ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Freakbro said:
I do think we over egg the term "smart weapons" and the pejorative use of "barrel bomb"

A 'barrel bomb' is a metal container with explosives in it....sounds just like any other bomb to me. And until very recently all ordnance was dumb and just dropped out the back of an plane - and tbf, most of it still is.

All this smart technology, which isn't as good as the propaganda would have you believe, is technologically advanced and expensive, so you can hardly condemn most countries for not having it.
Click to expand...
No, but we can condemn most countries for using antiquated, dumb and indiscriminate weapons.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
The RAF have outsourced their bombing of Syria to the Chinese.

Very cost effective and equivalent tech tier to the aging fleet that Crab Air can muster on a goid day.
Click to expand...
My goodness you talk some gumpf. Let me guess, REME? RLC? An ex front line hero who shot his bang bang stick once? It is the usual guff I hear from the lower echelons of the disenfranchised types.
 
xibinim said:
Has DC answered how some rusty GR4s and whatnot are going to suddenly make an impact considering France, American and Russia (who I presume have at least an equal if not vastly superior number of bombers at hand) haven't found a solution after at least a year of bombings?
Click to expand...

They seem to be quite effective in Iraq so far, given the proportion of work done within the coalition.
 
dowie said:
you're linking to a general opinion piece from someone held hostage by them in Syria, I'm not sure that answers the question of whether we've strengthened their resolve as a result of activities carried out so far in Iraq, if anything it has helped make things more difficult for them - just moving around has become incredibly difficult for them, they're ambushed by SF, they're hit with drone strikes, the Kurds are getting training and supplies - there are plenty of reports that it has affected their moral.
Click to expand...

Correct. Our mission objective is to disrupt and degrade ISIL. We have been doing that successfully through air strikes in Iraq, we now need to extend that work into Syria.
 
B&W said:
Then let them happen why wade in and paint ourselves a target?

Isis is goading the west to attack them, this was apparent since they killed the first American hostage. It didn't gain them anything but missiles.

Missiles that took lives, more fuel for there cause.
Click to expand...

The only alternative anyone can seem to offer for the situation is to simply do nothing. For some reason I think that isn't going to work.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Yeah it has been deleted.

Your reply to me was that 'someone else killed all those people' with regards to my statistics of hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents.

I'm not going to reply after this point, because, your in a mindset where you want to see the west as innocent, I get people become patriotic - hell the media is hellbent on 'programming' the public to say what your saying, i.e. anything but the obvious.

But I implor you to think a little more logically here................. I am using Iraq in my examples because were a little further along the timeline there, it is however the same in afgan, syria etc just at different timelines.

In a nutshell:

1) Iraq was led by crazy man Saddam Hussein, not a nice bloke no - HOWEVER because of this Iraq was a relatively stable country, for the people stayed in line and no ISIS/Taliban particularly existed there.

2) Bush/Blairdog made up a story about WMD (tell me, do you honestly believe that as well? despite the whole world laughing at that now)

3) Iraq is invaded, countless innocents die

4) Decade(s) on, the region is unstable, the 'government' there (put in place by the west) is a farce and factually all the oil there is now run and exported by USA businesses, of which some have huge steak holder / owners part owned by......... you guessed it - the Bush family - all facts, go look it up.

5) Invading Iraq has done v v v v little for the locals there, aside from bring a lot of death, sure Hussein was a nutter, many died, but no where near what 'we' have done....................

6) Doing this understandably has caused a lot of eastern folks to hate the west, these folks got a few mates together and they all happen to also be fundamentalist nut jobs - NO im not sympathising :rolleyes: but the west created 'today'.

7) Ask yourself, prior to 9/11 - perhaps the 90's iraq war, was there any 'muslim nutjobs'........... no ? thought so

You said all those deaths were not caused by us - in a nice way I am saying this, but that is gross ignorance on a massive scale. SURE not every single death...........but MOST are caused as a DIRECT result of the war there........a lot of people die stepping on mines and IED's or caught in cross fire - had WE not invaded, they wouldnt be there, however here is a singular case example of 17 dead from airstrikes in Mosul:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/a1175

Feel free to browse the database..........The ignorance of people saying 'oh our bombs are so smart they will never hit anyone innocent' is just........beyond ignorance that past me making this informative post, I CBA to reply to - because you will come up with some weird and crazy reply ignoring the fact that dropping bombs even 'smart ones' is ....... as designed..........damn deadly, how come those 17 above died on the 28th Feb this year, 2015 ? why is bombing STILL going on in 2015 in Iraq?

Apply this to Afgan, and Syria and its the same..... the USA wants regime change in Syria for the same reason - oil.
Click to expand...

I've studied that page countless times years ago. Your own link shows a graph that when clicked you can differentiate between coalition forces and unknown forces causing the casualties. Your own link shows that a tiny portion of those deaths were attributed to coalition intervention. Further, you cannot say how many deaths would have occurred in already war torn Iraq without any intervention. You're working off a lot of bias presumption and misinterpretation of data.

It also bothers me that so many people judge Blair and Bush as being murderous vile leaders, yet oh it's fine that saddam went on as he did because "he kept the peace". Hypocrisy, it's a common trait in people of similar mindsets.

You evidently have no comprehension of the situation in Iraq, pre and post gulf war.
 
fs123 said:
I fully expect ISIS to retaliate after we start bombing them. Those who support this bombing campaign will be responsible when something like the Paris attacks happens soon.
Click to expand...

Those who support the bombing will be responsible when something happens soon? What utter dross.

You're already a prime target. They want you to die.

Furthermore, by bombing key members in Syria already, we have averted threats.
 
I think people don't realise the impact of having just a few extra aircraft means. By providing extra 'CAPs' it either relieves the demand on the rest of the coalition to provide them or it means they can spread more of them over a greater area. An aircraft CAP is a large area and they will maintain it until called in on a strike. Further, we can pick up several deliberate targets instead. The US isn't sending swathes of planes as if it was the film independence day or something. I think some people over estimate things somewhat.

Belgium have a small offering yet their F16s having been doing a lot of effective work.
 
We just can't compare the two theaters. Yes, some lessons were identified during HERRICK that have been translated to Ops on SHADER but comparatively, as battle spaces, they are completely different.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Well answer me this:

Do you think it's ethically and morally acceptable for America (and the west) to continue drone strikes in Syria when even the yanks themselves have admitted that 90% of those killed are the unattended targets (many of which are undoubtedly totally innocent) ??
Source = http://www.ibtimes.com/nearly-90-th...tended-targets-during-five-month-span-2142183

The amount of ISIL fighters is roughly the same compared to before the west started bombing them (20,000 to 30,000) EVEN after having killed 20,000 of them!! These figures strongly suggest that simply bombing them with this sort of collateral damage is counter-productive at worse and completely ineffective at best!!
Click to expand...

This stat has already been discussed to death as being misinterpreted and thus misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom