[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49123636]I'm gonna go offtrack and say, I fucking really hate people like that in threads like this. People who are like "THIS IS BAD..AND UH EVIL...AND WE UH SHOULDN'T UH DO IT UH..."
And they never offer afterwards a better, agreeable, [b]REALISTIC[/b] solution to problems.
Civilians dying will always be a part of war, whether both sides condone it or not. It's reality.
[editline]15th November 2015[/editline]
I mean I agree, the deaths of civilians is fucking sad, but if you're not offering a good solution to this problem, then all you're doing is sitting and bitching about it.[/QUOTE]
It's strange that people who support the french bombing of Raqqa and use the logic quoted are the same people who shit on Israel for bombing the Gaza strip when rockets are fired.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49126803]AL Qaeda still exists (if you acknowledge them as 1 group rather than a coalition of groups which is arguably more correct). The reason we don't hear that much (we still hear about them) is that one of their "splinter groups" got big. Al Queda in iraq aka ISIS. Al Queda is still active in yemen, central and south asia, africa and the middle east.[/QUOTE]
Still not the Al Qaeda everyone knew about.
True, its now divided in other groups, but its also a shadow of its former self.
We can see that in ISIS itself. The stuff they cause is like, a fraction of what Al Qaeda ever did in each attack.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49126682]There's no "high horse". It's logic that the only way to stop them from attacking us is to not give them reasons to do so. It's deplorable that people are celebrating this move as "a solution". This just feeds the endless cycle of revenge.
[B]Remember how middle east wasn't full of extremist groups wanting the destruction of western nations before it was turned into a battlefield by foreign superpowers?[/B][/QUOTE]
You mean back when it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, the government that enjoyed enslaving European and African people for hundreds of years, so much so the word "Slav" came from the Ottoman word for "slave?"
[QUOTE=kweh;49126831]Still not the Al Qaeda everyone knew about.
True, its now divided in other groups, but its also a shadow of its former self.
We can see that in ISIS itself. The stuff they cause is like, a fraction of what Al Qaeda ever did in each attack.[/QUOTE]
Well 911 was by an Al Queda affiliate. And all the damage done by Al Queda affiliate/ally taliban in afghanistan. IMO Al Queda is still strong, just not in Iraq and Syria since ISIS stole all their guys. Wasn't charlie hebdo done by al queda affiliates? They occupy half of yemen atm.
Not sure what to call them ally, affiliate or member? I don't think we've heard the last of Al Queda.
Even if we had abolished al queda/whatever they are. Radical islam would still be going strong. It's been discussed here extensively and imo bombs alone won't solve the issue. (the idealist in me says bombing like they are isn't going to help)
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49126682]There's no "high horse". It's logic that the only way to stop them from attacking us is to not give them reasons to do so. It's deplorable that people are celebrating this move as "a solution". This just feeds the endless cycle of revenge.[/QUOTE]
This is fucking stupid.
Yeah right, let ISIS spread all over the middle east and execute gays, women and basically anyone who disagree with them.
That's definitely the best way of protecting the innocent.
As if islamist terrorists needed reasons to commit their hideous acts in the first place. They slaughtered people over a fucking cartoon for god's sake.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49126907]This is fucking stupid.
Yeah right, let ISIS spread all over the middle east and execute gays, women and basically anyone who disagree with them.
That's definitely the best way of protecting the innocent.
As if islamist terrorists needed reasons to commit their hideous acts in the first place. They slaughtered people over a fucking cartoon for god's sake.[/QUOTE]
Bombing isn't going to stop them spreading. If there is no consolidation ie take and hold then you are literally just killing people and blowing up a building. They'll find a new building and they aren't short on people. The french resources would be better used if they bombed an ISIS stronghold, for local forces (kurds, iraqis, russians/iran/syrian/militants or us once we put boots on ground) to move in and secure.
Attrition is unlikely to work on them imo.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49122806]Hurray for more murder and killing![/QUOTE]
I don't really see how this is such a contentious statement, or how people are interpreting it in such a binary way.
I would absolutely agree that violence is sometimes necessary, and agree that it's also necessary in this case, but I don't think to revel in violence is ever morally correct.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49126852]Well 911 was by an Al Queda affiliate. And all the damage done by Al Queda affiliate/ally taliban in afghanistan. IMO Al Queda is still strong, just not in Iraq and Syria since ISIS stole all their guys. Wasn't charlie hebdo done by al queda affiliates? They occupy half of yemen atm.
Not sure what to call them ally, affiliate or member? I don't think we've heard the last of Al Queda.
Even if we had abolished al queda/whatever they are. Radical islam would still be going strong. It's been discussed here extensively and imo bombs alone won't solve the issue. (the idealist in me says bombing like they are isn't going to help)[/QUOTE]
It helps, but only if you then take over their bases and the regions and rebuild, as people here have said before.
It's just like a garden.
Weed out the bad seeds, and plant something new, while taking care of it, and watch it grow into something good. It's the only way to actually get anything worthwhile done, without bullshit like ISIS or whatever spawning from it.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;49122704]If there is one country asides from the States that has shown it can be effective when required, it's the French. Between the Foreign Legion and the already combat hardened soldiers that fought in Mali/Chad/Niger, ISIS would be toast.[/QUOTE]
US effective? I wouldn't call murdering hundreds of civilians effective. If I were to place money on anyone wiping ISIS out it would be Russia.
[QUOTE=Billy-Bobfred;49124118]Who gives a shit[/QUOTE]
Who doesn't care about innocent people dying?
Well ISIS doesn't and apparently not you??
What are you saying??
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49126833]You mean back when it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, the government that enjoyed enslaving European and African people for hundreds of years, so much so the word "Slav" came from the Ottoman word for "slave?"[/QUOTE]
I'm mostly thinking of the period of relative peace between the fall of Ottoman Empire and the proxy wars of US and USSR. Besides, what's your point?
My point is that it wasn't a breeding ground for terrorist units threatening western nations and you don't seem to be saying anything to contest that.
Ten jets and twenty bombs were dropped. The Ministry of Defence has detailed, today , the specific objectives of the bombing of Sunday by the French Air Force in Raqqa (Syria), field of the Islamic State Group (ISIS), two days after the attacks that left at least 129 dead in Paris. One of the target was a center capable of organizing attacks against France .
The general staff said that these sites have been the subject of a long preliminary observation, and that were identified during reconnaissance missions conducted since September. FranceTV info back on this operation which was conducted in coordination with US forces.
- Command Center
The first objective, located ten kilometers south of Raqqa, was hit by two Mirage 2000 (French Aircraft). It is used by ISIS as " a command post, jihadist recruitment center and armory depot." "This objective is
vital for Daech(=ISIS) and it's one of the places from which attacks against our country are likely to be organized, "said a statement from the Ministry of Defence, Sunday, November 15.
- A terrorist training camp:
The second goal, on which six aircraft - two Rafale (French Aircraft) and four Mirage (French Aircraft too) - were mobilized, was an unfinished industrial site which housed a "terrorist training camp and recruiting cells." Monday morning, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an NGO based in London, reported a thirty heard explosions yesterday in Raqqa sector.
-A parking lot tankers
The planes also destroyed 116 tankers used by ISIS in eastern Syria confirmed the Pentagon. These vehicles were destroyed near Boukamal in a parking lot owned by ISIS on the border with Iraq, where trucks are waiting to fill their tanks. "This is not the first time that tankers are attacked, but this is the first time that there are so many who are affected," said a spokesman of the coalition (Lead by the US). In response to these raids, ISIS has banned traffic and cut off electricity in the city.
Source: [url]http://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/terrorisme/attaques-du-13-novembre-a-paris/syrie-les-sites-vises-par-les-bombardements-francais-a-raqqa-fief-du-groupe-etat-islamique_1178341.html[/url] [In French]
116 , wow that's lot of tankers.
[QUOTE=gastyne;49127184]Who doesn't care about innocent people dying?
Well ISIS doesn't and apparently not you??
