[Closed] RAF air strikes.

Two things suprise me about all this.
1) how do the bombs know where they are pointed at, are they Lazer guided or summmat?
2) a better success rate might be achieved by two blokes, a large gargo net and a couple of morters or a huge piece of rope, one bloke one end, one the other then just walk along a high st in one of the main towns and hoard them up.

@binners, have been away form the site hence the non-response.

One of the major developments with Al-Q was the funding they had (from Bin Laden personally and his contacts) which allowed them to run sophisticated training camps and have resourses to buy explosives/weapons and fund international operations. ISIS is at another level in terms of finance and training. They pay their recruits and provide board and lodging and are recruiting "wives" now. All of this will be directed towards attacks on the West in due course if it's not eradicated now. Radicalised individuals with training and money will try and return to the West and stage attacks. We have sen one individuals return to France and murder 4 people in Belgium. It will be much more of the same on a much bigger scale if we don't do something about it.

@kimbers - I think the be-heading videos are aimed at ISIS supporters (to show impotent the west is), to discourage aid workers (ISIS want to be seen to be the only organisation that can help muslims, its a bit inconvenient if the westerners start looking like the good guys) and to western civilians who put pressure on their governments to say intervention is not worth it. The videos also encourage some governments to pay ransoms (US and UK will not but many do), so they are a fund raiser. Also its a big "revenge" message for Gunatanamo, mocking the orange suits used there. In the Iraq war Al-Q stopped the videos as they decided they where counterproductive but ISIS are putting a lot of effort into producing them.

Jambalaya - I understand we face a terrorist threat. What I'm disputing is whether the most effective way to address this threat is with missiles launched from aircraft. Didn't work in Afghanistan, did it? And it won't work in Iraq either. Its stupidity. We're fighting the wars that we thought we were going to have 30 years ago. Are we seriously saying we're going to eradicate terrorism by bombing them one Toyota at a time?

The only outcome that I can see is further radicalisation when the inevitable 'collateral damage' happens, which will actually have the opposite effect and actually only the terrorist threat.

We simply can't bomb our way out of this one. We need to be far cleverer than that. Fat chance....

All of this will be directed towards attacks on the West in due course if it's not eradicated now. Radicalised individuals with training and money will try and return to the West and stage attacks. We have sen one individuals return to France and murder 4 people in Belgium. It will be much more of the same on a much bigger scale if we don't do something about it.

jambalaya - Member

All of this will be directed towards attacks on the West in due course if it's not eradicated now.

Which is an argument for eradicating it now. But that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're poking it with expensive sticks.

@Northwind/@binners I do agree but that's all we can do politically, boots on the ground isn't a realistic option for the US under Obhama and no other countries are going to consider it without the US taking the lead. IMO doing nothing is not an option. We in the West have made the correct choice that a £100k spent on a missile is better than a dead soldier.

I think where we do agree is that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake (obvious at the time IMO) and that the operation was poorly managed (once we had gone in we should have mad more troops there and done a better job of planning our successor) but now we are where we are. We have to deal with what's in front of us today.

scuttler - Member

Looks like the septics might be unpacking these again which might restore the balance of relative costs of weaponry vs Hi-Luxes.

Excellent! Finally Warthogs are out again as predicted.

A-10 Warthogs are brilliantly designed/adopted just for this kind of mission and are far cost effective then using missiles. Those bullets are far cheaper to buy ...

Now let's see the Warthogs cut the IS members into pieces.

In this sort of fight there is no need for fast moving planes just need plenty of these: Apache, Warthog A-10, B-52s, F-14, F-18, Tornado (even Jaguar would do) or Harriers ...

edit: F-22 will be a very expensive failure ...

jambalaya - Member
We in the West have made the correct choice that a £100k spent on a missile is better than a dead soldier.

There are more than those two options.

chewkw - Member
Excellent! Finally Warthogs are out again as predicted.

And the hardware fetishists' trousers start twitching. 🙄

Lifer - Member

chewkw - Member
Excellent! Finally Warthogs are out again as predicted.

And the hardware fetishists' trousers start twitching.

Hi-Five! 😆

Now let's see the Warthogs cut the IS members into pieces

You do know this is real life and not a film right? Your lack of empathy is frightening to be honest. I'm no fan of ISIS or any pre or off shoots but they are still people. Kill or be killed fair enough but don't gloat about taking a life.

Excellent! Finally Warthogs are out again as predicted.

Very sad that you feel so triumphant at putting other peoples life in danger and the need to kill. Such things may be deemed neccessary at times but there is no need to celebrate it. Western society struggles to prove that it is above "Revenge Justice" and no wonder when armchair generals like you make statements like that.

