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

France launches airstrike on ISIS stronghold of Raqqa

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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!


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #67
    AlanG
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #69
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,088 ✭✭✭✭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."



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


    Gods Speed to them



  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #72
    stefanovich
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #73
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,088 ✭✭✭✭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."



  • Options
    #74
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #76
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users 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!


  • Options
    #77
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    france's biggest threat is france though...


  • Options
    #78
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,002 ✭✭✭✭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

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #80
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #82
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,173 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #83
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,088 ✭✭✭✭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."



  • Options
    #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.


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


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


  • Options
    #86
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #87
    wakka12
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #89
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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"


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #91
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users 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.


Advertisement