unbeliever Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 No, don't agree. We had long term military bases in Afghanistan. We had thousands of soldiers on the ground getting killed by road side bombs and suicide troops. And we lost. We cannot do that again as you said it didn't work. What I'm suggesting is that we pick an ISIS target (1 or 2 people or a specific compound for example). We send in SAS or paras (depending on what skills are needed, paras for open ground, SAS for in cities - generalisation but nevertheless). They complete their mission in a short period of time. No more than a few days MAX, staying under the radar. Then we pull them out. No-one lives in Syria, or if they do they stay in hidden bases for again the minimum amount of time. We cannot have a full scale military assault, it's completely the wrong type of warfare for this type of attack. Look at Afghanistan, look at Vietnam. Is this remotely legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this remotely legal? a) since when did that bother our government? b) trying to think if there is anything in the Geneva convention that would make it not be. I'm not even sure if Geneva convention applies here as we've discussed before. Like most things, the UN and lawyers decide legality and I can't see anything I've suggested that's not been used in wars before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You mean the countries still at war? One half of which has a dictator seemingly on a scale with Hitler? Not sure we'd agree on a definition of success here! North Korea tried to conquer south Korea. Troops went in and kicked them out. 66 years later, South Korea is a vibrant democracy and North Korea can't feed itself. Little doubt there about who won despite North Korea making a fool of itself on the world stage on a routine basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 No, don't agree. We had long term military bases in Afghanistan. We had thousands of soldiers on the ground getting killed by road side bombs and suicide troops. And we lost. We cannot do that again as you said it didn't work. What I'm suggesting is that we pick an ISIS target (1 or 2 people or a specific compound for example). We send in SAS or paras (depending on what skills are needed, paras for open ground, SAS for in cities - generalisation but nevertheless). They complete their mission in a short period of time. No more than a few days MAX, staying under the radar. Then we pull them out. No-one lives in Syria, or if they do they stay in hidden bases for again the minimum amount of time. We cannot have a full scale military assault, it's completely the wrong type of warfare for this type of attack. Look at Afghanistan, look at Vietnam. ---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 13:02 ---------- You mean the countries still at war? One half of which has a dictator seemingly on a scale with Hitler? Not sure we'd agree on a definition of success here! You're making it sound like Hollywood film. It doesn't work like that. It's never worked like that. I can think of one operation in Africa where something like that went down (I don't remember specifics) There are loads of Taliban big wigs knocking about Afghanistan and Pakistan who I'm quite sure we tried to find and kill. How long did it take to bin laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 a) since when did that bother our government? b) trying to think if there is anything in the Geneva convention that would make it not be. I'm not even sure if Geneva convention applies here as we've discussed before. Like most things, the UN and lawyers decide legality and I can't see anything I've suggested that's not been used in wars before now. Fair point. You have to offer them a way to make it look vaguely legal though. It has to be defensible legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You're making it sound like Hollywood film. It doesn't work like that. It's never worked like that. I can think of one operation in Africa where something like that went down (I don't remember specifics) There are loads of Taliban big wigs knocking about Afghanistan and Pakistan who I'm quite sure we tried to find and kill. How long did it take to bin laden? Oh this happens a lot. It's just not in the media. One of my good friends husbands was in the SAS (he left once he got married) and unless he's an absolute lying git which I doubt highly, this kind of warfare has taken place in nearly every war we've fought in since the Falklands. The whole point of black ops is that you don't know about it. They aren't going to start giving real time commentary to Sky News, but perhaps they should...Read Andy McNab (if you want to suffer) his accounts are at least mostly based on reality. It's only even in the media if it doesn't work like Black Hawk Down. It's fairly common knowledge that the SAS had a sniper rifle trained on Saddam Hussein in the first Iraq war but were never given the OK to take the shot. How different would things have been if they had have been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 7/7 is a weird one. It's alright then banging on about UK foreign policy in the Middle East but they were british by birth FFS. Still can't get my head around that. If you hate this country so much sod off elsewhere. I agree- they were British. I also agree that people like that should be ousted from these shores- which gave them and their families a place to live. However it doesn't change what goes on- what is seen are the effects of foreign policy decided in the West and implemented in Muslim countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 Oh this happens a lot. It's just not in the media. One of my good friends husbands was in the SAS (he left once he got married) and unless he's an absolute lying git which I doubt highly, this kind of warfare has taken place in nearly every war we've fought in since the Falklands. The whole point of black ops is that you don't know about it. They aren't going to start giving real time commentary to Sky News, but perhaps they should...Read Andy McNab (if you want to suffer) his accounts are at least mostly based on reality. It's only even in the media if it doesn't work like Black Hawk Down. It's fairly common knowledge that the SAS had a sniper rifle trained on Saddam Hussein in the first Iraq war but were never given the OK to take the shot. How different would things have been if they had have been? I can imagine it happening a lot but I'm not sure of the actual impact it has had. It may be a tool that has been successful in the past but I'm not sure it would work in Syria. It didn't make much of a dint in Afghanistan or arguably Iraq either. There are too many layers out there. By all means they could give it a go (if they haven't already) but I don't think it would be effective enough. Also you'd need support of the local population, and they're either onside with ISIS or living in so much fear they'd tip off ISIS for fear of their own lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 If it wasn't for the Kurds Turkey would be in the mire and they'd do well to remember that when new States are formed when all this comes out in the wash.Interesting article (and from the Guardian!) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I can imagine it happening a lot but I'm not sure of the actual impact it has had. It may be a tool that has been successful in the past but I'm not sure it would work in Syria. It didn't make much of a dint in Afghanistan or arguably Iraq either. There are too many layers out there. By all means they could give it a go (if they haven't already) but I don't think it would be effective enough. Also you'd need support of the local population, and they're either onside with ISIS or living in so much fear they'd tip off ISIS for fear of their own lives. That's a fair point. What would you do instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts