in Syria. And as the latest news stated, the attack was linked to a Belgian national now in Syria (if you are to believe the intelligence agencies).

But I agree, the impact would be minimal. A more productive action would come later as the Kurds pushes to Rapqa. That is when all the coalition planes would be needed and would be most effective.

bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 19): Home trained?

How much training does one really require to grab an AK-47 and go berserk in a packed concert hall?

The middle East situation is not helping, but then it never has and never will, no matter the billions' worth of war and reconstruction effort western countries sink in the place.
These budding terrorists are known of the local police and the mosques and other hideouts where the imams brainwash these young idiots are also not very hard to find for a modern police force. The cleaning effort starts at home, and the current government, now enduring the second major terrorist attack under its watch, has done precious little about it, just like it has done precious little about anything else.

But political rant aside, as much as I like the idea of bombing these retarded cretins to oblivion, the last 14 years have taught us that you can drop bombs on these backwards places faster than you can build them and it will do little to solve the problem. It's much like trying to get rid of a cockroach infestation with a shotgun.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or Nagasaki and it got results, Why not the same for Syria/Iraq??

Your point is worth discussing.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were supported by the people who got killed in Dresden and Hiroshima, even though they were not democracies.
Along the same line of reasoning the US government policies were supported by the people who died on 9/11.
In war, the price of your government's policies is civilian lives, whether the civilians take responsibility for themselves or not, they have still made the choice.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 11): Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or [quote=WIederling,reply=15]result? Much more terro

No.
The US castrated al qaeda and despite porous borders and gigantic terrorist targets has NOT had 'much more terror' since whatever they did in Afghanistan.
The price of attacking the US was made abundantly clear.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 18): people are outraged and their helpless government want to be seen doing something before they realize the casual and apathetic way their leaders have been dealing with the growing threat of homegrown terrorism is the cause of all t

True.
A weakness of democracy is that problems have to rise to a emergency level before the fat ass politicians will do something. As you say, however, this is mainly about being SEEN to do something.









Pu.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9): the fact the target had not been struck until today even though the bombing campaign started over a year ago

Actually France was only bombing Iraq a year ago, because the Iraqi government asked for help, while Syria didn't, and Russia would veto any UN resolution (yes, the same Russia now bombing Syria...).

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9): speaks more about a knee jerk reaction with whatever was available than a thought out and calculated response.

It's very calculated, Syria became a legitimate target for France a few weeks ago, a lot of reconnaissance sorties (and a few bombings) have occurred, and having a list of targets for such a response was planned.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 21): How much training does one really require to grab an AK-47 and go berserk in a packed concert hall?

I think it's two things really. First, these are just messed up kids that could've gone either way in life when they show up at ISIS boot camp. So the first part of the "training" I would assume is the brainwashing part. It can't be all that simple to find people willing to commit themselves to certain death for a cause. And then there's the planning and communication, that to me is the hardcore part that they got right in this instance.

I agree with many posters that French intelligence bureaus are second to none, but this time the planning went undiscovered somehow, and that takes methodical training, planning, and execution. You're right though, after that comes the easy part, just showing up at your appointed target on time and killing as many people as possible before you get killed yourself.

Crazy world man.

A very strange thread which reveals how little people have understood of the situation :
IS is not in any way comparable to the former Al Qaida, which was - is - an organisation . Daesh is basically a political, administrative, economical and military entity very much akin to a real state. Its capabilities are in several orders of magnitude superior to what AQ had... hence the joining of its forces to Daesh.
It's been rather easy to control AQ's financing, not so,much for IS's assets : oil and cotton, for instance ( with the complicity of countries like Turkey, a NATO state if I remember correctly).

Quoting francoflier (Reply 18): The people are outraged and their helpless government want to be seen doing something

Funny, I haven't seen or head a lot of outrage from the French public. I also remember that boith the prez and the PM...and other members of this government have never stopped warning the population that we would very probably see more attacks and more killings in the country from extremists. and the level of threat was *Vigipirate ecarlate* ( i.e bright deep re'd) since January.
If there is a western government which has done more on the anti-terrorist subject than this country's, I don't know of it.( and I'm certainly not a backer of this government )

Quoting francoflier (Reply 21): How much training does one really require to grab an AK-47 and go berserk in a packed concert hall?

That sentence alone shows that you certainly haven't givenj a thought to these events and really understood what they are about : It seems for you they are exactly at the same level as the random killings / school shootings that we have seen here and there. That would be a very big mistake : actually, the way the terrorists managed their attack on the Bataclan was very thorough and very professional : in particular, their fire discipline was flawless : single aimed shots for killing targets, heavy bursts to saturate the area during their movements and staggered reloading in order to keep a continuous rolling fire

Quoting wingman (Reply 24): these are just messed up kids

The big, huge problem extremist Islam is given us is that they could rather quickly replace the messed up brain of these kids with a set of values that makes sense to them, including putting them relentlessly inj the presence of death so that it becomes part of their mindset.

