Moxie Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'll admit that the amount of news I check has greatly decreased this year. There is just too much horrible stuff that I can't change. So, I'm watching today about the French air strikes. They mentioned that they targeted a known ISIS training facility. What am I missing?? If we knew where they were training, why did anyone wait until after an attack to blow them up? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 In Libya no less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Because you have to kill white people to get attention. I think it was frightening that they attacked such a developed country. It was like 9/11. We can't ignore it anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UmMusa Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think leaders around the world know and control and 'let' things happen. I also was left scratching my head after reading a similar article. They know exactly where to strike them in Syria. We are clueless as a public. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ISIS places its training camps in populated areas. Widespread bombing attacks would result in many civilian deaths. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I don't know. I suppose maybe in republics/parliaments where campaigns for re-election are such a big part of the political culture, it is about having support for the bombings. Maybe they feel their people will not support them if they feel it is an attack without provocation. Seems like as fast as NATO bombs up a terrorist entrenchment another one pops up just as deadly or worse. I am sure there are people wondering if it is valuable to take on such things. Then again, allowing them to proliferate unchecked seems wrong too. It's just a sticky issue, because essentially people in countries that pride themselves on due process are supporting actions that deprive other people of due process. Obviously, in a war, due process goes out the window, but still, there are no easy answers. I think so much of the time that the US, Germany, France, UK, Denmark, etc. are just muddling through not really knowing what the best course would be in these situations but doing what they think everyone else thinks they should do without any long term planning. I'm not criticizing. I don't mean it like that. It just feels like there isn't a real plan. I'm glad I'm NOT in the seat where these decisions are made because I've got not one drop of wisdom to bring to those frightful, closed door discussions. And then there is the UN, and trying to abide by treaties and agreements made. I think it is crazy complicated for those of us not "in the know", and incredibly difficult for our elected leaders. They are pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't, and nobody seems to have a good answer about what to do beyond the immediate reaction to the action. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ISIS places its training camps in populated areas. Widespread bombing attacks would result in many civilian deaths. Yes this. Recently the US mistakenly bombed a hospital. But the problem is that is where the terrorists hide - near hospitals, schools, highly populated civilian areas. As a civilized nation, how do you drop bombs there? And if we are not willing to put our military on the ground...we have to strike from afar making it more likely we also contribute to civilian deaths. It is a horrible, ugly fight. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 No, it's that it was a direct act of war on French soil so France felt that they had no choice but to strike back in self-defense. ETA: This was in answer to post #3 that alleged that the attack was because ISIS killed white people. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 So, I'm watching today about the French air strikes. They mentioned that they targeted a known ISIS training facility. What am I missing?? If we knew where they were training, why did anyone wait until after an attack to blow them up? Perhaps these targets aren't as strategically important as they are symbolically important (now). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Carol makes a valid point. There was a time when this country abided by the Monroe Doctrine. It kind of didn't matter what went on anywhere else in the world or how bad it got, unless we were directly attacked, we weren't getting involved. Evil could pretty much proliferate anywhere just so long as it left us alone. For some countries, their laws and treaties dictate that they cannot attack in advance due to imminent threat. They have to first have an act of war committed against them in order to then retaliate. As another poster pointed out, these slimes hide out in civilian heavy locales because they simply do not care who gets killed. They think nothing of putting hospitals, schools, orphanages, civilian housing, you name it at risk. They have NO humanity. None. Monsters. There is no number of civilian casualties that is "too many" for them. Sickening. As a republic with basic human rights guarantees and a code of military ethics that says we don't target children and sick people, how do you deal effectively with these kinds of madmen? I feel so bad for France's leadership and military. There is no good answer to this problem. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ISIS places its training camps in populated areas. Widespread bombing attacks would result in many civilian deaths. This. Also, they want to time the attacks to minimize civilian loss and maximize who would be at the target. Maybe the fact that they know it's a training facility and have been able to glean intelligence is a greater military asset than destroying it. And if it's in another country, you can't just go bombing or sending military strike teams in places without risking starting a war with a country. That's why (for example) strikes in Pakistan were/are troublesome, even the mission that got Bin Laden. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ISIS places its training camps in populated areas. Widespread bombing attacks would result in many civilian deaths. That. It is the same reason there has been hesitation about attacking oil fields. It means a LOT of bystanders dying. I am not sure we want that much blood on our hands. It would be... These groups hide behind civilians. If we attack then we kill innocent people. That is exactly what groups like ISIS want. Remember, lots of these people don't have access to many news sources. All they know is what they hear on the street or from their gov't. So, if their gov't or ISIS is telling them that the US wants to kill them b/c they are Muslim...and then we bomb them with drones, it only leads to further radicalization. Plus, there is the matter that bombing a target in a country against whom we have not declared war or who has not given us permission...is in itself an act of war. It gets complicated. If France sees fit to call on their NATO allies, then we are bound to go to war alongside them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The first time I went to Nepal and saw four year old children working on road crews I was forced to come to the realization that human life is not valued in all cultures. It simply isn't. It's a broken world and you cannot reason with people who see no value in any life other than their own. Stooping to their level and killing civilians is not wise either, we do not want to become like them to deal with them... but when someone's character is so bad that they will hide behind women and children what do you do? I had a coworker who always said that people group together based on how functional they are. I have found that to be true in social groups, churches, places of employment, ect. But when you have a big group where no one is functional at all they are capable of great evil. My coworker used to say that the likelihood that there are functional people in North Korea is not good. If you were functional you fled or were killed long ago. So, killing some ISIS people is not going to fix anything because the dysfunctional people are still there, we need to disempower them in some way, but I myself have no idea how that would be done. The whole situation could be solved by love in some way, but I have no idea how to even begin. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 If France sees fit to call on their NATO allies, then we are bound to go to war alongside them. Yes. I've been wondering since the moment I heard about the attacks if that would happen. It may very well be the purpose of the attacks, or at least one of them. Another thing to remember is that (as we learned from Iraq) when you go in and blow up a country you then own it. Do we really want to own Syria? To have to rebuild it? Set up a new government? Would that be in our long term best interests? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 One reason you might not attack is that you don't want them to know that you know, because then they might have a good idea of how you know, and take steps to stop that type of information getting out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yes. I've been wondering since the moment I heard about the attacks if that would happen. It may very well be the purpose of the attacks, or at least one of them. Another thing to remember is that (as we learned from Iraq) when you go in and blow up a country you then own it. Do we really want to own Syria? To have to rebuild it? Set up a new government? Would that be in our long term best interests? I also think the purpose of the attacks, aside from just plain old punishing France for taking part in attacks against Syria, is to try to stop the rest of the world from taking in the refugees. I was impressed that Hollande said he would not stop taking them in b/c he knows they are fleeing the same terrorists. I truly believe that the refugees could be a great asset against ISIL. They have had to leave their home b/c of them and I would assume they want to go back if it is safe. I can imagine there are quite a few would would like to fight for their home, once they get back on their feet. And I don't think there is any good solution to this problem. I know that last time we sent tens of thousands of troops into that part of the world we didn't solve any problems. In fact, what is happening now is a direct result of those actions. So..let's do it again? At the same time, these people are brutal killers. They go into a town and kill all the men and boys who are old enough to fight, they take the younger boys for soldiers, they auction off the girls and unmarried women to be sex slaves, they kill the older women and the very young children. That is what the refugees are fleeing. ISIL would be fine with killing every single person on earth who doesn't agree with them. Then they could just spread out and take over. It's the ideology of the cancer cell. And it's not like we can topple the Syrian government and this will stop. It's a political ideology, not any one specific country. I truly do think that it is going to take a combined effort of many countries on many different fronts to effectively deal with this. It's going to be fought on the streets of Syria and Libya as well as in the schools and on social media. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 One reason you might not attack is that you don't want them to know that you know, because then they might have a good idea of how you know, and take steps to stop that type of information getting out. :iagree: Who knows, maybe we even had people on the inside there. It's not like they could publicly announce that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vera Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I haven't read the replies so forgive me if someone already mentioned this but France is very worried about doing anything to strengthen the Assad regime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I also think the purpose of the attacks, aside from just plain old punishing France for taking part in attacks against Syria, is to try to stop the rest of the world from taking in the refugees. I was impressed that Hollande said he would not stop taking them in b/c he knows they are fleeing the same terrorists. I truly believe that the refugees could be a great asset against ISIL. They have had to leave their home b/c of them and I would assume they want to go back if it is safe. I can imagine there are quite a few would would like to fight for their home, once they get back on their feet. And I don't think there is any good solution to this problem. I know that last time we sent tens of thousands of troops into that part of the world we didn't solve any problems. In fact, what is happening now is a direct result of those actions. So..let's do it again? At the same time, these people are brutal killers. They go into a town and kill all the men and boys who are old enough to fight, they take the younger boys for soldiers, they auction off the girls and unmarried women to be sex slaves, they kill the older women and the very young children. That is what the refugees are fleeing. ISIL would be fine with killing every single person on earth who doesn't agree with them. Then they could just spread out and take over. It's the ideology of the cancer cell. And it's not like we can topple the Syrian government and this will stop. It's a political ideology, not any one specific country. I truly do think that it is going to take a combined effort of many countries on many different fronts to effectively deal with this. It's going to be fought on the streets of Syria and Libya as well as in the schools and on social media. And arguably it is in part western interference over the long term that has set up a situation where many people are receptive to these ideologies. It is really a Catch-22 in so many ways. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'll admit that the amount of news I check has greatly decreased this year. There is just too much horrible stuff that I can't change. So, I'm watching today about the French air strikes. They mentioned that they targeted a known ISIS training facility. What am I missing?? If we knew where they were training, why did anyone wait until after an attack to blow them up? and then the number of raids and arrests of known radicals within france. they even got a rocket launcher among all the explosives and ammunition, etc. good question - why did they wait? reports from the FBI (came from a friend who is retired FBI.) are there are 1000 KNOWN terrorist training cells in the US - why haven't authorities done anything? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Because you have to kill white people to get attention. Too true. :( 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 and then the number of raids and arrests of known radicals within france. they even got a rocket launcher among all the explosives and ammunition, etc. good question - why did they wait? reports from the FBI (came from a friend who is retired FBI.) are there are 1000 KNOWN terrorist training cells in the US - why haven't authorities done anything? That stat sounds...fabricated. It's always coming from some distant "authority" source. If it's real classified, risk-to-national-security information, these people wouldn't be gossiping about it. Or they'd be committing treason. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 . good question - why did they wait? reports from the FBI (came from a friend who is retired FBI.) are there are 1000 KNOWN terrorist training cells in the US - why haven't authorities done anything? Just because it's not in the news doesn't mean that nothing is being done. There is much that can't be shared or the missions are compromised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I believe that the US was a party to these French bombing raids. That is how it has been reported. Also I think that the US has been making some air attacks on ISIS for quite a while--but not getting the same media attention as these have, coming as they do on the heels of the major attacks in Paris, which I guess makes them more of a 'story'. Additionally the calculus of risk for those kinds of attacks and the probability of civilian casualties shifts the decision making as others have said. So I don't think it is fair to criticize the US for 'doing nothing', nor is it fair to criticize France for collateral damage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 and then the number of raids and arrests of known radicals within france. they even got a rocket launcher among all the explosives and ammunition, etc. good question - why did they wait? reports from the FBI (came from a friend who is retired FBI.) are there are 1000 KNOWN terrorist training cells in the US - why haven't authorities done anything? Due process and the constitution. As a general rule, we have been against regimes that locked people up for what they believe, no matter how repulsive that may be within the culture. So until their is evidence of a crime or ample evidence of conspiracy to commit - requires a lot of evidence much of which can be dismissed on technicalities so it can take years to collect enough - they remain free unless we want to go down that path, and well, many of us see a very bad ending for going down the path that makes the constitution and legal protections from tyranny moot. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 and then the number of raids and arrests of known radicals within france. they even got a rocket launcher among all the explosives and ammunition, etc. good question - why did they wait? reports from the FBI (came from a friend who is retired FBI.) are there are 1000 KNOWN terrorist training cells in the US - why haven't authorities done anything? I do know that there are many, many militias in the US who keep the FBI busy. They are not ISIL groups, by any means, but homegrown right wing groups. We have our own terrorists who keep the FBI busy these days. Posse Comitatus, white supremacy groups, anit-tax groups, anti-federal groups, violent anti-abortion groups, secessionist groups, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Its not against the law to belong to any of those groups. They have the right to arm themselves. What would you like done about it? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.