Russian Airbus crashes in Egypt

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

The question is will that help? ISIS doesn't care if you carpet bomb a city. They don't care about civilian casualties. You can't beat them down with hardships, and they will exploit any military action as motivation to recruit more members. They want an apocalyptic and widespread jihadist war. That's where they thrive.

ISIS has also shown themselves to be adaptable and mobile. When you push them out of one area with a heavy military presence, they set up shop somewhere else. How do you stop that? Send in 2 million troops to impose military rule and fight some never ending urban guerilla conflict all across Syria? It's the same reason military campaigns failed in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It's an unwinnable conflict.

With Vietnam and Afghanistan, modern conventions of war practically stopped any hope for a complete victory. Has any war since WW2 ever been "won" without the ensuing "war crimes"? Capitulation just doesn't happen without complete destruction.

ISIS is even worse because it is essentially a borderless conflict. It's like playing whack-a-mole. How do you beat that? It's like the war on drugs and other borderless conflicts. It's hard to win when you have nothing to take away from them. If you let them establish a state, then they would have something to lose, but no one is their right mind would ever want to do that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

With Vietnam and Afghanistan, modern conventions of war practically stopped any hope for a complete victory. Has any war since WW2 ever been "won" without the ensuing "war crimes"? Capitulation just doesn't happen without complete destruction.

ISIS is even worse because it is essentially a borderless conflict. It's like playing whack-a-mole. How do you beat that? It's like the war on drugs and other borderless conflicts. It's hard to win when you have nothing to take away from them. If you let them establish a state, then they would have something to lose, but no one is their right mind would ever want to do that.

Honestly you're probably not going to beat it with a set piece battle plan. You can role in and take territory, but you're going to be facing a ghost enemy that looks like civilians and acts like civilians and wants mass civilian casualties.

for the most part the average foot soldier for ISIS welcomes death or martyrdom. The only way to fight these groups is to go after the people that don't want to die. Which is the leadership who have it pretty good.

You basically have to start killing leaders, and I'm not just talking the senior guys, but you go after their field commanders, who are the real zealots.

If you kill enough experienced leaders or good leaders, their logical replacement are eventually going to be inexperienced or hesitant leaders who are going to make mistakes that you can capitalize on.

The other lesson that probably won't be learned, is that eventually you will have to fight the enemy on the same brutal level, if the enemy hides among civilians, then conventional wisdom means that you have to take out that enemy no matter what the cost is.

the other big requirement is based around the intelligence war. The United States and the other western powers have become too reliant on technology, tapping cellphones, use of satellites and drones. There needs to be more of a focus on human intelligence in the region to help predict intentions and patterns.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

The question is will that help? ISIS doesn't care if you carpet bomb a city. They don't care about civilian casualties. You can't beat them down with hardships, and they will exploit any military action as motivation to recruit more members. They want an apocalyptic and widespread jihadist war. That's where they thrive.



ISIS has also shown themselves to be adaptable and mobile. When you push them out of one area with a heavy military presence, they set up shop somewhere else. How do you stop that? Send in 2 million troops to impose military rule and fight some never ending urban guerilla conflict all across Syria? It's the same reason military campaigns failed in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It's an unwinnable conflict.

No doubt this is true for a hard-core of ISIS members but there are also reports of disillusionment and desertion as the situation gets tougher for them. The best defense may be offense – keep them on the run

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...nada-documents

[Lubicon]

Nm

[blankall]

Originally Posted by edslunch

No doubt this is true for a hard-core of ISIS members but there are also reports of disillusionment and desertion as the situation gets tougher for them. The best defense may be offense – keep them on the run

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...nada-documents

There's definitely been a few cases of this. However, many of the stories I've heard of ISIS fighters abandoning their post involve Western kids who thought they could go play Rambo. They get over there and realize what actual battle is like and then yearn for their parents' basement again.

The recruits from middle east, the caucus, etc.. are hardened militants and psychopaths. Their alternative isn't go back to Canada and continue your engineering degree. It's go back to your war torn dictatorship with ultra stringent conservative values and poverty.

You've got to keep in mind that ISIS has an estimated 100-200,000 fighters now. Of course your going to see a fraction any such group become disallusioned and leave. Particularly when ISIS essentially demands suicide from it's members.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly you're probably not going to beat it with a set piece battle plan. You can role in and take territory, but you're going to be facing a ghost enemy that looks like civilians and acts like civilians and wants mass civilian casualties.

for the most part the average foot soldier for ISIS welcomes death or martyrdom. The only way to fight these groups is to go after the people that don't want to die. Which is the leadership who have it pretty good.

You basically have to start killing leaders, and I'm not just talking the senior guys, but you go after their field commanders, who are the real zealots.

If you kill enough experienced leaders or good leaders, their logical replacement are eventually going to be inexperienced or hesitant leaders who are going to make mistakes that you can capitalize on.

The other lesson that probably won't be learned, is that eventually you will have to fight the enemy on the same brutal level, if the enemy hides among civilians, then conventional wisdom means that you have to take out that enemy no matter what the cost is.

the other big requirement is based around the intelligence war. The United States and the other western powers have become too reliant on technology, tapping cellphones, use of satellites and drones. There needs to be more of a focus on human intelligence in the region to help predict intentions and patterns.

I agree. However, just to add to this, taking out the leadership fast enough is a really difficult challenge. At this point there are a fair number of militants with leadership experience from Chechnya, Iraq, etc.. and now Syria itself. The war in Syria has been going on for over 4.5 years now.

Lower ranking fighters also have huge motivations to step up into those leadership roles. We're talking about kids who come from ultra conservative and poverty stricken countries. Become a higher ranking ISIS military leader and you get your own harem of sex slaves and a fancy jeep to ride around in. It's the same reason kids join gangs. A lot of kids will risk a lifetime of poverty for a few years of the high life.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by T@T

For some reason people seem to think Russia is the root of all evil and will do anything to get their way. To me it seems their leaders protect their own as much as anyone in the world.

Zero chance they would blow up their own innocent citizens like this for any reason.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...scow-bombings/

It's happened before. I don't put it past Russia at all. It's how Putin secured power in the first place.

In 2000 Sergei Kovalev, then the widely respected head of the Russian organization Memorial, observed in these pages that the apartment bombings in Russia in September 1999, which killed three hundred people and wounded hundreds of others, “were a crucial moment in the unfolding of our current history.

The bombings, it will be recalled, were blamed on Chechen rebels and used as a pretext for Boris Yeltsin’s Kremlin to launch a bloody second war against Chechnya, a republic in the Russian Federation. They also were crucial events in promoting Vladimir Putin’s takeover of the Russian presidency as Yeltsin’s anointed successor in 2000 and in ensuring his dominance over the Russian political scene ever since.

The evidence he provides makes an overwhelming case that Russian authorities were complicit in these horrific attacks.2

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree. However, just to add to this, taking out the leadership fast enough is a really difficult challenge. At this point there are a fair number of militants with leadership experience from Chechnya, Iraq, etc.. and now Syria itself. The war in Syria has been going on for over 4.5 years now.

Lower ranking fighters also have huge motivations to step up into those leadership roles. We're talking about kids who come from ultra conservative and poverty stricken countries. Become a higher ranking ISIS military leader and you get your own harem of sex slaves and a fancy jeep to ride around in. It's the same reason kids join gangs. A lot of kids will risk a lifetime of poverty for a few years of the high life.

there's the added bonus, that leaders don't become suicide bombers, they convince other people to do this.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...scow-bombings/

It's happened before. I don't put it past Russia at all. It's how Putin secured power in the first place.

This is a popular theory in Russia, among Putin haters. However, it is almost like suggest that Putin was the man behind Ukrainian coup so he could annex Crimea.

While I am by no means Putin's defender, but those 1999 Moscow bombings - I was 18 at that time - were by no means proven to be Putin's actions, nor it was proven otherwise. The main argument for Putin's guilt is that his rating really went from like 10% to like 80%. However, this doesn't exactly mean that the bombing was set-up. One certain thing is that Putin made the most out of it.

All the investigations performed by people like Kovalev were sponsored by Putin's political opponents, such as Boris Berezovsky. Several people, who were particularly determined in either getting to the bottom of the story or trying to pin it on Putin were killed. However, those people were agents of Putin's political opponents and while Putin clearly had no problem shooting down his opponents, it has yet to prove that he was the mastermind behind the bombings.

However, there was undeniable presence of actual terrorists in Chechnya at that time and there were certain terrosits actions, such as Beslan and Nord-Ost hostage standoff, that were undertaken by real terrorists, both before and after Moscow bombings.

[sharkov]

Originally Posted by Thor

Its just bizarre how many people think Putin and Russia are these bad asses, its especially funny because they lost already one war with Afghanistan, and what, they will be able to wipe out ISIS because what? Putin likes to be topless riding bears? loool

Russia lost in Afghanistan because the rest of the world was arming the Afghans and the Afghans would not surrender. Had the west not armed the Afghans, they would keep running at the Russian bullets until they all died

[Thor]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Russia lost in Afghanistan because the rest of the world was arming the Afghans and the Afghans would not surrender. Had the west not armed the Afghans, they would keep running at the Russian bullets until they all died

So the reason America has lost the war in Afghanistan is what then?

The reason why its such a quagmire is the fact its so mountainous, the porous borders, and fanatical religious enemy.

The only way to "win" in situations like this is to use WWII tactics of wiping out entire cities, killing vast amounts of civilians and then setting up immense walled borders and using a vast army to occupy. Even then you would still have a never ending terrorism issue.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Russia lost in Afghanistan because the rest of the world was arming the Afghans and the Afghans would not surrender. Had the west not armed the Afghans, they would keep running at the Russian bullets until they all died

When you think of it had the Americans not armed the Afghans Russia would have killed bin laden, al Qaeda wouldn't exist, 911 wouldn't have happened and the Middle East wouldn't be a war zone today.

Blame is all on the U.S

[chemgear]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/middle...inkId=18809153

The Russian passenger jet that crashed over Sinai, Egypt, was brought down by a bomb estimated to contain 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of explosives, the head of the Russian Federal Security Service said Tuesday, and the Russian government is offering a $50 million reward for information about those who brought it down.

The government had initially resisted the theory that the plane fell victim to terrorism, perhaps in retaliation for Russia's support of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

But in a turnaround, the government is offering the reward, according to the official Sputnik news.

[PIMking]

except Russian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Thor

So the reason America has lost the war in Afghanistan is what then?

The reason why its such a quagmire is the fact its so mountainous, the porous borders, and fanatical religious enemy.

The only way to "win" in situations like this is to use WWII tactics of wiping out entire cities, killing vast amounts of civilians and then setting up immense walled borders and using a vast army to occupy. Even then you would still have a never ending terrorism issue.

The Afghans aren't generally fanatical any more than any other nation of that education level etc.

They are however possibly the place with the longest tradition of warfare against foreign invaders. Persians, Indians, Imperial Russia, colonial Brits, Soviet Russia... Everybody has ended up regretting they went there.

Relatively speaking the Americans have done quite ok.

[sharkov]

Maybe France and Russia can make a joint effort against ISIS

[Locke]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Maybe France and Russia can make a joint effort against ISIS

Well pissing off Russia is usually amongst the lower rungs in terms of 'wise decisions.'

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly you're probably not going to beat it with a set piece battle plan. You can role in and take territory, but you're going to be facing a ghost enemy that looks like civilians and acts like civilians and wants mass civilian casualties.

for the most part the average foot soldier for ISIS welcomes death or martyrdom. The only way to fight these groups is to go after the people that don't want to die. Which is the leadership who have it pretty good.

You basically have to start killing leaders, and I'm not just talking the senior guys, but you go after their field commanders, who are the real zealots.

If you kill enough experienced leaders or good leaders, their logical replacement are eventually going to be inexperienced or hesitant leaders who are going to make mistakes that you can capitalize on.

The other lesson that probably won't be learned, is that eventually you will have to fight the enemy on the same brutal level, if the enemy hides among civilians, then conventional wisdom means that you have to take out that enemy no matter what the cost is.

the other big requirement is based around the intelligence war. The United States and the other western powers have become too reliant on technology, tapping cellphones, use of satellites and drones. There needs to be more of a focus on human intelligence in the region to help predict intentions and patterns.

I could almost buy into this if you could provide one example in recent history (100 years) where this strategy results in a victory and a lasting peace.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by PIMking

except Russian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to be one of the most tone-deaf posters on this board. Despite the great lengths many posters have gone to over the years to try to educate you and teach you to distinguish between Muslim victims of terror and Muslim's guilty of terror, you return time and again with the same "all Muslims are the problem" and "all Muslims are guilty" crap.

You were practically an economic refugee that this board took upon itself to support financially. If I was a Muslim who contributed to your 'cause', I think I'd be demanding my money back.

Educate yourself. You should be embarrassed to post this garbage.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You have to be one of the most tone-deaf posters on this board. Despite the great lengths many posters have gone to over the years to try to educate you and teach you to distinguish between Muslim victims of terror and Muslim's guilty of terror, you return time and again with the same "all Muslims are the problem" and "all Muslims are guilty" crap.

You were practically an economic refugee that this board took upon itself to support financially. If I was a Muslim who contributed to your 'cause', I think I'd be demanding my money back.

Educate yourself. You should be embarrassed to post this garbage.

Jesus, did you wake up and bump a nerve? I fail to see where he lumped all Muslims together, If that photo of a blackjack was really bombing Syria(it's probably a training photo) it would be dropping bombs on ISIS not the good Muslims.

Here's an idea, stop being so sensitive, your acting like a Muslim who just saw a cartoon.