The ISIS threat to Europe

[Marka Ragnos]

22 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

@Glarmorgan for me, it's part of the same problem, the middle east is a balance of madness and you can't fix any of it without fixing a lot of it. Israel is part of the problem, ISIS is part of the problem, Saudi Arabia is part of the problem, Assad is part of the problem, the problem of the Kurds is part of the problem, Hezbollah are part of the problem, Al Qaeda is part of the problem - it's the same problem and it's all interlinked.

Until we start to address the whole problem, killing thousands of people every couple of years isn't going to do anything but make it worse.

 

This collapsing of The Problem into one big interconnected juggernaut doesn't totally work for me, I have to say, although part of me does agree with you, too.

Yet if I mentally substitute the names of western democracies and Russia for the various states and nations that you mention, I feel like I come up with a way of thinking that is probably something like the way ISIS leaders think of us, except that instead of thinking of "killing thousands" as pointless, they would say, "Yep, it's going to take a few million. God is great!" 

I have zero question at all that if ISIS obtained material to make a "dirty nuclear" bomb, for instance, they would use it every day of the week. The threat seems real to me -- and to others, too:

Quote

It is hard to imagine a more terrifying prospect than an extremist group like ISIS armed with nuclear or radiological weapons. But as the Associated Press revealed this week, that possibility may be much closer than we would like to think.

 

6 hours ago, Jon said:

whereas dead Syrians, ISIS or not, don't. Sad state of affairs.

Ha! Same with dead American troopers. They don't hurt Cameron's numbers, either, and I think he knows that.

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

I think you may miss my somewhat flippant point :). 

My point was to say that the US has previous on slowly involving itself on the ground in conflicts where ground forces are sensitive issues by sending troops the designate as advisors that they then morph the mission into all or combat roles.

I wasn't really making a comment on the nature of IS or action against them.

Sorry. I hear you! 

[Wainy316]

Voted yes to air strikes.

[Chindie]

We're off to war again.

[Mantis]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We're off to war again.

We've been at war against ISIS since last September.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Mantis said:

We've been at war against ISIS since last September.

...and?

I'm fully aware of that.

Technically we've not been at war as wars are held between states, and IS despite the name isn't a state, quite.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Chindie

[Awol]

Hillary Benn... 'kin hell.  That was a very powerful speech and he's gone up hugely in my estimation. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The Special Relationship

The bombs go off The legs go off The heads go off The arms go off The feet go off The light goes out The heads go off The legs go off The lust is up The dead are dirt The lights go out The dead are dust A man bows down before another man And sucks his lust Harold Pinter August 2004

[Mantis]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

...and?

I'm fully aware of that.

Technically we've not been at war as wars are held between states, and IS despite the name isn't a state, quite.

Well, you said "off to war again" but like I said, we're already at war (or whatever you want to call it). All this is is an extension of current operations.

[Davkaus]

Didn't take long to start dropping bombs, did it? It's amazing how quickly the government red tape is removed when we want to go and start blowing people up before the opposition gains too much traction.

[snowychap]

I suppose we're going to have to put up with that berk Fallon on the news every day giving us updates on the day's 'successful' missions.

At least until the really important stuff like christmas shopping footfall takes over.

[Brumerican]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Didn't take long to start dropping bombs, did it? It's amazing how quickly the government red tape is removed when we want to go and start blowing people up before the opposition gains too much traction.

I still have a lot of pals at RAF Akrotiri ..... They have been ready to go for a loooooooong time .

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Didn't take long to start dropping bombs, did it? It's amazing how quickly the government red tape is removed when we want to go and start blowing people up before the opposition gains too much traction.

It's amazing to me that any mention of military action is immediately followed by a knee jerk response almost equating the word "bombing"with a rerun of the Blitz.

Last night the RAF bombed IS controlled oil field facilities in eastern Syria. The pilots have very strict rules of engagement built on many years of experience that would see a strike mission aborted if civilians were identified in the target area and likely to be hurt.

This misconception that the RAF are like an aerial version of Chuck Norris is utterly false, but testament to the success of propaganda pushed out by orgs like the Stop the War Coalition.

At some point an RAF strike will inevitably causes some civilian casualties and that is deeply regrettable, but avoiding them is the single biggest factor governing all mission planning and execution. 