Quoting Pu (Reply 22): The US castrated al qaeda and despite porous borders and gigantic terrorist targets has NOT had 'much more terror' since whatever they did in Afghanistan.

I really can't understand how one could claim a US victory in the Middle East.
As far as AlQaida is concerned,Just google AQMI... See what they nearly achieved and why they failed ; ( hint : France intervention ).

Quoting Aesma (Reply 23): Russia would veto any UN resolution (yes, the same Russia now bombing Syria...).

Not quite.
The situation in Russia has changed. The price of oil, sanctions, a war in Ukraine, a collapsed currency, asset immigration to Europe/America....and even an Olympic team banned from competition = an increased imperative to gamble; a desperation to conjure up some 'accomplishments' and feed the always-present tenet of belief that foreigners are the main problem.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 25): F#ck the lot of 'em.

I think Europe/NATO should either:

- carpet bomb the place and turn it into a vassal state along the lines of Colonial India or Disneyworld.

or

- severe all ties, stop all immigration, quarantine the region and let them carpet bomb themselves without any EU/US involvement whatsoever.





Half measures are pointless.







Pu

Quoting Pihero (Reply 26): really can't understand how one could claim a US victory in the Middle East.

Try looking at multiple factors.

The allies won WW2 but the price was 50 years of backwards repression for the eastern half of the continent.
The Americans lost the battle for Iraq and Afghanistan but have defeated terrorists from their home country despite the fact you can buy military grade weaponry at Walmart.

There are usually failures in every big 'victory' and victories is every big 'failure.'





Pu.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 25): And Mecca during the Hajj. Fuck the lot of 'em.

Holocaust 2.0, kill a ton of innocent people, and instantly turn hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims into your enemy? What a dumb idea.

Being against something so stupid isn't even the liberal/hippy thing to do. Anyone with 1/10 a brain would see how immoral it is, and if that doesn't bother you, how freaking ineffective and counter productive it would be.

I used to wonder how genocides happen. Now I see how... unbridled ignorance

Quoting WIederling (Reply 15): I'd say get at the roots and "Bomb the Saudis"!

Yes let's. And say hello to $300+ oil while we're at it.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 25): Quoting WIederling (Reply 15): I'd say get at the roots and "Bomb the Saudis"! And Mecca during the Hajj. Fuck the lot of 'em.

With this statement, I find you no different that ISIS. Killing people who have nothing to do with the situation at hand just to advance your cause? Yeah...a very Christian thing to do.

Because the U.S doesn't want anyone fighting Isis. This is why the U.S didn't act to fight more against Isis or to ally with Russia to fight Isis for some funny reason  .

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 30): Yes let's. And say hello to $300+ oil while we're at it.

After removing Saddam, Qaddafi, and seeing the mess in Syria, I'm wondering what a Saudi Arabia without the foreign family would look like. Don't get me wrong, they aren't great dudes at all, but can you imagine Saudi Arabia turning into a terrorist hotbed (more than it arguably already is?) A failed state Saudi Arabia... few things are scarier IMO.

Probably better to pressure them in the ways we can and be glad they're the lesser evil

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 30): With this statement, I find you no different that ISIS. Killing people who have nothing to do with the situation at hand just to advance your cause? Yeah...a very Christian thing to do.

I would argue this is one of the few times evoking Nazi comparisons is completely warranted and not cliche

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 29): ? What a dumb idea.

The Hiroshima option is more of a rhetorical argument, if you know what I mean?

...in other words we have to appreciate the seriousness of the enemy and their power by defining our own limits of force. Obama said ISIS was "contained" the day before Paris, today they are threatening Washington and Rome. When considering what can be done, obviously someone in the French Hexagon, the Pentagon or NATO should probably be calculating every option from doing nothing all the way up to total annihilation.

Then we the public and our elected leaders can better define at what point of enemy action we're willing to respond with what level of force, at what cost to ourselves and at what cost to civilians. We have to understand the worst case scenario if we hope to project an ideal, efficient and less deadly scenario.

I'm just saying that when we're talking about war, which is how every leader has described this, we need someone in the room advocating total war with everything we've got. Sadly it's a necessary part of the discussion when we have already crossed the line and decided that we are going to do some killing. We need to talk about exactly how much killing we can stand. Sorry.