Cummon! Cummon! It's A-10 Warthog! 🙄

chewkw - Member
[s]
Cummon! Cummon! It's A-10 Warthog![/s] fapp fapp fapp fapp

Cummon! Cummon! It's A-10 Warthog!

Yes I remember them well. They killed 9 British soldiers in a 'friendly fire' attack in the Gulf war. War is filthy, disgusting, sometimes necessary but never fun mate!

Strikes me that the perfect aircraft for this operation are ground attack planes; A-10's, Harriers, and Skyraiders,

Skyraiders? I know they talk about bombing people back into the last century but I didn't realise that when we'd done that we got planes out of service for 40 years to bomb them back into the century before that!

There are more than those two options.

As an aside I have been a fan of the A10 ever since I saw one at Farnborough airshow a long long time ago. Great aircraft and revolutionary in it's time. I appreciate getting excited about a killing machine can be seen a wierd but many of us appreciate the Spitfire for its design and effectiveness and the fact that its a symbol of resistance and freedom.

For the chickenhawks !

Lifer - Member

chewkw - Member

[s] Cummon! Cummon! It's A-10 Warthog![/s] fapp fapp fapp fapp

That sounds like A-10 unleashing 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon. 😆

[i]What I'm disputing is whether the most effective way to address this threat is with missiles launched from aircraft.[/i]

Funny that, on page one you were ranting about the cost, IIRC...
[i]Total cost of all these Tornado sorties so far = 700 squillion pounds
Price of a battered Toyota HiLux with a couple of kalashnikovs on board = considerably less than 700 squillion pounds.

Did everyone enjoy Mr Osbournes announcements of the latest massive cuts to our 'unaffordable' public services yesterday? [/i]

[i]Lifer - Member [/i]
jambalaya - Member
We in the West have made the correct choice that a £100k spent on a missile is better than a dead soldier.

[i]There are more than those two options.[/i]

But you never seem to offer any answers, instead you tip-in just enough to moan and critisize. Thing is, if you have such disdain for people here and their views, why bother, yeah!
😉

[i]You do know this is real life and not a film right? Your lack of empathy is frightening to be honest[/i]

As is the comments asking why we're doing what we are and can't we just turn our backs on the victims of IS.
[i]johnners - Member
Why don't we leave it to the Saudis, they've way more planes than us and they're closer.[/i]

As is the comments asking why we're doing what we are and can't we just turn our backs on the victims of IS.

Why not???...... we have done jackshit for the people of Northern Nigeria for quite a long time now ! and I really cannot understand why !

Everyone with half a brain knows we'll achieve nothing at all by bombing

Ignoring the fact we already have, as bombing in support of the fighters on the ground has pushed ISIS back from the dam and allowed the people to come down from the mountain top.

Sure now we probably need to change tack as ISIS have been forced to change tactics, but around end of August there was a real problem in Iraq. The RAF were very late to the game (hence lack of targets), presumably because Westminster wanted to avoid problems sending in the military in the run up to the Scotland Yes/No vote.

So sure their are problems with tactics and how to resolve the situation, but don't pretend something didn't need doing to prevent things in Iraq spiraling out of control.

Interesting and obviously very good that the Taxi Driver is still alive. I reckon there must a lot going on that we are unaware of, as it seems he was found not guilty in a Sharia Court of spying, which leads me to think there is some kind of power struggle, between those who want him killed and those who don't.

In answer to your earlier question Binners, I believe that we need to stop this IS mob creating the Caliphate they desire, which would effectively provide them a huge Islamist power base in its own right.....which would of course lead to an even worse situation.

[i]Everyone with half a brain knows we'll achieve nothing at all by bombing[/i]
Well, there's at least one Hi-Lux that won't leave tyre tracks in the blood drenched sands of Iraq, anymore.

IS are completely out there and can't be allowed to continue. It's a decision they made for us, imo, we can't just look away from what IS are doing there and pretend it's not happening.

[i]Solo. Can you tell me how what I've said is inconsistent? I think this whole thing is absolute bloody insanity.[/i]

You've critisized bombing, on the basis that it's robbing vaulable funds for your public services, here at home (look after No1 first eh).
In reply to you, folk have suggested that bombing is likely cheaper than having more of our dearest blood, spilt in Iraq and Syria, by sending our soldiers there to fight IS.
In reply, you appear not to be able to distinguish between the cost of ordinance and the value of Human life, namely, the victims of IS and our soldiers.
Then you use the word "insanity"....

Perhaps you've spread yourself so thinly, across so many threads on here lately. That even your awesome levels of wisdom are failing to keep up. Might you consider a break from the keyboard, perhaps even a lay-down in a quiet, darkened room?
Calm down.

