Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

France launches airstrike on ISIS stronghold of Raqqa

2

Comments

  • #52
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


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

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


  • #53
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    the groutch wrote: »
    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."



  • #54
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,782 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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.


  • #55
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    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.


  • #56
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    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."



  • #57
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    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)


  • #58
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    StringerBell wrote: »
    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.


  • #59
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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'.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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
  • #61
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Interesting map of ISIS controlled areas https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zDzQXfEc6tT8.k5aa_iAge_9E&hl=en_US


  • #62
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Drake Wide Ump wrote: »
    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.
    That sounds like a great idea, on face value. And I'm not saying that in a snide, sarcastic way... it genuinely does.

    But then the question is, what comes next? Because sadly, that type of action has only made the underlying issues worse when used before.


  • #63
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    No point sticking thousands of western troops in Iraq, the last time was against a mechanised army - which is easy to deal with. The members of IS are much more like a large guerilla group. Countless small units who are highly mobile and hard to get at. It would be massively inefficient.

    The west needs to be a bit more clever - back the Kurds in the north for example, cut off the supply line across the Turkish border and so on.


  • #64
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Billy86 wrote: »
    That sounds like a great idea, on face value. And I'm not saying that in a snide, sarcastic way... it genuinely does.

    But then the question is, what comes next? Because sadly, that type of action has only made the underlying issues worse when used before.

    But before, wasn't it different? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were politically motivated and terrorist targets were hiding among civilians. ISIS don't seem to be. They move into an area and take it over. If you're not with them, they kill you!


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Billy86 wrote: »
    That sounds like a great idea, on face value. And I'm not saying that in a snide, sarcastic way... it genuinely does.

    But then the question is, what comes next? Because sadly, that type of action has only made the underlying issues worse when used before.

    This is different though in that its not a country of government that's being fought against its a very large group of terrorists who are gradually taking control of more and more places. They simply have to be stopped and the only way to do that is military action they don't do reason or negotiation.

    If they are just left they will just get stronger and stronger.


  • #66
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    ISIS definitely acts like a country though, with governmental organisations, cities, bureaucrats,...

    They're not hiding in mountains.

    If they truly believe in what they say they won't wage a guerilla war. They want the West ('Rome' as they call it) to send in troops as they believe that a final battle will be waged in northern Syria, to herald the apocalypse.

    It of course remains to be seen if the truly believe this.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    AlanG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭AlanG


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    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.

    Lots of wrong info, do some research.
    Iran didn't invade Kuwait. The invasion of Afghanistan was never put down to WMD's. It was always because the recognised government of the country was sheltering Saudi and other terrorists who carried out a major attack on a NATO power.


  • #68
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Drake Wide Ump wrote: »
    This is different though in that its not a country of government that's being fought against its a very large group of terrorists.
    Large enough to constitute a 'nation' of sorts, at 200,000+ members. If you wipe them out in a similar manner, you will radicalise a lot of other people from around the world, and they will come back stronger and more determined than last time. There's no quick fix to the mess that has been created in the middle east, and that's what is so tricky about it; it's quite possibly the most complicated issue in the history of human existence.


  • #69
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    ISIS definitely acts like a country though, with governmental organisations, cities, bureaucrats,...

    They're not hiding in mountains.

    If they truly believe in what they say they won't wage a guerilla war. They want the West ('Rome' as they call it) to send in troops as they believe that a final battle will be waged in northern Syria, to herald the apocalypse.

    It of course remains to be seen if the truly believe this.

    Everything we know about them suggests they do and are following their path faithfully. They cannot fight guerilla warfare, the caliphate becomes illegitimate if it is not maintained and indeed expanded, they must continue to wage war also. Temporary treaties are allowed, but war must be made with at least one enemy at all times, or again the caliphate becomes illegitimate.

    Going in hard, troops on the ground and blowing the **** out of them would work in the short term imo as I have said but I don't think it the best solution long term.

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



  • #70
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    Gods Speed to them



  • #71
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    StringerBell wrote: »
    Everything we know about them suggests they do and are following their path faithfully. They cannot fight guerilla warfare, the caliphate becomes illegitimate if it is not maintained and indeed expanded, they must continue to wage war also. Temporary treaties are allowed, but war must be made with at least one enemy at all times, or again the caliphate becomes illegitimate.

    Going in hard, troops on the ground and blowing the **** out of them would work in the short term imo as I have said but I don't think it the best solution long term.

    True, the long term solution is the issue here, as in the short term I am confident that ISIS can be defeated.

    If people want to read up more on ISIS and why they are not just another guerilla terrorist group:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Jelle1880 wrote:
    If they truly believe in what they say they won't wage a guerilla war. They want the West ('Rome' as they call it) to send in troops as they believe that a final battle will be waged in northern Syria, to herald the apocalypse.


    How about we just give them the apocalypse now. Raze any ISIS areas to the ground.


  • #73
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    True, the long term solution is the issue here, as in the short term I am confident that ISIS can be defeated.

    If people want to read up more on ISIS and why they are not just another guerilla terrorist group:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    Yes I have read it, very good article. Long but very informative and well worth the read.

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



  • #74
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    So why wasn't this target destroyed prior to the paris attack? was it a strategic part of Americas' war against assad?? and then handed over the the french to destroy as a token gesture?


  • #75
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    So why wasn't this target destroyed prior to the paris attack? was it a strategic part of Americas' war against assad?? and then handed over the the french to destroy as a token gesture?

    Most likely the targets were already known, they just allowed the French to bomb them as a French operation, sort of a token gesture.

    I believe they did the same after Charlie Hebdo.


  • #76
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Last night was just another in a long line of French air strikes against ISIS. It's just sensationalized in the media because it came 2 days after "The Friday the 13th attacks" as I believe it's being christened.

    People in this thread who think France should or even could now just turn the other cheek, call their fighter jets home and walk away from this are off their heads. What World do ye live in? You could possibly say that they should have continued the stance of then President Jacques Chirac of opposing the Iraqi invasion of 2003 and stayed away from it - he even objected to the use of the word "war" after 9/11 - but it's too late now to re-follow his policies.

    They're in it now, they have to been seen by both the French public and ISIS to act and they have to take these bastards out however long it takes and through a combination of methods, forceful methods like last night, and the more tactical methods put forward by Obama and John Kerry!


  • #77
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    france's biggest threat is france though...


  • #78
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,140 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    People in this thread who think France should or even could now just turn the other cheek, call their fighter jets home and walk away from this are off their heads.

    they aren't. france probably aren't helping. russia should be left to get on with it
    Laois_Man wrote: »
    What World do ye live in?

    the real one i should imagine, its the only world

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #79
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    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.

    People like you and me.

    Think of the cheap fuel stations that used to be on the border on a much larger scale. There's always somebody looking to make our save a buck regardless of the ethical origins of the product.


  • #80
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    the airstrikes are akin to getting a big guy to hold a school bullys arms and allowing the victim to smack him round a bit to get let his anger out


  • #81
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    stefanovich wrote: »
    How about we just give them the apocalypse now. Raze any ISIS areas to the ground.

    Notwithstanding that innocents there would probably suffer, Is there an argument to let anyone wanting to travel there and live in their medieval caliphate travel. Why keep them "here" seems to be encouraging lone wolves.

    Contain it, bomb and starve it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Or play them at their own game: allow any who wish to travel to Syria to do so, release some highly contagious pathogens on the flights and let disease do the dirty work?


  • #83
    StringerBell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,203 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Or play them at their own game: allow any who wish to travel to Syria to do so, release some highly contagious pathogens on the flights and let disease do the dirty work?

    I think there is a phrase for that, something along the lines of A Crime Against Humanity?

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



  • #84
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Or play them at their own game: allow any who wish to travel to Syria to do so, release some highly contagious pathogens on the flights and let disease do the dirty work?
    And good for the rest of us that diseases respect national borders, because otherwise releasing very contagious and dangerous chemicals and diseases into a country where people are fleeing in their droves could really come back to bite Europe in the ass.

    That and the fact it's just a disgusting idea.


  • #85
    Orangebrigade
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭Orangebrigade


    The biggest threat to France is the people already in France who are Islamists.


  • #86
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    end of the road wrote: »
    they aren't. france probably aren't helping. russia should be left to get on with it

    Russia were attacked by ISIS on October 31st via Egypt. Why is it OK for Russia to retaliate but not France?

    And why ignore that last night's air strikes, although physically performed by France for diplomatic and other reasons, were carried out also by other nations?


    end of the road wrote: »
    the real one i should imagine, its the only world

    Unfortunately, some seem to life an in alternative fantasy World where realism can be absent


  • #87
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Or play them at their own game: allow any who wish to travel to Syria to do so, release some highly contagious pathogens on the flights and let disease do the dirty work?

    Thats heinous, unethical in the extreme


  • #88
    Orangebrigade
    Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭Orangebrigade


    Cut off the funding which is oil and hammer Raaqa and support the Kurds to clean up after them.


  • #89
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Russia were attacked by ISIS on October 31st via Egypt. Why is it OK for Russia to retaliate but not France?

    And why ignore that last night's air strikes, although physically performed by France for diplomatic and other reasons, were carried out also by other nations?





    Unfortunately, some seem to life an in alternative fantasy World where realism can be absent
    Russia seem to have a plan and i saw no talk of retalliation from Russia. The french strike was a retalliation, because it essentially america going "hey france...you can strike this spot here that we've been minding all year if it makes you feel better"


  • #90
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Russia seem to have a plan and i saw no talk of retalliation from Russia. The french strike was a retalliation, because it essentially america going "hey france...you can strike this spot here that we've been minding all year if it makes you feel better"

    http://dcwhispers.com/russias-putin-issues-order-on-isis-annihilate-them/


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Most likely the targets were already known, they just allowed the French to bomb them as a French operation, sort of a token gesture.

