''Massive" Russian and French Airstrikes on ISIS yield squat
 

33 IS fighters killed by French and Russian air strikes: Monitor | Middle East Eye
Bottom line the cockroaches scurried underground :2 cents:

Going to be a long tough fight against those bastards unfortunate

I dont get why people are such pussies when It comes to this shit, specially if your Canadian and all we've seen is white terrorists. The best way to fight, which you can hear from pretty much every solider that's gone and done it, that it needs to be done with intel gathering and special opps.

I keep hearing how the French President is "taking action" and "taking charge" and "taking the fight to the enemy" while Obama is doing nothing. France dropped some bombs in ISIS while the United States has been dropping bombs for two years.

Go figure.

bombing does not work...the USA dropped more bombs on asain tiny dick farmers than all bombs in history combined and still lost...

at least people have started concentrating on the libya problem

Shhhh...the Republican narrative is that Obama is doing nothing. Keep it on the down low.

i like how BO declared isis is contained moments before isis attacked France.

That's the narrative in DC, and it's quickly becoming a bipartisan one. He refuses boots on the ground. Bombs are only effective if you carpet bomb an entire area. Using smart munitions and hitting only "military" targets will never work. You don't think THEY know what's on the target list? Easy to avoid a building if you know it's about to get bombed.

Obama is taking flak for drawing a line in the sand, and when Assad crossed it, Obama balked at the threat. And his outright refusal to even say the words "Radical Islam". Even Hillary won't say the words. With leaders like that, who needs immigrant terrorists?!?!

You cant win with bombs alone.. Have to get boots on the ground. Route them out... Only way.

Air power alone will not solve this. At the same time, I don't believe boots on the ground will solve it either. ISIS is a hybrid between a country and government, a military force, and a terrorist group. Our military can take on a country or military force, but a terrorist group is really a criminal organization.

I am all for boots on the ground, but only if we are going to be serious about it. We need to build a massive base in the middle of Iraq and say "We will be here for the next one hundred years". And then stay there.

The Iraqi government and military is unable to handle this on it's own. Clearly Obama was wrong by pulling out troops when we did. This is not going to be a ten or twenty year commitment - this will be at least the next forty or fifty years.

http://i.imgur.com/GKczZc4.jpg

Meanwhile in North Korea

http://i.imgur.com/T7xJKuP.jpg

Meanwhile at the White House

http://i.imgur.com/IBvUxHy.jpg

thank fucking god retards like rochard are far far away from being in charge of anything.

Its a different kid of war, from your grandfathers:2 cents::thumbsup

Yeah, bad strategy to not use name calling when trying to defeat terrorist.
It's the name calling that brings them to their knees.

:1orglaugh

Recognizing the problem is the first step to fixing a problem. If they refuse to recognize the threat, they'll never address it as it actually is...Radical Islam.

Bullshit.
He pulled them out before 10k more US soldiers were killed over there and refocused on Afghanistan.

It's just a silly dream that the US was ever going to control Iraq.

Bush had plenty of time to do all this great shit that Obama supposedly "refuses" to do.

ISIS :

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant

Who defines "radical", Rush Limbaugh or do we have a committee?

I'm not trying to fight Islam homie; because we'd fucking lose that one hands down.
We might be able to defeat the terrorist though.

:helpme

They are all over the world so this is endless

That's not really true. In vietnam the US won most of the battles but lost the war because of politics. Our military was fighting with its hands behind its back.. can't bomb here can't bomb there..

Much like in Afghanistan when Bush wouldn't bomb targets in Pakistan the enemy knew they could cross the border and hide.

When Obama came to office he started hitting them in Pakistan and took all kinds of political heat mainly from the Right but by doing that he was very effective and eventually dismantled for the most part al Queda and the Talib an ability to fight back.

only way to win is to ban the media.

fucking bleeding hearts cry over every win.

ban the media and i bet in one year they could steam roll the whole area

Bombing breaks their will, but if they can't be broken then yes, it isn't that effective. Look at WW2 Germany won a lot of battles that way, but it didn't break the English spirit.

it does not break your will one bit...I have been through US bombing it only pisses you off more and more...you are right about the british in ww2 just like you guys did not give up after 9/11 or what ever...

truth be told, the worst part about the bombing was power outages, I was playing half life during the US bombing and it would be a complete nuisance to have to save status so much

so you can imagine how much shits the "ready to die for allah extremist" gives...


yet you dropped more bombs than all of humanity combined until that moment, on one tiny country, and you defoliated 90% of their vegetation, you used chemical weapons, spent 20 years telling them they can not pick communism democratically ect...

even if you bombed their civilians, as I am sure the US gov would LOVE to do, it would just make other countries speed up the nuke research, because they would know what to expect from the USA and would take appropriate action...

you guys are just 5% of the world...we are not going to listen to you...you will learn this the hard way or the easy way...

So you are saying you are a Islamic extreemist?

are you saying you are an american terrorist?

he's saying he's still butthurt because USA bombed his punk ass and he had to stop with the genocide.

no I am saying your bombing does not do shit except make money for your corporate masters, and I am saying technology advances in the whole world and you are just 5% of it....tick tick tick motherfukkers :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

right, so you're back to your 99.5% of muslims are nice but as soon as they catch up to technology and get a bomb they're bombing USA.

the lingering effects of shell-shock are very apparent in you

To date in Iraq we've lost less than 5k, not 10k.

Again, we need to make a decision. We need to continue what we are doing which is less than effective, or go all in with tens of thousand of troops on the ground for the long haul.

Right now the public is calling for action, and rightfully so. But two years from now when one thousand US servicemen have come home in body bags the public will say "What are we fighting for?" and "We weren't attacked - why are we still there". And then we'll have the discussion "ISIS has been defeated, it's time to come home" without understanding that we have defeated ISIS as a group, but not the ideology of racial Islam.

the USA public is very much calling for NOT sending troops or special forces into action against isis.


The new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 65 percent oppose sending special forces to the region, a move that has already been taken by Obama.

When asked about regular ground troops, the opposition grew stronger with 76 percent opposing deploying troops.


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/us-france-shooting-usa-poll-idUSKCN0T528Y20151116#BRVozowszSRcUKYh.99

In Vietnam we never lost a major battle. A great of example of this was the Tet Offensive - This was a massive assault across the board that ended in spectacular failure.

The problem with Vietnam is that there was too many restrictions as to what our military can or could not do. The military needs to be able to do it's job, not have restrictions saying "You can't bomb this city" and "You can't go into this country". If the enemy is in Laos and Cambodia, then that's where our military needs to attack. Same thing with Hanoi - We should have flattened the city. Instead we drew a line in the jungle and said "do not cross". That gave them a large base to continue their efforts, and they attacked the southern half of the country by going into other countries.

If we put boots on the ground to fight Iraq, we need to go all in with no restrictions.

Vietnam is unified and is doing o.k, so maybe it's good the U.S lost.

Imagine where they would be today if they didn't fight a thirty year war....

ask the few vietnamese that survived if communism is worth going through that shit again.

Exactly. Air power doesn't work with this kind of thing...unless you drop a nuke.

You hit the nail on the head. Vietnam proved two things: The U.S. doesn't need to get in a "quagmire" war. And bombing won't win.

And it seems our govt. forgot both of those things when dealing with this.

33 dead jihadists at a cost of how much? The Coalition needs to learn that these expensive air strikes are not the way to defeat these guys. They can kill 129 people with 8 terrorists and a few grenades, rifles and home made suicide belts. I'm not an expert in how much all that stuff costs but I bet its fractions of the cost of 1 missile.

Good on France for responding, Russia too but these guys are expecting this and as someone already mentioned, have already gone underground.

The terrorists spent months planning their little attack which was really nothing more than a pin prick. The President of France picked up the phone and dropped a lot of bombs on them - and those bombs will continue for months if not years.

If you are referring to Vietnam...the US dropped the equivalent of nine world war two atomic bombs during the conflict. Our forces killed somewhere around three million people during the conflict compared to less than sixty thousand Amercian lives lost. Our goal was to keep the North from conquering the South...which was accomplished while our troops were there. We withdrew our troops in '73 and turned the conflict over to the South Vietnamese forces. The NVA conquered the South in '75. Ultimately the US suffered a political defeat but not a military defeat.

You're such a dumb fucking piece of shit...

You can't defeat them period - they are everywhere, in our own countries, many of them born and raised citizens, it's impossible for any country to keep tabs on every malcontent and easy enough for those malcontents to get explosives to put on their bodies and walk into a mall, stadium, busy street and blow themselves up and take hundreds with them. If there's 2,000 of them in a country like the US or England, you work your ass off and spend billions rooting out 3/4's of them, that leaves 500 of them, how many did it take in total to pull off the Paris attacks? 20?

You can reclaim lands they've taken in Iraq and Syria but that does nothing to stop the terror attacks in other countries. These people aren't the devout Muslims they claim to be, they are socially maladjusted psychopaths using a religious cause as cover and a recruiting tool. We underestimated them, that they now are in control of large parts of Syria and Iraq is something nobody thought them capable of.

We're stuck with this problem, even dropping a nuke on the Middle East would do nothing.

And that was the lesson of Vietnam, Ho Chi Min warned that the Vietnamese would never give up, they had nowhere to go, it was their home and you could bomb it until there was nobody left but they weren't going to give up. Wars only end when one or both sides want to stop the pain and go back to their normal lives. When your normal life is really shitty there's no reason to surrender or negotiate peace.

it's important to note that avoiding prime targets in the bombing campaign in vietnam was a military strategy, not a political one. the results come from that poor strategy combined with the mismanagement of the bombing campaign by military brass.

Not so. The President of France held counter intelligence meetings with USA, who spent months putting together the information on targets. I won't pretend to know a lot about military tactics, I never served a day in my life and have had the privilege of growing up in a country that hasn't saw much war but I do have family who serve and they all agree that air strikes are not the way forward in this.

These people have infiltrated major EU cities and the security services don't know anything about them. Terrifying.

Huh...these guys are ruining business for Turkey:mad:

i wouldn't want to piss off the Turks.

so tolerant :1orglaugh

i was replying to the post prior. i don't read russian but the comment was the airstrikes in the youtubes were ruining business for Turkey. should Turkey be tolerant of that?

Are you serious?
These are ISIS refineries that Ruskies bombed. Turkey is buying cheap oil from them for god know how long