Interesting and obviously very good that the Taxi Driver is still alive. I reckon there must a lot going on that we are unaware of, as it seems he was found not guilty in a Sharia Court of spying, which leads me to think there is some kind of power struggle, between those who want him killed and those who don't.

Are they developing long-range missiles then? Equipping themselves with an air force?

Well, there's at least one Hi-Lux that won't leave tyre tracks in the blood drenched sands of Iraq, anymore.

Yay for us, eh?!!! We're great aren't we? Our brave boys and girls are doings proud. Peace within the entire region is only 7,689,694,043 missiles away 🙄

You've critisized bombing, on the basis that it's robbing vaulable funds for your public services, here at home (look after No1 first eh).

I'm criticising it as its a completely pointless exercise, that going to cost us an absolute fortune in cash that we apparently haven't got to pay for schools, hospitals or a welfare state, and will ultimately achieve absolutely nothing

Which bit of that are you having the problem comprehending?

Jambalaya... again... I know theres terrorist threat. We all do. Nobody is disputing this. What I'm asking you, and which you have again failed to answer, is how blowing up the odd pick up truck, at enormous expense, is going to keep us all safer from terrorism back here. Because I can't see how it conceivably can, at all. In fact, quite the reverse

Feel free to enlighten me though

I'm criticising it as its a completely pointless exercise, that going to cost us an absolute fortune in cash that we apparently haven't got to pay for schools, hospitals or a welfare state, and will ultimately achieve absolutely nothing

I refer you back to my previous posts, that it isn't that expensive (we've not dropped many bombs so far) and it was necessary as there was a chance of Iraq falling to ISIS.

Where we go from now is the big question? ISIS are boxed in to an extent but are we happy to keep them there or go in harder after them?

Solo - Member

IS are completely out there and can't be allowed to continue.

So it's kind of a shame that they are- because none of the forces opposing them is willing to do what it takes to actually stop them- only to inconvenience them and encourage them to find other ways to attack.

This is the basic problem. We've settled on the near-pointless inbetween, faced with there not being the political will to do the job right we've decided to do it wrong, instead of not doing it at all. We'll waste some money and (re)paint the target on our heads and really not achieve very much at all, and unless we're pretty lucky we'll blow up a bus full of nuns and children's faces and pour fuel on the fire. It's the 650b of war, this.

[quote=binners said]Jambalaya... again... I know theres terrorist threat. We all do. Nobody is disputing this. What I'm asking you, and which you have again failed to answer, is how blowing up the odd pick up truck, at enormous expense, is going to keep us all safer from terrorism back here. Because I can't see how it conceivably can, at all. In fact, quite the reverse
Feel free to enlighten me though

Is the RAF's remit to only target pickup trucks ?

Because if so then a pilot and his/her navigator must be getting a right rollicking about now as yesterday they targetted "20-30 jihadists " in a half built hospital.

Perhaps there was a truck nearby and they missed it ?

They targetted "20-30 jihadists? Blimey! Thats me told eh? Up to 30 beardy blokes AND a Toyota?

Do we know if they hit any of the baddies? If so, I bet thats changed the balance of power in the region pretty significantly, eh? And we can all sleep safely in our beds tonight.

it'll all be over by Christmas, eh? 🙄

Ref the costs....The other thing to consider is that the jets need flying, the Pilots need to be flying and bombs have shelf lives.

In other words, we would still be spending shed loads on flying, training and decommissioning out of date bombs that cost huge sums to make.

So...we may as well have an air war and it costs us very little.

[quote=binners said]
it'll all be over by Christmas, eh?

Not heard anyone say that, quite the opposite infact. You should keep more abreast with current affairs old bean 🙂

The fact is that they've got what they wanted. Their caliphate. How does this pose a threat to us?

Think it'll stop there?

This is where I part company with the Lefties, Its all-right to stand on higher ground looking down on folk with "lesser Morals" saying you shouldn't have done that, or look at history, but no one did anything to stop what has happened happening.

Now the mess has to be contained. One way or the other.

And I wish we could learn lessons, but there's far too much money to be made for any teachings from history.

[i]I'm criticising it as its a completely pointless exercise, that going to cost us an absolute fortune in cash that we apparently haven't got to pay for schools, hospitals or a welfare state, and will ultimately achieve absolutely nothing

Which bit of that are you having the problem comprehending? [/i]

On the contrary, it seems to me that while you're complaining about schools, welfare state, tax breaks, the conservatives, etc and how we're wasting [b]money[/b]. That you're simultaneously failing to comprehend the Human cost of sending soldiers.