    I believe they did the same after Charlie Hebdo.

    They did the same for Jordan too after ISIS executed their shot down pilot by burning him alive.


  • #92
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,752 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    A group of civilians in Raqqa known as Raqqa is being slowly slaughtered gave the targets to be hit.

    Meanwhile in defiance, ISIS released a video saying France and it's allies wil be attacked and that Washington will be attacked just like Paris was.


  • #93
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    StringerBell wrote: »
    I think there is a phrase for that, something along the lines of A Crime Against Humanity?
    Meh, when your opponent doesn't recognise the Geneva Convention, I see no reason to stick to it yourself.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    And good for the rest of us that diseases respect national borders, because otherwise releasing very contagious and dangerous chemicals and diseases into a country where people are fleeing in their droves could really come back to bite Europe in the ass.

    That and the fact it's just a disgusting idea.
    Nothing stopping us from inoculating our own population against it first and / or trusting our medical services to be able to better deal with a disease we know we're about to unleash than those of ISIS.
    wakka12 wrote: »
    Thats heinous, unethical in the extreme
    Is it? You don't bring a knife to a gunfight and you'll get beaten to a pulp if you tried sticking to the Marquis of Queensbury rules in a street fight. This isn't a border dispute.


  • #94
    6781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭6781


    Those targets would have been bombed yesterday by the west collectively even if the attacks in Paris hadn't happened. It's because of the Paris attacks France was given the lead to show that action is been taken.


  • #95
    Irelandcool
    Registered Users Posts: 266 ✭✭Irelandcool


    Problems is ISIS engages in a lot of slavery, hostage taking and they're many innocent people that're likey hiding from ISIS as best they can. These strikes could easily kill them unlike just using ground forces who should easily differentiate between innocent or ISIS.

    Of course ISIS is more complicated then Nazi Germany given they likely have sleeper cells and sympathizers world wide (possibly even Ireland but the government has the attitude that nothing like this can happen in Ireland).
    like the one we've seen in Paris.

    They need to locate these first (I mean the NSA knows what porn you're looking up surely they can track down ISIS, given all the twitter accounts and facebook accounts belonging to ISIS it shouldn't be hard at all). Preferable then arrest and gain more intelligence.

    By the way I am more for special forces and commandoes going in to get the leaders then drones or airstrikes which could possible kill more innocent rather then just the terrorist.

    In my view what ISIS is ultimately trying to do in europe is create sectarian violence between the more radical christian parts of europe and the radical islamic parts in europe. Like say if after the paris attacks some random white supremist or christian extremist group attacks a mosque and then the more radical islamics strike back. Kinda like in Northern Ireland but possibly more on a grandeur scale.

    (note I realize not all the christians and muslims are terrorists just saying that they're people of both sides with extreme hatred and have mindset capable of these atrocities).


  • #96
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Irelandcool wrote: »
    I mean the NSA knows what porn you're looking up surely they can track down ISIS, given all the twitter accounts and facebook accounts belonging to ISIS it shouldn't be hard at all

    Wasn't there reports that terrorists moved to methods like snapchat because it's hard to track and very secure?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    smash wrote: »
    Wasn't there reports that terrorists moved to methods like snapchat because it's hard to track and very secure?

    Read somewhere this morning, online gaming and encrypted chat rooms is where it's at, according to some security "experts", even writing messages on walls with bullets!


  • #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Or play them at their own game: allow any who wish to travel to Syria to do so, release some highly contagious pathogens on the flights and let disease do the dirty work?

    Be easier to just nuke Syria if you were going down that road.


  • #99
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,140 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Meh, when your opponent doesn't recognise the Geneva Convention, I see no reason to stick to it yourself.

    because its your job. if you don't, then you condone and legitimize your opponent, and you don't get to complain about their actions or be all high and mighty.
    Sleepy wrote: »
    Nothing stopping us from inoculating our own population against it first and / or trusting our medical services to be able to better deal with a disease we know we're about to unleash than those of ISIS.

    its a bollox idea. thats the end of it

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #100
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Russia seem to have a plan and i saw no talk of retalliation from Russia. The french strike was a retalliation, because it essentially america going "hey france...you can strike this spot here that we've been minding all year if it makes you feel better"

    Why are you talking as if France weren't involved in airstrikes in Syria before this weekend. Last night was their third separate attack in Syria in a week alone (France launched airstrikes last Tuesday and the previous Sunday).

    Conversely. Russia have launched airstrikes since their airliner was blown up/shot down. Why should you get to choose which are to be labelled "Retaliation" and which one's are part of a brilliant plan.


  • #101
    Jamsiek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Jamsiek


    end of the road wrote: »
    because its your job. if you don't, then you condone and legitimize your opponent, and you don't get to complain about their actions or be all high and mighty.
    ...but your heroes in the IRA never stuck to the Geneva Convention either :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement