Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

France launches airstrike on ISIS stronghold of Raqqa

24

Comments



  • No civilian casualties, a major training camp for evil murderers destroyed. Perfect outcome. Cue the bleeding heart outrage that believes that all ISIS really need is a big squishy hug.




  • Should have nuked the place.




  • They should drop dizzy bombs. They spin everyone around really fast and then they won't know which way to face when they pray towards Mecca and Allah won't hear them anymore.

    Or Jagerbombs. Operation Get ISIS Pissed.




  • Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. An invasion would more then likely result in victory in the short term, but who knows how bad another botched American invasion of the Middle East would be, IS grew in the vacuum created by the last botched military offensive in Iraq!

    An invasion would be a fantastic recruitment video for Muslim extremists worldwide and would not solve the problem in the long run I feel, the Kurds and others on the ground fighting IS can (with support) stop the caliphate expanding, which is what it must do and every month that it does not expand it becomes less the conquering state of the Prophet and more just another Middle Eastern state that fails its people. Weakening it considerably till it eventually eats itself alive.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."





  • Context;
    US and Allies back Iraq against Iran.
    Iran wins. Invades Kuwait.
    US and Allies invade Iraq. Withdraw. Sanctions kill millions aided by corrupt and brutal dictator.
    Saudi Arabian terrorists plan and carry out 911.
    US invades Afghanistan and Iraq? ? Why. Oh WMDs. We-Made-Des up.
    US deposes Saddam. Instals puppet government, withdraws. Puppet government falls. ISIS (Sunni radicals created by 20 years of sanctions and bombings ) step in. These ****ers are super crazy. London, Madrid and Paris bombings.
    Reaction Options;

    1. Keep dropping bombs creating newer crazier suicide bombers. Ask Israel how that tactic's going...

    2. Stop. Stop the cycle of violence. Stop dropping bombs on people, and calling them collateral damage. Stop dropping bombs on schools and calling them terrorist training camps. Stop feeding the fear-mongering and hate-whoring. Stop listening and cheering idiots and bigots who talk about bombing people and pretend that is justified, on any side. Nothing. Nothing ever justifies murder.

    This has happened before in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Africa, and through recorded history when a colonial power swept in with breathtaking arrogance believing it was civilised, and right and rigeous and divine. Just stop. Every penny spent on bombs and guns and walls and hate could be spent on homelessness and addiction and clean water and sanitation and love, which is free.

    Every war torn generation learns on the battlefield that both sides in every conflict are wrong. And their grandchildren forget until they learn again in the mud, in a war, for nothing except some other ****ers opinion.

    Do some research. Your timeline/facts are wrong.


  • Advertisement


  • Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. An invasion would more then likely result in victory in the short term, but who knows how bad another botched American invasion of the Middle East would be, IS grew in the vacuum created by the last botched military offensive in Iraq!

    An invasion would be a fantastic recruitment video for Muslim extremists worldwide and would not solve the problem in the long run I feel, the Kurds and others on the ground fighting IS can (with support) stop the caliphate expanding, which is what it must do and every month that it does not expand it becomes less the conquering state of the Prophet and more just another Middle Eastern state that fails its people. Weakening it considerably till it eventually eats itself alive.

    The boots on the ground will probably be Egyptian, Lebanese and Iraqi rather than American, British and French.

    The public don't have the stomach for an invasion.




  • Not sure they will either though, I don't simply mean reclaiming the lands they lost (as they have in Sinjar) I mean driving them back and chasing them underground like cockroaches the same way Al-Queda work, thankfully they really don't get along or we would be facing an enemy like nothing seen before.

    Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."





  • I would say nothing. ISIS came out of the vacuum of the Yanks overthrowing a government and walking out leaving ISIS to step into the vacuum fueled by radicals galvanised by the bombing.

    ISIS existed in 1999, 4 years before the invasion of Iraq. It was founded as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, by a Jordanian man in Jordan, not Iraq. They entered Iraq before the anticipated invasion in 2003.

    They then pledged their allegiance to Bin Laden in October 2004.

    The thing is, Saddam probably wold have been removed anyway because the Arab Spring is a movement for democracy in the Arab world and Saddam had a lot of enemies in his own country, but he kept them in check through oppression and fear.

    Iraq is just mess of a country:

    • Shia Muslims make up 65% -70% of the Muslims in Iraq and they hated Saddam because he oppressed them.
    • Sunni Muslims make up 20% - 25% and who knows how many of them side with Saddam secularism or fundamental Islam.
    • Kurds in the north hated Saddam for well-documented reasons.

    With all of the religious and ethnic division within Iraq, civil war would have broken out if his enemies banded together to remove him, and then his enemies would fight each other over age-old sectarian hated for one another, which has been happening since 2003. Unfortunately, it's very possible the NATO, or just America, would have got involved in Iraq in this hypothetical scenario for the same reasons why they invaded in March 2003.

    Iraq should have never created in the first place when the British and the French were carving up the Ottoman Empire (which was previous caliphate, like ISIS and the Taliban). They grouped together two different sects of Islam that have despised each for centuries and the tension between them was exacerbated by Saddam oppression of the Shia.

    It's Islam that created these caliphates, not the West. What ISIS are doing today isn't much different to what Muhammad done in the 7th century and Islam portrays Muhammad as the perfect Muslim.




  • ISIS (Sunni radicals created by 20 years of sanctions and bombings ) step in. These ****ers are super crazy. London, Madrid and Paris bombings.

    This is false. Read my last post about the origin of ISIS.




  • An eye for an eye and the whole world will soon be blind.


  • Advertisement


  • The sooner this crowd of lunatics are shut down the better.

    Let's worry about Islamic State first :pac:




  • Who is funding Isis, the IS isn't surviving on trade and industry, so someone is pumping money into it? Sanctions against the support-states would be as effective as bombs.




  • Dubl07 wrote: »
    Daesh doesn't do diplomacy. Hollande is justified in authorising scorched earth in these circumstances.

    Hollande, like presidents of all the Western countries, is just a puppet being advised behind the scenes by far more experienced people. You can rest assured this attack is a calculated move and not just a knee-jerk reaction from one man.




  • Have they given any estimation of how many people were killed?




  • Not sure they will either though, I don't simply mean reclaiming the lands they lost (as they have in Sinjar) I mean driving them back and chasing them underground like cockroaches the same way Al-Queda work, thankfully they really don't get along or we would be facing an enemy like nothing seen before.

    Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.

    Wow, you're so insightful!
    .....oh hang on, you're not..you're just copying and pasting from other people's work and trying to pass it off as your own to try and look smert... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/




  • Will there be a minute's silence for the innocent civilians that are killed by these airstrikes?




  • Will there be a minute's silence for the innocent civilians that are killed by these airstrikes?
    Are there really any innocent civilians in the ISIS occupied territories though? I'm of the impression that they've already been killed by ISIS or have fled.

    ISI are a cancer. Move in, take over and either assimilate or wipe out.




  • Ace2007 wrote: »
    How many innocent lives in your opinion, are acceptable to die to go after these people?

    Its worth remembering that the attacks in Paris were not against political, military, or police targets. But were attacks on civilians at a sporting event, a music concert, and civilians out dining.

    Raqqa is pretty much the capital of the Islamic state, and even though I would prefer not a single civilian is killed in these airstrikes, I will just see any killed as an unfortunate casualty of war against the most evil group of people since the Nazis.

    But hopefully the airstrikes will only kill Islamic state fighters.




  • Ace2007 wrote: »
    But isn't that what ISIS want, France and the other super powers now going all in guns blazing, which will inevitable mean innocent people will die, french etc won't give a sh!t, the result is more people with turn to the ISIS way of thinking.

    Hollande said early on this was a war, when it was just an attack, Hollande can't protect his people, and they are causing more harm than good with the latest bombings.

    Is this intelligence new, or is it just a revenge attack.

    The attacks were already planned by the coallition, it was just that after Paris they let France carry them out by itself under the French flag.

    As for people joining ISIS due to this: I highly doubt that bombs will make them join ISIS. Maybe some of the rebels in the area, but not ISIS. Unless they already liked ISIS before these bombs fell, in which case they made a choice and can deal with the consequences.




  • smokingman wrote: »
    Wow, you're so insightful!
    .....oh hang on, you're not..you're just copying and pasting from other people's work and trying to pass it off as your own to try and look smert... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    Well, yes, at 4am I find copy/paste is a lot easier then having to type, I apologise for offending you. You might notice I included quotes in the other thread. Pretty sure I wrote most of the posts, until I got tired and took the easier option since they made the point quite well. Or had to respond to someone who was quoting from elsewhere to me

    Its actually a great article, did you read it?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement


  • TheBully wrote: »
    I think UL find airstrikes are much more effective

    I don't think Limerick has much of a say on the matter.




  • Will there be a minute's silence for the innocent civilians that are killed by these airstrikes?

    Which innocent civilians? I don't think there was any unless I am mistaken, didn't they say they hit the military targets bang on, no civilians harmed?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."





  • Pretty stupid.

    People bomb Paris so the French drop large bombs on Civilians.

    Pretty much a rallying cry for ISIS.

    So whats the reaction?

    I would say nothing. ISIS came out of the vacuum of the Yanks overthrowing a government and walking out leaving ISIS to step into the vacuum fueled by radicals galvanised by the bombing.

    The West can claim no moral superiority until it exhibits some. Killing civilians wont bring back the dead.

    Any "civilian" that stands around cheering while people are burning alive in a cage, being drowned while shackled together, being ran over by a tank, beheaded, stoned or any other tortuous death you can think of are more than fair game as far as I'm concerned.




  • I'll never understand how people see what the Americans did in Iraq, and therefore think it's ok to just let ISIS be at peace.

    Yes, the West's intervention ****ed things up. No, that doesn't mean ISIS should just left to it's own devices.

    I just wish that they would look further than just bombing those bastards. Go after the money that funds them.




  • Going after the money would pose some big problems though considering the likelihood a hell of a lot of funding would have come from American "allies", and probably helped by Americans too

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."





  • looksee wrote: »
    Who is funding Isis, the IS isn't surviving on trade and industry, so someone is pumping money into it? Sanctions against the support-states would be as effective as bombs.

    Saudi Arabia Israel. (nah only joking, its Saudi)




  • Going after the money would pose some big problems though considering the likelihood a hell of a lot of funding would have come from American "allies", and probably helped by Americans too

    It sure as hell will save a lot more lives though.

    About time the world stood up against the Saudi's for starters. Sadly enough the world leaders that condemn ISIS are more than happy to pose for pictures with Saudi royalty.




  • shaunn wrote: »
    +1 on that. The world is becoming a warzone, and WW3 is going to occur sooner or later if they're not stopped; but Francois Hollande stated that France are at war.

    70 odd years people have been saying this, so I'd say it's already 'later'.




  • You would have to wonder at people coming out against these air strikes. Do they want to leave ISIS to build their army, to train and be even better prepared when down the line after many more terrorist attacks they really really have to go and attack them anyway as things have gotten so bad.

    More airstrikes are needed but whats really needed is troops on the ground, go in wipe out as much of ISIS as possible absolutely blitz them from all sides with a multi-nation attack.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement