Escalation in the war aganist ISIS.
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
- Status
Tallest Skil
Banned
What, in response to the attack today? ASB. Not happening.
Europe needs to take care of EUROPE first.
Europe needs to take care of EUROPE first.
They blow all sympathy and any ally will say "Fuck this, you're on your own"
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
France becomes the Fifth Belligerent in the conflict as pretty much all support outside the far-right dries up. The French Peoples demand Hollande steps down, with politicians moving to have the President Impeached, whilst ISIS use the attack as propaganda against the French and vow violent and bloody revenge. Once the dust has settled, Hollande, assuming he doesn't take the Gentlemen's following his committing a crime against humanity, is hauled before the Hague. Deepening on what is used, you also face a global health crisis as a military grade virus ravages the world. ISIS might crumble as a result, but in the end, France is now a pariah state on the world stage and Hollande is in a Dutch Prison.
EDIT: Oh, this is based off a terrorist attack that just happened. This should be in future history, or, as it really, really should be, in chat.
Last edited:
Chemical weapons may be a military possibility, quite frankly in the current climate if they were only used to kill terrorists a large percentage of people probably would not give a damn, however, these type of weapons are indiscriminate.
However, ISIS is mixed up with a huge percentage of people who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Ordinary people like you and me. That's what terrorists hide behind, because they know, quite rightly, that an indiscriminate attack like a chemical or bio weapons would be would be quite rightly interpreted as a moral outrage.
However, ISIS is mixed up with a huge percentage of people who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Ordinary people like you and me. That's what terrorists hide behind, because they know, quite rightly, that an indiscriminate attack like a chemical or bio weapons would be would be quite rightly interpreted as a moral outrage.
So far i know has the french army has no Bioweapon
The Use of Chemical or Nuclear Tactical weapon is very extrem. only if some one attack France with those weapons, they would striking back with same weapons.
lucky IS not have Chemical or Nuclear Tactical weapon
So the French Government will send the French Foreign Legion into Syria and Iraq to deal with the IS...
The Use of Chemical or Nuclear Tactical weapon is very extrem. only if some one attack France with those weapons, they would striking back with same weapons.
lucky IS not have Chemical or Nuclear Tactical weapon
So the French Government will send the French Foreign Legion into Syria and Iraq to deal with the IS...
Last edited:
The real escalation would be the "disappearance" of a couple of billion of dollars (10 million per dead) from Al-Saud family (family in the Mob sense, since Saudi Arabia is led by a kleptocracy) accounts in european banks.
When the ISIS puppetmasters will start to feel the pain (in the wallet) they will behave differently.
When the ISIS puppetmasters will start to feel the pain (in the wallet) they will behave differently.
What if France, in response to the deaths of a few hundred innocents, decides to kill a few hundred thousand innocents?
Maybe this board stickies a post on the concept of proportionality in international law and we stop getting people advocating genocide in response to terrorism.
Maybe this board stickies a post on the concept of proportionality in international law and we stop getting people advocating genocide in response to terrorism.
Sir Chaos
Banned
People will NEVER stop advocating genocide in response to something far less than genocide.
There will always be ethically challenged blowhards who think a mountain of corpses constitutes a moral high ground.
They change their mind once they realize they don't have chemical and bacteriological weapons anymore.
What is possible is deployment of ground troops (Légion Etrangère, probably not the regular army) vs ISIS.
Archibald
Banned
We should send an ASMP nuclear cruise missile on Raqqa, the ISIS "Capital". Decapitation strike (quite an appropriate word, btw)
Raqqa no longer belong to Iraq or Syria, it belongs to ISIS. So just nuke the whole thing to clean the bastards.
At least the ISIS chief S.O.B (Djiahad John) has been wiped out by an American missile. Thank you Uncle Sam !
Raqqa no longer belong to Iraq or Syria, it belongs to ISIS. So just nuke the whole thing to clean the bastards.
At least the ISIS chief S.O.B (Djiahad John) has been wiped out by an American missile. Thank you Uncle Sam !
Except that all nuclear powers adopted no-first-use policy and rejected use agaisnt non nuclear country. (something that comes in any "WI Brits nuke Argentina during Falklands war?")
It's not even that it's bad strategy. Very bad strategy.
The same people who say this, probably have the opinion that Hitler could have won in the East if only he had recruited the Slavs to fight against the Bolsheviks, or had held off on the extermination until after the war. A double standard for sure. They think that the dictators of the world if only they acted a little more devious or smarter in recruiting conquered populations could have succeeded in consolidating their power, but when it comes to modern liberal democracies doing the same thing it's viewed as weakness.
Archibald said:
Again, bad strategy. They will not be "cleaned" they will just find another city to rebuild and have ten times more recruits and the moral high ground because this is a war of ideology not for territory or resources. There are one and a half billion Muslims on the planet and they are the fastest growing population. Turning them all into enemies, is counter-productive to the goal. The best strategy would be to use as little force as possible to contain the extremists and recruit people who know the culture, can infiltrate and and destroy from within, and strike only when ISIS has lost all popular support and the goal is clear and well-defined. Anything else is wasted effort at best or worse long-term suffering.
I will say something that will perhaps be controversial but France should have seen this coming... with all the prior attacks and the most hardline position in the West (Assad must go, should have troops on the ground after chemical weapons etc) and the highest ratio of bombing sorties against ISIS, plus the engagements in Afghanistan and Mali, the French intelligence service should have been tripled or quadrupled and surveillance should have been much better of radical groups. Tactical response units should have been placed all over Paris with cameras everywhere in preparation for more extremist strikes after Charlie Hebdo, for exactly this sort of large scale attack. They dove in halfway into the military solution without correspondingly increasing the intelligence or surveillance, and this is the result. Either they should have stayed out completely or invested heavily in law enforcement and secret services to prevent this kind of predictable attack, because war is the continuation of politics by other means.
I imagine that Raqqa is probably also home to many innocent people who want to do nothing more than get on with their lives as best they can.
The answer to IS is Special Forces, air power and (if the west has the stomach for it) ground troops, not the slaughter of innocents.
Raqqa is nothing, if you want to cut the main head of the snake you send that ASMP to Riyadh. With conventional warhead mind you, just aim for the royal palaces. There are other "smaller" snake heads and puppeteers in that region and outside of that region worthy of an ASMP, but then you'll probably have WW3...
Btw that "Jihadi John" is no one, just an irrelevant rat, they can easily replace him with another of the thousand more they have.
The thing is that they saw it coming. The DGSI announced that they knew attacks like these could happen, and it was granted traditional means after Charlie Hebdo. In every of the last attacks the terrorists where known to intelligence services for islamist tendencies. What was missing was the determination to arrest them before they could do anything. And now hundreds of families are mourning.
Last edited:
Lost Freeway
Banned
First of all, this should be in Chat because it is related to a current event.
Second, France would never stoop that low. Their leaders don't want to bring themselves to the enemy's level.
I have a feeling somebody is gonna get a ticket to Coventry.
Second, France would never stoop that low. Their leaders don't want to bring themselves to the enemy's level.
I have a feeling somebody is gonna get a ticket to Coventry.
Old Fashion, but it works
If you really want to stick it to the IS, you have to go Old School.
1. Take as many ground troops (infantry) as you can.
2. Surround a piece of land and start slowly moving inward.
3. Kill everybody that resist, kill those that try to break out.
4. After you meet in the middle, kill those that you can identify.
(facial recognition etc. they liked to show off on social media).
5. Repeat as long as there is still an IS.
6. No Press allowed.
Duckie
If you really want to stick it to the IS, you have to go Old School.
1. Take as many ground troops (infantry) as you can.
2. Surround a piece of land and start slowly moving inward.
3. Kill everybody that resist, kill those that try to break out.
4. After you meet in the middle, kill those that you can identify.
(facial recognition etc. they liked to show off on social media).
5. Repeat as long as there is still an IS.
6. No Press allowed.
Duckie
Dare I suggest that if your strategy for ending an insurgency bears marked similarities to Col. Kurtz's last order, that it may be somewhat misguided if not utterly vile?
Sir Chaos
Banned
*shrugs*
Not everybody sees Muslims as human beings, like you and I do. To those who consider them "Untermenschen", massacring lots of Muslims to destroy a terrorist organisation is killing two flies with one stone.
- Status