U.S. Airstrikes Destroy Millions In ISIS Currency Holdings - Polidicks

[quote] Washington (CNN)In an extremely unusual airstrike, the U.S. dropped bombs Sunday in central Mosul, Iraq, destroying a building containing huge amounts of cash ISIS was using to pay its troops and for ongoing operations, two U.S. defense officials told CNN. The officials could not say exactly how much money was there or in what currency, but one described it as "millions." Officials would not say how the U.S. learned of the location. But after getting intelligence about the so-called "cash collection and distribution point," U.S. aircraft and drones watched the site for days trying to determine when the fewest number of civilians would be in the area. [/quote] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/us-bombs-millions-isis-currency-supply/[/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/us-led-coalition-air-strike-destroys-islamic-state-cash-storage-site-in-mosul[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cash-idUSKCN0UQ13V20160112[/url] video in third source

Bad things tend to happen to those who don't pay their soldiers.

I hope they used incendiary bombs, I doubt explosives alone will destroy all of the notes.

That's a fine idea

so there going to destroy there cash because if they can't pay there soldiers there army will fall aprat

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49516653]so there going to destroy there cash because if they can't pay there soldiers there army will fall aprat[/QUOTE] A lot of locals have found a haven in ISIS because they provide jobs. This will surely disrupt that.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49516653]so there going to destroy there cash because if they can't pay there soldiers there army will fall aprat[/QUOTE] Sort of. As long as ISIS maintains control over their internal economy and provides rewards to their soldiers they will still be able to stay in power. They do a crude form of taxation on the peoples they rule over in the Islamic State, which is one of their main sources of revenue. Destroying this will have a big impact on their ability to buy materials, fund their army, and prosecute the war, but ultimately as long as they still have control over key cities and their populations it will be hard to get rid of them entirely.

[QUOTE]U.S. aircraft and drones watched the site for days trying to determine when the fewest number of civilians would be in the area.[/QUOTE] fucking grim

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49516678]Sort of. As long as ISIS maintains control over their internal economy and provides rewards to their soldiers they will still be able to stay in power. They do a crude form of taxation on the peoples they rule over in the Islamic State, which is one of their main sources of revenue. Destroying this will have a big impact on their ability to buy materials, fund their army, and prosecute the war, but ultimately as long as they still have control over key cities and their populations it will be hard to get rid of them entirely.[/QUOTE] oh so at worse this is a minor inconvenience for them?

[QUOTE=OneFourth;49517093]fucking grim[/QUOTE] In the video, they said they would accept up to "50 casualties" in order to hit this. Poor people.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49517378]oh so at worse this is a minor inconvenience for them?[/QUOTE] We're not going to win the whole thing in one single air strike. Every bit counts, every bit hurts, no matter how big or how small the damage.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49517501]We're not going to win the whole thing in one single air strike. Every bit counts, every bit hurts, no matter how big or how small the damage.[/QUOTE] Civilian casualties are never exceptable.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49517378]oh so at worse this is a minor inconvenience for them?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say minor, they are still losing resources.

If the strike is able to get rid of ISIS sooner then you have to consider how many people/regions this potentially saves. Just making a blanket statement like [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] is blind unrealistic idealism.

Surely if its cash you could airdrop flyers 30mins before? Couldn't move the money out in time.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] Acceptable, no. Necessary, sometimes. War is a callous and unforgiving affair, particularly when facing an opponent that embeds itself into the civilian populace.

[QUOTE=Occlusion;49518008]Surely if its cash you could airdrop flyers 30mins before? Couldn't move the money out in time.[/QUOTE] "Hmm, flyers warning the population about an imminent bombing, obviously they're trying to decrease civilian casualties, well then let's just pile our important buildings with civilians."

[QUOTE=Occlusion;49518008]Surely if its cash you could airdrop flyers 30mins before? Couldn't move the money out in time.[/QUOTE] It said the strike happened at night, when all that was suppose to be there was ISIS personnel anyway. I don't know that anti air capability of ISIS but I don't think you would like to announce that a plane was going to be overhead within a short time period. And even if that isn't a problem you still might have ISIS mobilize civilians to use as human shields. They are actively using children to shield themselves from air strikes. [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-children-human-shields-iraq-syria-us-airstrikes-civilian-casualties/[/url]

[QUOTE=Thlis;49517983]If the strike is able to get rid of ISIS sooner then you have to consider how many people/regions this potentially saves. Just making a blanket statement like is blind unrealistic idealism.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but then you enter the realm of possibilities. Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It might have saved a lot of american lives, but how many civilian casualties did we take to end the war? Killing civilians is a decision one should never take lightly, or you risk becoming the monsters you grabbed arms to fight.