[OutByEaster?]

AWOL, I read about the first sorties this morning and they are by all accounts exactly what you've said. Hopefully there would be zero civilian casualties or very minimal one's at the very most. 

The thing I found myself asking was, if there are key IS controlled oil fields in Eastern Syria, why haven't one of the other seven nations that have been bombing there for the last nine months or so picked them out? It seems odd to me that there are still this type of good solid tactical targets out there that haven't been bombed already. 

The cynic in me says they were saved for us so that the first night gets good press, but I'm struggling to put any faith in that idea and I don't really want to believe it. 

How much is actually left of IS infrastructure now?

 

[Awol]

OBE,

Given the size of the area under IS control (equivalent to Great Britain) there are an awful lot of targets that could be hit from the air.

For sure some have been avoided to date even when they are of strategic importance to IS (such as oil field facilities or refining capacity) because it would impact the local population as well as IS, such as lack of fuel.

It's quite possible that the strategic calculus has changed regarding target selection if the coalition has decided to squeeze the group in a different way, but the dispersal of some prime targets into civilian areas has put them off the list of strikeable IS assets.

As for what remains that's an answer you could only get from the various HQ's running the air strikes, but one key aspect is denying IS the freedom of movement between its various urban strongholds. That's where the dynamic targeting ability and precision strike the RAF brings to the table is so useful to the broader coalition. Jokes aside our pilots are the equal of anyone, anywhere. 

 

[omariqy]

****WARNING - Graphic Picture******

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than 4000 innocent civilans have died in the month of November in Syria. I don't think more bombs is going to fix that. Especially when there is plenty of other bombing going on in the same areas.  Root of the problem needs to be addressed - where the ideology stems from, who funds it, who arms, what drives it and who help made it grow.

[sexbelowsound]

Absolutely disgusting.

[snowychap]

The text of the motion passed does obviously allow for much more than just the kind of airstrike being promoted by Mr Fallon on breakfast telly today.

It gives a parliamentary mandate (should they decide to do it) for the extension of drone strikes from Iraq to Syria, too.

Of course, we are assured by the MOD (in an article in the Heil as per this link) that:

Quote

to date there have been no known cases of civilian casualties from UK strikes in Iraq

 and I guess the same will apply to any strikes in Syria - well there aren't going to be too many people on the ground to verify the outcomes and therefore make any civilian casualties, if there were to be any, 'known'.

Edited December 3, 2015 by snowychap

[TrentVilla]

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

...and?

I'm fully aware of that.

Technically we've not been at war as wars are held between states, and IS despite the name isn't a state, quite.

Then why say we are off to war again?

Mantis has a point. We aren't off to war as you seemingly accept.

Whatever people's views on what we are doing let's not over embellish what it is.

The reality is we are simply extending an existing operation from one side of a now meaningless line to the other. Something we would have probably done a lot sooner if it weren't for the worry about propping up Asad.

 

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Then why say we are off to war again?

Mantis has a point. We aren't off to war as you seemingly accept.

Whatever people's views on what we are doing let's not over embellish what it is.

The reality is we are simply extending an existing operation from one side of a now meaningless line to the other. Something we would have probably done a lot sooner if it weren't for the worry about propping up Asad.

 

Turn of phrase. Is that acceptable to you?

[Awol]

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

****WARNING - Graphic Picture******

Spoiler

 

 

More than 4000 innocent civilans have died in the month of November in Syria. I don't think more bombs is going to fix that. Especially when there is plenty of other bombing going on in the same areas.  Root of the problem needs to be addressed - where the ideology stems from, who funds it, who arms, what drives it and who help made it grow.

Serious question, instead of stating what won't fix lots of dead civilians, what do you think will? 

In terms of the ideology you know where it comes from - Wahabbi Saudi Arabia.  The majority of their weapons were taken from the Iraqi army.

It's now largely self funding through oil sales, flogging looted antiquities and internal taxation on businesses and individuals.  

What drives it is a desire to remake the world according to its own twisted ideology, that's not a point of potential compromise.

So short of persuading psychotic Saudi Arabia to stand up and denounce its founding doctrine, I'm not sure what you think can be done at that end of things?