Others are pointing out that [b]lives[/b] are at stake, were we to allow IS to continue unchallenged.
Personally, I value a life over the cost of a missile used to stop an IS fighter who will otherwise go onto kill a taxi driver, behead someone in an orange jump suit, murder people of other faiths, aid workers, etc, etc.
I must be crap with money, sorry.
Chill.

They targetted "20-30 jihadists? Blimey! Thats me told eh? Up to 30 beardy blokes AND a Toyota?

Do we know if they hit any of the baddies? If so, I bet thats changed the balance of power in the region pretty significantly, eh? And we can all sleep safely in our beds tonight.

1 aircraft - 1 weapon.

The RAF have a tiny presence there, seems to be mainly a political gesture.

The US have flown hundreds of sorties. If they can hit several targets each day and take out the heavy weapons, tanks etc then it will change the balance of power.

The aircraft can also give a massive tactical advantage during particular engagements as ISIS have no air power.

Also, as was said before, a lot of the cost is already accounted for.

What would you prefer we do, nothing?

We do nothing in plenty of other conflicts, including ones where civilians are slaughtered.

Why is this one so special?

Jambalaya... again... I know theres terrorist threat. We all do. Nobody is disputing this. What I'm asking you, and which you have again failed to answer, is how blowing up the odd pick up truck, at enormous expense, is going to keep us all safer from terrorism back here. Because I can't see how it conceivably can, at all. In fact, quite the reverse

Feel free to enlighten me though

We are going to blow up more than the odd pickup truck. The action is going to weaken ISIS and allow the ground forces to recapture territory and drive ISIS back. We will remain at risk from isolated attacks here in the UK but the broader more significant threat from ISIS can and will be defeated. We tried the sit back and do nothing (post the defeat in the Commons last year) and that hasn't worked out has it ? We now know that when that vote was taken the hostages had already been taken.

We do nothing in plenty of other conflicts, including ones where civilians are slaughtered.

Why is this one so special?

What would you prefer we do, nothing?

Yes. Whats so hard to understand about that? Thats exactly what we should be doing. Nothing. Its none of our business. Who made us the world police? Its a regional conflict, a sectarian war, some tribal shit, a civil war, and a proxy war being fought by all kinds of unsavoury regional powers, all rolled into one. Its a massively complicated situation, and we're looking for our typically simplistic Hollywood Good Guys/Bad Guys narrative. Well it doesn't exist!

Have we learnt nothing? Every time we've got involved, cluelessly wading in, like we're doing again now, its ended up as an absolute shambolic disaster, thats ultimately made things ten times worse. This will be exactly the same.

We should be staying completely out of it. Arming the Kurds? Fine. Supplying humanitarian aid? Great! Getting involved in another open-ended messy war in the middle east? no thanks.

jambalaya - Member

We are going to blow up more than the odd pickup truck. The action is going to weaken ISIS and [b]allow the ground forces to recapture territory and drive ISIS back.[/b]

Like the Shia militias on the ground, some of whom who have said

"When I withdraw my forces now the Sunnis will come back and they will become an incubator for Isis again," said one fighter. "When I liberate an area from Isis why do I have to give it back to them? Either I erase it or settle Shia in it."

"If it's for me I will start cleansing Baghdad from today," added another fighter. "We have not started sectarian war, we are just trying to secure our areas, but if the sectarian days come back then I am sure it will be won by us."

Will we then bomb them?

Like I said... all the sabre-rattlers are looking for easy, simplistic solutions to complex problems. Its never going to work. Let them get on with it, or [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis-bomb-muslim-world-air-strikes-saudi-arabia ]bomb the whole region[/url]

[i]Barack Obama has now bombed seven largely Muslim countries, in each case citing a moral imperative. The result, as you can see in Libya, Iraq, ****stan, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia and Syria, has been the eradication of jihadi groups, of conflict, chaos, murder, oppression and torture. Evil has been driven from the face of the Earth by the destroying angels of the west.[/i]

When are we actually going to learn?

[i]Its a regional conflict[/i]
No, it's not, they murder foreign hostages and directly address the west in their threats.
Go hide in your hole, if you wish. Allow this evil to prevail. But remember one thing. They'll get to you, eventually.

[i]We should be staying completely out of it. Arming the Kurds? Fine. Supplying humanitarian aid? Great! Getting involved in another open-ended messy war in the middle east? no thanks. [/i]
Thank you, we now understand your position. I'd expect that you have nothing more to add now then.

[i]Why is this one so special?[/i]
It's special, if you can't see that, nothing I post here will allow you to see it.
You of all people, should know that.