Pu.

Quoting Pu (Reply 33): The Hiroshima option is more of a rhetorical argument, if you know what I mean?

I'm not even talking about escalation of bombings with increased civilian casualties (though I have problems with that and see it as reverse productive)

This guy is talking about bombing the Hajj, as if it would serve any strategic goal, wouldn't be killing mostly innocent people, and wouldn't instantly turn hundreds of millions (yes, that many) of Muslims against us.

Based off that post alone, the guy should be psychologically evaluated. Based off the other crap he's said, I seriously worry that he's gonna snap one day and end up "extracting revenge" on some random people. Not even joking

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):

oh, ok, I see.
.
.
.
I think maybe one point I am making is that it's a very admirable trait to call for thoughtful military responses that limit casualties. So it's moral to reject drastic measures.

However, America in particular has adopted this thinking for the last 50 years and has tried the idea of 'limited' wars. But it usually doesn't work. So I don't think limited efforts are going to work with ISIS. Either sit back and do nothing militarily, adopt a purely defensive posture, try sanctions and economic warfare......or......take it to a level higher than was tried in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

If you/we aren't willing to outspend/outfight what was already tried in these earlier failed wars, I question whether we should do any fighting at all?






Pu.

Quoting Pu (Reply 33): we have already crossed the line and decided that we are going to do some killing. We need to talk about exactly how much killing we can stand. Sorry.

That without me and all my friends.
Tell me, what's the difference between your ideas and Daesh's ?

I don't see any : just two sides of the same self- righteousness, intolerance and bigotry.

Quoting Pu (Reply 35): I think maybe one point I am making is that it's a very admirable trait to call for thoughtful military responses that limit casualties. So it's moral to reject drastic measures.

Not even from a moral perspective, from a practical one. I don't think a heavy bombardment or nuclear strike would do any good. I mean, sure, in the short term, it would work, but in the long term?

I am fine with providing the world's greatest Air Force to the ground fighters... limiting civilian deaths for both moral and practical reasons. I'd arm the Kurds way more, though, I see that as the easiest solution. One of the few groups we can probably trust. I realize it would piss off Turkey and it would probably sink our (random) dream for a one state Iraq, but who cares? Turkey seems to have been only marginally helpful so far and I couldn't give a rat's ass about a unified Iraq (I'd much prefer it be divided to be honest)

Quoting Pu (Reply 35): If you/we aren't willing to outspend/outfight what was already tried in these earlier failed wars, I question whether we should do any fighting at all?

I see it as a false dichotomy.

And honestly, call me crazy, I see the strategy we are doing as working, over all. After ISIS' initial gains, what have they gotten? After we started airstrikes, I can only think of Palmyra and Ramadi. Palmyra belonged to Assad forces, IIRC, so it makes sense that we weren't backing them up, and Ramadi, yes, did fall (in a gap in our airstrike coverage.) You can go into the Shiite government not arming the Sunnis in Ramadi but honestly, you can't win them all, especially when it's just the Iraqi Army.

All that aside, we are close to retaking Ramadi. The area all around Ramadi is taken, then we can focus on Falluja then westward. We have taken Tikrit and continued onto Baiji. Progress has been slow but we're moving. Sinjar just fell, we are getting closer to Mosul.

In Syria, Kobani was saved thanks to our airstrikes and the Kurds. It was so close to being taken over ISIS put out a bunch of videos bragging about their victory there. The Kurds have closed up a major supply route from Turkey to ar Raqqa and have made other smaller gains in the north.

So yes, we are winning. Terrorism over here is a problem, not one that is totally separate from the war in the ME, but you can't use the fact Paris was attacked as any indication of success from ISIS on the ground in Iraq and Syria. You could also argue that the slower progress is enabling more time for attack, not denying that.

Again though, we are not losing. Everyone seems to be hysterical. We have work to be done on the security/immigration side, in addition to Europe's already bad integration problem. But we have lost 1 US soldier, spent so much less money than Iraq, we are slowly but surely containing ISIS (what I think the President meant recently) and we are squeezing them inward.

Nukes and attacks against the populace... I am not sure they have a time and place, but regardless, we are NO where near there now

An interesting side effect of this (and one that is sure to irritate The Commodore who has remained silent during this discussion) is the standing of Israel, lets face it, if you need a middle east terrorist leader killed, there really are none better at it than the Israelis.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 15): I'd say get at the roots and "Bomb the Saudis"!

You are not the only one, i've been saying it in these threads for a couple of years now, follow the money, when you find the ones giving it to support these animals, kill them, make it messy and make it public and if the Saudis don't like it, tough.

Quoting Pu (Reply 35): However, America in particular has adopted this thinking for the last 50 years and has tried the idea of 'limited' wars. But it usually doesn't work. So I don't think limited efforts are going to work with ISIS. Either sit back and do nothing militarily, adopt a purely defensive posture, try sanctions and economic warfare......or......take it to a level higher than was tried in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

So pretty much the answer is nuke the whole area ?

Quoting WIederling (Reply 15): After 911 Afghanistan was finely "combed" with a destructive brush of bombs on about the same kind of argument. the result? Much more terror and Heroin production gone from Zero to before unknown heights. I'd say get at the roots and "Bomb the Saudis"!

There is a definite danger to attacking an established government with control over an area.

We learned that when we took down Assad and Hussein and then brought our troops home that ISIS rushed in to fill the power vacuum.

The Mid-East is an area with a cultural tradition of deference to authority and an acceptance for fanatical religious adherence and religious-sanctioned violence. The people there do not include the likes of Benjamin Franklin or John Locke or the other architects of democracy. The local culture (and Islam is part of it) is incompatible with stable democracy.

Now, cultures can be changed. But they can't be changed in five or eight or ten years. It takes a minimum of 20 years and probably more like 50. During that time, it would be necessary to provide every child with food, education, medical care, and other basic necessities. Once two or three generations have gone past with Western education, Western medical care, and Western basic infrastructure, the new secular democratic society might actually take hold.

But this is an awesome prospect. Are we willing to take on that sort of project?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32): A failed state Saudi Arabia... few things are scarier IMO. Probably better to pressure them in the ways we can and be glad they're the lesser evil

Sanction the Royal Family into oblivion. Freeze and nationalise all their assets and bank accounts overseas.

At least until they figure out spreading their twisted brand of islamism is not going to be tolerated and that they rather keep enjoying some more of the "western" decadence.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 36): ell me, what's the difference between your ideas and Daesh's ? I don't see any : just two sides of the same self- righteousness, intolerance and bigotry.

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to me?

...but yes if you call it self-righteousness for me to say that Europe is better than Daesh, fine. If you think it's intolerance to reject those who attack us, our friends and their own people, fine. If it's bigotry to say European culture is better than the culture that creates teenaged terrorists, fine.

Hollande says this is war. If true, then yes both sides have become contestants to see who can do the most damage and killing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): And honestly, call me crazy, I see the strategy we are doing as working, over all. After ISIS' initial gains, what have they gotten?

I hope you're right.
But I have to say you sound like Westmoreland during the Vietnam War!

....he would come on TV, say 'we are winning, we've taken this town and that village and killed the enemy at a 50:1 ratio to our own casualties'.... and....yet.....the war was lost, even if America won every battle and inflicted 50x as much damages as it sustained.

I think looking at this in purely military terms is only going to give you a military victory. You may beat them and still lose.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): are close to retaking Ramadi. The area all around Ramadi is taken, then we can focus on Falluja then westward. We have taken Tikrit and continued onto Baiji.

Ok, I hope this works.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37): ee it as a false dichotomy

I can appreciate that. I just don't see much to suggest there is some compromise in war that allows a full victory, a result that actually solves the problem forever ... unless you are committed to a massive dose of killing, costs, years etc.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 38): o pretty much the answer is nuke the whole area ?

My preference would be to do nothing more in Syria and Iraq whatsoever. The local people simply won't help us. Let Putin and Iran have a feee hand.

But, if we do decide to answer violence with violence then our violence should be decisive and unequivocal. We're not going to find a sustainable military solution by remote control and without getting our hair mussed.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39): we willing to take on that sort of project?

Thank you, this is exactly my point.

....carriers and guided missile frigates in the area and "strategically" striking ISIS. No American casualties. Lots of casualties on the ground. Then what, peace and prosperity suddenly arrive? This is either a massive effort taking years to fix OR we shouldn't get involved at all.







Pu.

I cheer France to expand her empire and civilize (hopefully settle!) the region.

Quoting Pu (Reply 41): Then what, peace and prosperity suddenly arrive? This is either a massive effort taking years to fix OR we shouldn't get involved at all.

I think we could fully settle the territory in question. With advances in drone technology, those who hold US or France-issued deeds to land in the area can peacefully populate the area. Much as Nevada or Montana was populated, just issue deeds to Americans or French citizens. A representative government can be empowered directly as either American or French territory. It is not necessary to "reform" politics there, we can just replace them with elected, French or American representatives.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):

I know you're not 100% serious but the Middle East administered colonially from Europe or Constantinople was better for everyone than this current nightmare that stretches from Afghanistan to Morocco. It was especially better for the people.

