News Paris Attack

[fettoken]

Another crusade. Let the Christians deal with em.

 

[Ormorof]

Imprisoning these guys in one place is what allowed them to meet and form up in the first place

 

[dysfunction]

Sorry, id better go tell the experts in this field that have been giving me this information that they're wrong and some bloke on the internet trumps him.

Or you could show them this map and then say the bombs were on very specific targets.

http://www.bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

Zoom out to see the full range of the bombs

 

[throdgrain]

What scares me most is the idea of them getting some kind of nuclear device. I don't think they would hesitate to use it. And it's not like they don't have money is it.

 

[Talivar]

Well thats the first thing that needs to happen, not mass bomb a city to kill a few but follow the money trail and cut off their resourses

 

[CorNokZ]

Stop using oil. That'd fuck them up more so than bombing them here and there. Cut their funds and they won't be able to buy bullets, explosives or support their regime

 

[Gwadien]

Stop using oil. That'd fuck them up more so than bombing them here and there. Cut their funds and they won't be able to buy bullets, explosives or support their regime

I think you forget one thing though.

Spoiler

 

[Hawkwind]

Sorry but that's nonsense. Area bombing by the British was an official policy.

Look up how it all started. Both Britain and Germany had a gentlemen's agreement to not bomb cities early on but after German bombers first hit London ( Aug 1940), the position of both sides changed. Churchill ordered retaliation against Berlin and Hitler became so enraged he ordered intensified attacks specifically against London. It has even been alleged that the first German Bombers that dropped on London in 1940 were against orders and possibly off course. Things escalated and we all know how that went.

Either way they did it first!

 

[Hawkwind]

Technically, they didn't start bombing population centres until after the RAF did. Not in the UK anyway, they'd done it in Rotterdam.

Incorrect they bombed city of London first, then Britain retaliated...

 

[Gumbo]

But we've established that a full scale assault on them would just make the problem worse.

I posed the question to @Big G and he said he can't answer it, so how would you?

We haven't established that at all. how successful has Al Qaeda been at flying planes into buildings since we took them on?

If we don't take them on we can probably expect a Paris style attack somewhere in the West every month or so.

It'll be expensive and it'll take years, and it will cost soldiers lives, but it will work against this threat. Iraq was invaded for the wrong reasons and probably stirred a lot of this problem up, but Afghan, certainly initially, was invaded for the right reasons and once we'd cleared them through Tora Bora, Al Qaeda was broken.

We have to seize the initiative, or we will be hammered for decades to come. We will seize the initiative because we won't stand for regular attacks on our streets. No matter how badly student types think that buying these guys flowers and accepting their points of view will make them stop killing us. It won't. what will stop them killing us, is killing them. And restricting them to living in holes in some remote part of Syria. The same way we did to the Al Qaeda leadership.

 

[Talivar]

I dont get how we go from kill them but dont kill innocents to buy them flowers and listen to their POV

 

[ECA]

What scares me most is the idea of them getting some kind of nuclear device. I don't think they would hesitate to use it. And it's not like they don't have money is it.

It doesn't even need to be a complex nuclear device.
Any amount of plutonium/etc ( of which tens of kilos are "missing" worldwide ), in a carbomb - would blanket an area in radiation that'd last decades and essentially render a portion of a city into a nogo zone.
Doesn't have to have any complexity beyond their existing capabilities.

 

[Gumbo]

Because you can't kill them without some innocents dying. It's a sad fact of war. And we have to go and kill them. What they are doing though is deliberately targeting innocents, by the hundred, in our cities, and the only way to stop that is to kill them. You can't negotiate your way out of this with this kind of terrorist. We have nothing to offer them, nothing.

 

[Bodhi]

I must admit I am slightly confused as to how you negotiate with and buy flowers for an enemy who is happy to die for their cause, and will only accept death or conversion of their enemies to their cause.

That strikes me as a fairly entrenched bargaining position if I'm honest.....

 

[Talivar]

There is a difference between accidental casualties and avoidable tho. Bombing Hospitals to get a suspect or taking a care out in daylight in a busy street, these could be avoided with different military strategies. The problem is the alternatives maybe cost more or risk soldiers life's more so instead they choose the deaths of innocent bystanders

 

[DaGaffer]

Look up how it all started. Both Britain and Germany had a gentlemen's agreement to not bomb cities early on but after German bombers first hit London ( Aug 1940), the position of both sides changed. Churchill ordered retaliation against Berlin and Hitler became so enraged he ordered intensified attacks specifically against London. It has even been alleged that the first German Bombers that dropped on London in 1940 were against orders and possibly off course. Things escalated and we all know how that went.

Either way they did it first!

Accidentally. The first intentional area bombing was carried out by the RAF. But it doesn't matter; the RAF always knew which way the bombing campaign was going to go, and we know this because they'd already commissioned the Short Stirling (a four-engined strategic bomber, rather than the tactical bombers the Germans flew) and the first prototype flew six months before the War even started. "Gentlemen's Agreements" were a political fiction (It was actually a call by FDR to restrict bombing that the British agreed to, rather than a direct agreement with Germany), which people like Portal and Harris knew were unworkable. It suits the narrative that Britain was only responding to German escalation; but it really doesn't bear close scrutiny; the RAF were more than ready to take the war to the German population even before Coventry and the Blitz, they just needed the right casus belli

 

[ECA]

Also does it interest anyone that we have ~150 dead, yet we only seem to give a shit and give it so much discussion because it was one incident on one day.
We could save a lot more lives than that per year by getting rid of diesel cars, yet nobody really gives a shit.