What are you saying??[/QUOTE]
hes being dumb
So what are they waiting for? Nuke the whole damn place.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;49126830]It's strange that people who support the french bombing of Raqqa and use the logic quoted are the same people who shit on Israel for bombing the Gaza strip when rockets are fired.[/QUOTE]
There's a fucking difference.
With Israel we know their government is shit and run by people who legit don't care about the people across their borders.
Like at least the west gives a shit about collateral, even if it can't be avoided. Israel could have a picnic with killing as many Palestinians as they please.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49127222]I'm mostly thinking of the period of relative peace between the fall of Ottoman Empire and the proxy wars of US and USSR. Besides, what's your point?
My point is that it wasn't a breeding ground for terrorist units threatening western nations and you don't seem to be saying anything to contest that.[/QUOTE]
The natives were less than happy with France and Britain for reigning in on their promised independence in favor of grabbing colonial possessions following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not to mention the UK and Russia had their "Great Game" going in the area since the early 19th century. Hell, the British had to put down a pro-axis uprising in Iraq because the Iraqis hated the British backed monarch so much. I don't think there hasn't been a point in the last couple of hundred years where hatred of someone wasn't stewing in the middle east for one reason or another.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49127953]There's a fucking difference.
With Israel we know their government is shit and run by people who legit don't care about the people across their borders.
Like at least the west gives a shit about collateral, even if it can't be avoided. Israel could have a picnic with killing as many Palestinians as they please.[/QUOTE]
tell this to the people calling for a nuclear holocaust
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49127958]tell this to the people calling for a nuclear holocaust[/QUOTE]
Whose calling for Nuclear Holocaust?
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49127977]Whose calling for Nuclear Holocaust?[/QUOTE]
...I just did, a couple posts ago.
Not being entirely serious, though. But I do hope they can get rid of ISIS once and for all.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49127981]...I just did, a couple posts ago.
Not being entirely serious, though. But I do hope they can get rid of ISIS once and for all.[/QUOTE]
Alright, but still it was really just your single post. Not the "people" calling for Nukes.
No one would call Nukes to guarantee a dead terror cell, the collateral would be far too great.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49128008]Alright, but still it was really just your single post. Not the "people" calling for Nukes.
No one would call Nukes to guarantee a dead terror cell, the collateral would be far too great.[/QUOTE]
Na there's been a few calling for nukes in this thread. A few more stating we should bomb cities to start regardless of the civilians because they are 'isis sympathizers', one went so far as to accept civilians as valid targets.To feign Ignorance to those posts would be disingenuous.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49131341]Na there's been a few calling for nukes in this thread. A few more stating we should bomb cities to start regardless of the civilians because they are 'isis sympathizers', one went so far as to accept civilians as valid targets.To feign Ignorance to those posts would be disingenuous.[/QUOTE]
You weren't sure they were joking or anything. I mean last I checked, those were just words, stupid words, but words none the less, they don't control the big red shiny candy-like button that turns an entire region into glass.
Therefore it's just folks carried away by the shock of the Paris event.
I'm also in chock but I don't want to do what isis does, killing innocent people, because I don't agree with their ideology.
Scary that some people here do
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49128008]Alright, but still it was really just your single post. Not the "people" calling for Nukes.
No one would call Nukes to guarantee a dead terror cell, the collateral would be far too great.[/QUOTE]Dude, what.
Like maybe it's because I associate more with the redneck stereotype so I've noticed it but come on, lots of people legitimately think the Middle East would be a fuckton better if it was a big crater.
[editline]17th November 2015[/editline]
My favorite is when people go "YEAH WELL FUCKEN ISLAM" and I'm like "okay, do you even have any idea why strict adherence to the Qur'an is completely at odds with Western society?" and the response is "SHARIA LAW."
You know I'm going to have a heart attack one of these days, I'm just going to get so worked up that my heart literally explodes inside my chest and they'll spend weeks trying to figure out how. "He was just sayin' all this stuff about Muslims and then he exploded! Thems Muslamic rayguns shot him dead!"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
