Air strikes against Islamic State/ISIS..

[L00b]

I'm not military expert but I know that ISIS are not going to fly over here on jumbo jets...

Are you aware that muslim extremists in Libya might have seized a small fleet of airliners in August?

 

Snopes might be giving this development a "mostly false" rating at this time, however their explanation is based on tracking down 2 of the 11 reportedly gone AWOL, and is at least as much conjecture as the original reports for the remaining 9...so the take-away point is that, for all the world knows currently, there's 9 airliners unaccounted for, which went missing when muslim fighters took Tripoli International Airport over.

they would just be shot down.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that just yet.

[Zamo]

I'm thinking for a suicide seaker being shot down and taking 4-500 infidels with you would be considered a good result.

 

Just explain how bombing IS will prevent that?

 

They say that ISIS have around 30,000 fighters at the moment. How many jumbo jets could they get shot down?

 

How many jumbo jets have they got? My guess is we can easily shoot them all down.

 

How do you know the stratergy has failed.

 

You look at the objectives and assess whether they were achieved. Have we brought peace, freedom, democracy, security and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq? No... we made it worse and killed hundreds of thousands of them doing it. The so called 'war on terror' created more terror. If that isn't failure then what the hell is?

 

If the west had sat on its hands they could be at the doors of Istanbul by now for all we know.

 

Who could be at the doors of Istanbul? You are making up a bogeyman now.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 10:51 ----------

 

Are you aware that muslim extremists in Libya might have seized a small fleet of airliners in August?

 

Snopes might be giving this development a "mostly false" rating at this time, however their explanation is based on tracking down 2 of the 11 reportedly gone AWOL, and is at least as much conjecture as the original reports for the remaining 9...so the take-away point is that, for all the world knows currently, there's 9 airliners unaccounted for, which went missing when muslim fighters took Tripoli International Airport over.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that just yet.

 

How many different countries air space would they need to fly over to get to us? Do you not think that airliners have to identify themselves? It is laughable to suggest that IS could invade the West in captured jumbo jets.

 

IS pose no threat to national security. Yes, they could commit acts of terrorism but the proposed bombing campaign against them will not stop that. What's more, the evidence from all our other recent interventions is that it drives people to their 'cause' and increases the threat of terrorism.

 

Following the same old failed strategy is insane... Albert says so.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 11:11 ----------

 

If that was possible why didn't they shoot down the 9/11 terrorists, could it be because they didn't know at the time who had control of the planes or what their intentions were.

 

Firstly, that was the first time planes had been hijacked and used as weapons... we are aware of the threat now and therefore looking for it. Secondly, as hijacked planes, they had ID's and filed flight plans that allowed them to fly unchallenged (until they went off course) in US air space. The idea that IS can simply fly stolen jumbo jets into the air space of other countries is ridiculous. They would be picked up on radar and would be intercepted once they failed to identify themselves... certainly a long time before reaching the West.

 

Some times the only possible result in a game of chess is stalemate, which means you can keep them in check indefinitely but you can never win, but if you decide to stop playing you can still loose.

 

In chess the threefold repetition rule will bring a game to a close. We've repeated the same move over and over in the Middle East, it doesn't work... game over. Time to start the game again and to deploy a different strategy.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Zamo

[linderman]

Just explain how bombing IS will prevent that?

 

 

 

 

Didn't bombing Germany and Japan stop them bombing us and the USA. Dead men don't shoot back.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 11:53 ----------

 

 

 

How many jumbo jets have they got? My guess is we can easily shoot them all down.

 

 

 

 

That's a great plan. At any time there is an average of 280,000 in flight. That's a lot of civilians that we can kill.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 11:54 ----------

 

J

 

 

 

Who could be at the doors of Istanbul? You are making up a bogeyman now.

 

Really? So where have they told you that they intend to have the border of their caliphate?

[tinfoilhat]

It was either leave your home or die when we were doing this 60 years ago. Why not try to engage them politically?

 

Because I don't think they'll talk to us.

[Zamo]

Didn't bombing Germany and Japan stop them bombing us and the USA. Dead men don't shoot back.

 

Is that a line from a Steven Segal movie?

 

Back in the real world... Bombing IS positions in Iraq will not prevent us being on the receiving end of Islamic terrorism and that is a fact. Did it escape your attention that Islamic terrorism got worse when we bombed and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? A strategy that achieves the opposite of the objectives is not one we should repeat.

[linderman]

Is that a line from a Steven Segal movie?

 

Back in the real world... Bombing IS positions in Iraq will not prevent us being on the receiving end of Islamic terrorism and that is a fact. Did it escape your attention that Islamic terrorism got worse when we bombed and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? A strategy that achieves the opposite of the objectives is not one we should repeat.

 

Did it escape your attention that there were more people killed on 9/11 than have been killed by all the terrorist attacks since. So since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan both happened after 9/11 you are talking rubbish.

[firemanbob]

Just explain how bombing IS will prevent that?

 

 

 

How many jumbo jets have they got? My guess is we can easily shoot them all down.

 

 

 

You look at the objectives and assess whether they were achieved. Have we brought peace, freedom, democracy, security and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq? No... we made it worse and killed hundreds of thousands of them doing it. The so called 'war on terror' created more terror. If that isn't failure then what the hell is?

 

 

 

Who could be at the doors of Istanbul? You are making up a bogeyman now.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 10:51 ----------

 

 

How many different countries air space would they need to fly over to get to us? Do you not think that airliners have to identify themselves? It is laughable to suggest that IS could invade the West in captured jumbo jets.

 

IS pose no threat to national security. Yes, they could commit acts of terrorism but the proposed bombing campaign against them will not stop that. What's more, the evidence from all our other recent interventions is that it drives people to their 'cause' and increases the threat of terrorism.

 

Following the same old failed strategy is insane... Albert says so.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 11:11 ----------

 

 

Firstly, that was the first time planes had been hijacked and used as weapons... we are aware of the threat now and therefore looking for it. Secondly, as hijacked planes, they had ID's and filed flight plans that allowed them to fly unchallenged (until they went off course) in US air space. The idea that IS can simply fly stolen jumbo jets into the air space of other countries is ridiculous. They would be picked up on radar and would be intercepted once they failed to identify themselves... certainly a long time before reaching the West.

 

 

 

In chess the threefold repetition rule will bring a game to a close. We've repeated the same move over and over in the Middle East, it doesn't work... game over. Time to start the game again and to deploy a different strategy.

 

An hijacked airliner heading for London won't have any problems causing lots of destruction before anyone realises it is going to crash into London and not land at an airport.

 

And the game isn't over because the Islamists are still playing, if we stop we loose, if we play we can keep them in check indefinitely.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 12:20 ----------

 

We cannot prevent the odd one from getting through and committing acts of terrorism (which bombing will not stop wither) but they do not pose any threat to national security. They cannot invade. There will be no gun battles on the streets.

 

 

 

Before the invasions we did not have a problem with home-grown Muslim terrorism, we had not been attacked and there had been no killings. Since the wars that has all changed. Not only are we under constant threat but we are also spending hundreds of millions each year trying to contain the threat. And it is not just money we are hemorrhaging but hard-won freedoms and rights - we are spied on by the State, suffer Section 44 abuses by the police, have Control Orders that allow us to be detained without trial or conviction and have courts being held behind closed doors. We are worse off to the tune of many hundreds of British service personnel. We are worse off because we now have (growing) racial/cultural tensions in this country. We are worse off by approximately £30 billion that was spent fighting the wars.

 

And did the Afghans and Iraqi's get democracy, security and prosperity following our intervention? No.

 

OK, your turn. What did we gain?

 

I take it the 67 Britons who died on 9/11 don't count, and if we hadn't responded there could have been many more such attacks. We can't turn the clock back, so all we can do is respond to threat that exists today even though our actions may have contributed to its existence.

[Zamo]

That's a great plan. At any time there is an average of 280,000 in flight. That's a lot of civilians that we can kill.

 

How exactly do IS fighters with their AK47's and armoured vehicles board domestic flights departing from places like Paris, Tokyo, Berlin and LA when they are in Iraq and Syria?

 

They may have captured a handful of planes but (even if they do have people who can fly them) they cannot get on them and fly to the West to start a new front. They will be shot down a thousand miles away.

 

You need to get a grip.

 

Really? So where have they told you that they intend to have the border of their caliphate?

 

The point is that there was no 'they' until we invade Afghanistan and Iraq and completed destabilised the region. 'They' have come to be because of the failed strategy of intervention and invasion.

[firemanbob]

Is that a line from a Steven Segal movie?

 

Back in the real world... Bombing IS positions in Iraq will not prevent us being on the receiving end of Islamic terrorism and that is a fact. Did it escape your attention that Islamic terrorism got worse when we bombed and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? A strategy that achieves the opposite of the objectives is not one we should repeat.

 

More people died in the 9/11 attack than have died since from Islamist terrorist attacks in the West, so we have clearly achieved something.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2014 at 12:25 ----------

 

Did it escape your attention that there were more people killed on 9/11 than have been killed by all the terrorist attacks since. So since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan both happened after 9/11 you are talking rubbish.

 

Sorry just noticed your post, I didn't copy it honest.

[Zamo]

An hijacked airliner heading for London won't have any problems causing lots of destruction before anyone realises it is going to crash into London and not land at an airport.

 

But you haven't explained how bombing IS fighters in Iraq will prevent Islamic terrorists who are not there from hijacking airliners? You can't reduce the threat by bombing and the evidence clearly shows you are likely to make it worse.

 

I take it the 67 Britons who died on 9/11 don't count, and if we hadn't responded there could have been many more such attacks. We can't turn the clock back, so all we can do is respond to threat that exists today even though our actions may have contributed to its existence.

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't have any WMD. Our actions did not reduce threat and prevent attacks but increased the threat and brought on attacks i.e. the opposite of the objective.

 

We can't turn back the clock but we can at least learn lessons. Bombing and invading countries in the Middle East does not reduce the terrorism threat but increases it. Why the hell do it when it gives you pain but no gain?