[QUOTE=Feuver;49518078]Yeah, but then you enter the realm of possibilities. Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It might have saved a lot of american lives, but how many civilian casualties did we take to end the war? Killing civilians is a decision one should never take lightly, or you risk becoming the monsters you grabbed arms to fight.[/QUOTE] No one here said civilians should be bombed on a whim. The whole operation to bomb the bank was based around minimizing civilian casualtys.

Wouldn't it be more effective to drop millions or billions in counterfeit ISIS currency? Or are we not yet able to realistically forge their bills yet?

[QUOTE=Perrine;49516599][url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/us-bombs-millions-isis-currency-supply/[/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/us-led-coalition-air-strike-destroys-islamic-state-cash-storage-site-in-mosul[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cash-idUSKCN0UQ13V20160112[/url] video in third source[/QUOTE] Wait so ISIS pays their troops but also burns them when they don't fight?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] I'm not one to discount the weight of civilian casualties but really, what else is there to do? Should we throw a pool party for civilians only and hope that lures them out of the strike zone? [editline]13th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Kent_;49518250]Wouldn't it be more effective to drop millions or billions in counterfeit ISIS currency? Or are we not yet able to realistically forge their bills yet?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure ISIS is just using local currency and/or USD, so I don't think flooding the market with counterfeits of existing, semi-stable currencies is a good idea.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] I am glad people like you are not running with that decision. Though civilian life should be respected at all times, it should not get in the way of the overall objective. If the objective costs too high in comparison to the result, then it should be avoided. It truly haunts me in how some people think but that makes this sick world beautiful.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;49516610]Bad things tend to happen to those who don't pay their soldiers.[/QUOTE] I find this statement ironic considering how much both Canada and the States shafted their disabled veterans in the last decade. [quote]I'm not one to discount the weight of civilian casualties but really, what else is there to do? Should we throw a pool party for civilians only and hope that lures them out of the strike zone? [/quote] Collateral damage is one of the major reasons why ISIS even exists. Any civilian casualties are fuel to their cause.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] If you are a law enforcement operating in a first world country during peace time. Unfortunately, this this is a military body operating in a combat zone. [QUOTE=Feuver;49518078]Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima?[/QUOTE] Total war is a completely different beat, and those cities were chosen because of their military and industrial significance. Hiroshima for example, housed the command center that coordinated the defenses of all of southern Japan; Nagasaki was a major port city and contained a number of ordnance factories, etc.

I agree with CISC. The perspective I take on civilian casualties is how many American civilian casualties would we be okay with? At least 120 people were killed in France due to the bombing attacks. Take a wild guess how many civilians we killed in response? I hate to do this but if we are to remember 9/11 and respect human life we should be mortified at how we caused ~45 times the civilian deaths in Iraq, and people like Ted Cruz being more than ready to carpet bomb civilians is disgusting as wanting to carpet bomb an American city.

[QUOTE=Feuver;49518078]Yeah, but then you enter the realm of possibilities. Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It might have saved a lot of american lives, but how many civilian casualties did we take to end the war?[/QUOTE] we saved a few million american lives and a lot more japanese lives, so yeah

[QUOTE=Feuver;49518078]Yeah, but then you enter the realm of possibilities. Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It might have saved a lot of american lives, but how many civilian casualties did we take to end the war? Killing civilians is a decision one should never take lightly, or you risk becoming the monsters you grabbed arms to fight.[/QUOTE] I don't know why you used the nukes as examples when the firebombing of Tokyo had far more casualties then both combined

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49517910]Civilian casualties are never exceptable.[/QUOTE] Exceptable or acceptable? This beat-to-death argument keeps coming up but I'll humour you. It's easy enough for you to say that they're never acceptable, but where there's war, there are civilian deaths no matter how much care the belligerents take to avoid them - and in this case, they'd be happening either way. Want to prevent civilian deaths? Stop war. How do you stop war? [editline]13th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Feuver;49518078]Yeah, but then you enter the realm of possibilities. Did we need to nuke both Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It might have saved a lot of american lives, but how many civilian casualties did we take to end the war? Killing civilians is a decision one should never take lightly, or you risk becoming the monsters you grabbed arms to fight.[/QUOTE] There'd have been a lot more death if not for the nukes - fighting over Okinawa or Guadalcanal is one thing, but fighting for their homeland? A lot of people who would otherwise be civilians would have been dragged in to, if not eager to join in the defence, and that's just Japanese lives - not to mention the damage to infrastructure that would've occurred plus economic effects