Better to be a second class citizen in one of France's overseas departments than be a first class citizen in the likes of an independent Tunisia/Syria/etc.





Pu.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 25): And Mecca during the Hajj. Fuck the lot of 'em.

You go out and massacre millions of innocent people, ISIS will be the least of your problems.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 23): Actually France was only bombing Iraq a year ago, because the Iraqi government asked for help, while Syria didn't, and Russia would veto any UN resolution (yes, the same Russia now bombing Syria...).

Sure France has, but the US has been striking targets in Syria for a while. Do you think they simply left the ISIS HQ in Raqqa untargeted because the French said maybe we will hit it later in the year? Even sillier would be the suggestion that the US was unaware of the location of ISIS HQ in Raqqa but the French figured it out.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 23): It's very calculated, Syria became a legitimate target for France a few weeks ago, a lot of reconnaissance sorties (and a few bombings) have occurred, and having a list of targets for such a response was planned.

Well a few weeks is actually seven weeks since France started targeting Syrian sites. Claiming that France was building a list of targets to attack, in the event it was required, would be inaccurate at best. Targets are graded on priority. If before Sunday they had identified the ISIS HQ facility and not struck it then there is a reason they didn't. There is no serious threat to French aircraft preventing them from overflying the area so the most likely reason is collateral damage concerns.

I assume this was all Rafale's?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32): A failed state Saudi Arabia... few things are scarier IMO. Probably better to pressure them in the ways we can and be glad they're the lesser evil

And there was $1.29 billion arms deal signed today...

The U.S. State Department has approved the sale of $1.29 billion in smart bombs to Saudi Arabia to help replenish supplies used in its battle against insurgents in Yemen and air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, the Pentagon said on Monday.
Read more at Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0T51NC20151116#7jlyftqpyTQBssRe.99

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39): Now, cultures can be changed. But they can't be changed in five or eight or ten years. It takes a minimum of 20 years and probably more like 50. During that time, it would be necessary to provide every child with food, education, medical care, and other basic necessities. Once two or three generations have gone past with Western education, Western medical care, and Western basic infrastructure, the new secular democratic society might actually take hold. But this is an awesome prospect. Are we willing to take on that sort of project?

It happened in Europe after two world wars... while not exactly comparable, to go from hating each other and warring for decades to the Schengen agreement and shared currency is quite an achievement.

The first two things to do are unilaterally cut off the money by freezing assets and supplies including NATO partners like Turkey and deal with the refugees, and to do that those nations with similar beliefs and cultures right from Turkey through Mauritania through Indonesia and everywhere in between needs to step in and do their bit. Particularly those nearer to home with money to burn building soccer stadiums, artificial resorts and purchasing C17's. If refugees can be properly catered for temporarily and everyone who can get out does, I would even be somewhat OK with letting IS have their caliphate then bombing it on a daily basis and keep bombing the rubble until they are done. The whole area then needs to be divided up like Yugoslavia into proper areas for all the ethnic groups like it should have been 80-90 years ago.

Im sure president Trump will be able to figure it all out  

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 45): I assume this was all Rafale's?

No, split between Rafales and Mirages, I think the numbers were four Rafales and four Mirage 2000s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4HuUjMUcQs

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 45): The U.S. State Department has approved the sale of $1.29 billion in smart bombs to Saudi Arabia to help replenish supplies used in its battle against insurgents in Yemen and air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, the Pentagon said on Monday.

FFS...they just can't find enough reasons to give these double-players money.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 45): The first two things to do are unilaterally cut off the money by freezing assets and supplies including NATO partners like Turkey and deal with the refugees, and to do that those nations with similar beliefs and cultures right from Turkey through Mauritania through Indonesia and everywhere in between needs to step in and do their bit.

This. Tighten the financial reins and ME states with the means to do so will step up their game a lot more. We need stronger, more authoritarian governments in the ME for at least a full generation until this tide has turned.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10): No one cared about collateral damage in Dresden or Nagasaki and it got results, Why not the same for Syria/Iraq??

Dresden Nagasaki/Hiroshima did not bring much if anything to the WWII outcome.
( Converting Belgium into a stony mud bath strewn with bodies didn't achieve anything either.)

( Nagasaki/Hiroshima probably were closer linked to the US showing their brand new hammer to the Soviets  

And a more fitting example would have been the allies bombing Paris or Warsaw to drive out the Germans.
Syria is not ISIS's home. Next best thing to ISIS's home is Saudi Arabia.

Cameron hinting at bombing Syria within days - just needs an excuse now. A "foiled bomb plot" at the ENG v FRA game at Wembley tonight should do the trick.