 

[Raven]

And the end of the day, what has a war that happened 70/80 years ago matter in the context of madmen and their supports living in some shithole in the desert?

 

[Yoni]

In good news all my French friends are now accounted for... I hope those of you who have been waiting for news have heard and all is well. My heart goes out to all those now grieving :/

 

[Gwadien]

We haven't established that at all. how successful has Al Qaeda been at flying planes into buildings since we took them on?

If we don't take them on we can probably expect a Paris style attack somewhere in the West every month or so.

It'll be expensive and it'll take years, and it will cost soldiers lives, but it will work against this threat. Iraq was invaded for the wrong reasons and probably stirred a lot of this problem up, but Afghan, certainly initially, was invaded for the right reasons and once we'd cleared them through Tora Bora, Al Qaeda was broken.

We have to seize the initiative, or we will be hammered for decades to come. We will seize the initiative because we won't stand for regular attacks on our streets. No matter how badly student types think that buying these guys flowers and accepting their points of view will make them stop killing us. It won't. what will stop them killing us, is killing them. And restricting them to living in holes in some remote part of Syria. The same way we did to the Al Qaeda leadership.

Why do you have to point out 'student types' this is boring as shit - your opinion isn't accepted because you're a student, what about @Talivar and @TdC last time I checked they weren't students - well reeds is an old man student so that barely counts. Don't even respond to this. Its off topic and boring.

As I said from the beginning terrorist attacks are purely there for marketing purposes - you don't get someone to invade if you just keep shouting 'I hate America.'

I wouldn't consider Afghan as a great example anyway, they've never been pacified into a fashion which the invaders saw fit, and I highly doubt it'll happen now.

For the record I do support military action, but one which will cause us to invest heavily in more covert ops; improve the Iraqi infrastructure and send it the world's special forces on important messages - bombing is a political move; it doesn't risk many lives of the pilots thus it doesn't get bad rap.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

There is no negotiation with them. It's win or die die for them.
"We" do kill civilians, but they are not the target. Whereas they target civilians deliberately and for a purpose.

 

[Talivar]

We shouldn't have to kill innocents tho unless it truly is an accident, we have the combined might of USA + EUs special forces who could do the job in many ways. The problem is they are as Gwadien points not as flashy and not as good to use for media purposes

 

[~Yuckfou~]

We shouldn't have to kill innocents tho unless it truly is an accident, we have the combined might of USA + EUs special forces who could do the job in many ways. The problem is they are as Gwadien points not as flashy and not as good to use for media purposes

Nor can they respawn.
Why risk our soldiers lives when we have bombs?

 

[Talivar]

Well that brings us to the whole moral heart of this argument, we have placed a price tag on everything including the life's of innocents. We are basically telling them that they mean nothing to us and are expendable. And then we preach to them to stand together with us against ISIS and resist joining them. Yet each time they see they news they will see carefully planned raids to apprehend suspects and Terrorists in EU countries, and not so careful bombing tactics in their countries.
The end result is THIS is why ISIS find it so easy to get new recruits and will continue to do so.

 

[Talivar]

Also as a side note how close do they need to get using these tactics before you say the methods are wrong? We find one in Greece and bomb him to take him out?, maybe in France itself? or what about your own street. Will the end still justify the means if it is people you know being "unlucky" and caught in the bombs blast.

 

[Gwadien]

There is no negotiation with them. It's win or die die for them.
"We" do kill civilians, but they are not the target. Whereas they target civilians deliberately and for a purpose.

So do you condemn the tactics that we used in WW2, where we did actually 'target civilians deliberately and for a purpose.'?

I think we had a majority consensus that the tactics that the Israelis use are way too heavy handed and we condemned them, but why do we not condemn our own actions which are largely the same, but on a much larger scale?

Baffles me.

EDIT - Or if you don't like Muslims and/or don't give a shit about the sanctity of life, then sure, I get why you'd support this.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

We won WW2.

 

[throdgrain]

Everyone did that. Do I condemn it? Fuck no.

Thing is, I think some people with their internets think they are members of like a global society. Thing is, they're not. When the shit hits the fan, these maniacs don't give a toss about your moral high ground, they just blow you up. Or shoot you. I'd sooner not kill civilians, like anyone, but if it has to be, it has to be. The people of Caen will agree with that too.

 

[Talivar]

To win this war tho we have to destroy their image and stop people wanting to join them, this means killing them without fuss or innocent deaths and most importantly cutting down on the media coverage they are getting

 

[Gwadien]

Everyone did that. Do I condemn it? Fuck no.

Thing is, I think some people with their internets think they are members of like a global society. Thing is, they're not. When the shit hits the fan, these maniacs don't give a toss about your moral high ground, they just blow you up. Or shoot you. I'd sooner not kill civilians, like anyone, but if it has to be, it has to be. The people of Caen will agree with that too.

Why the fuck can you not see it has NOTHING to do with the moral high ground.

It's the tactics we are using NOW which are at fault.

We bomb masses, we create martyrs - as for @Gumbo who said earlier 'look at Afghanistan, that worked!' Yeah, it may have worked in creating less martyrs because it was a true battle of hearts and minds, and the soldiers knew that, and that's what they were doing, but because we've condemned both Iraq and Afghanistan as a failure, we're better off bombing from a distance, and hoping we don't create too many martyrs, which. we. are.