What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[red_elk]

Actually, both are used. Su-25 is not a bomber, it is ground attack plane (like A-10) and its role is rather direct aerial support of troops in combat. There are also a couple of state of the art jets, Su-34 (bomber) and Su-30 (air superiority) on the base, but as far as I understand they are rather useful for pilots training.

A video made by Vietnamese guy, shows all types of aircraft currently deployed in Russian airbase there.
Edit: Except Mi-8, which wasn't used in combat so far.


Link to video.

 

[Ironsided]

I found this Guardian column piece by Nicolas Hénin very informative and probably the closest we can come to an “expert understanding”. He is a French journalist and author who was held captive by ISIS for 10 months and in daily contact with them, including executioners like Emwazi.

Linky

 

[Sommerswerd]

It feels like a wack-a-mole situation... Even if we "defeat" and or "destroy" ISIS, they will just be replaced a few months later with CRISIS and if we "wack" them down then they will be replaced by SLICESIS, on and on etc...

Can ISIS really run a proper State? With an economy and government services and infrastructure and everything? Maybe if we just leave them alone and deny them the War that they seem to want, they will be forced to actually try to settle down and govern their territory, and then collapse on their own when they discover they are incompetent to actually run a State?

I mean eventually the people of their "country" will look around say "OK the West is gone, now so where are the schools and running water and electricity? Where are the jobs?" If they can't deliver (they can't) they will collapse on their own. Or are we actually thinking they have enough to establish a functioning State just based on their potential oil holdings?

 

[REDY]

Who does buy oil from ISIS?

 

[Silurian]

Turkey

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Actually, both are used. Su-25 is not a bomber, it is ground attack plane (like A-10) and its role is rather direct aerial support of troops in combat. There are also a couple of state of the art jets, Su-34 (bomber) and Su-30 (air superiority) on the base, but as far as I understand they are rather useful for pilots training.

A video made by Vietnamese guy, shows all types of aircraft currently deployed in Russian airbase there.
Edit: Except Mi-8, which wasn't used in combat so far.


Link to video.

Technically the Su-24 is not a bomber either but an interdictor. Anyway leaving aside technicities Su-25 is perfectly capable of launching 250 and 500 kg dumb bombs the same way as a Su-24 but is much cheaper and more proper for attacking scatered guerrilla than any heavy high speed jet. The only possible reason i can think of is ISIS having some kind of SAM defense making some missions too dangerous for using Su-25.

 

[red_elk]

Technically the Su-24 is not a bomber either but an interdictor. Anyway leaving aside technicities Su-25 is perfectly capable of launching 250 and 500 kg dumb bombs the same way as a Su-24 but is much cheaper and more proper for attacking scatered guerrilla than any heavy high speed jet. The only possible reason i can think of is ISIS having some kind of SAM defense making some missions too dangerous for using Su-25.

For attacking scattered fighters, definitely yes, Su-25 and helicopters are better. Su-24 in Syria are used to destroy logistics and military infrastructure, various stationary targets behind frontline. Su-25 can be used for that purpose too, but armored plane with less payload (comparing to Su-24) is less suitable for that.

 

[Borachio]

It feels like a wack-a-mole situation... Even if we "defeat" and or "destroy" ISIS, they will just be replaced a few months later with CRISIS and if we "wack" them down then they will be replaced by SLICESIS, on and on etc...

Can ISIS really run a proper State? With an economy and government services and infrastructure and everything? Maybe if we just leave them alone and deny them the War that they seem to want, they will be forced to actually try to settle down and govern their territory, and then collapse on their own when they discover they are incompetent to actually run a State?

I mean eventually the people of their "country" will look around say "OK the West is gone, now so where are the schools and running water and electricity? Where are the jobs?" If they can't deliver (they can't) they will collapse on their own. Or are we actually thinking they have enough to establish a functioning State just based on their potential oil holdings?

I really don't see why not..

But who knows? Maybe you're right, and they can't.

And maybe functioning States are a myth, after all. (A lot depends on that word "functioning".)

 

[red_elk]

I found this Guardian column piece by Nicolas Hénin very informative and probably the closest we can come to an “expert understanding”. He is a French journalist and author who was held captive by ISIS for 10 months and in daily contact with them, including executioners like Emwazi.

Linky

"ISIS are evil, therefore we should stop bombing them and attack their enemy, Assad instead"

 

[Senethro]

"ISIS are evil, therefore we should stop bombing them and attack their enemy, Assad instead"

Actually I can see the merit in this idea. Take away their immediate closest enemy and watch them destroy themselves or else pick a stupid fight they can't win.

Or it'll create another Somaliland. Maybe not.

 

[Galgus]

ISIS came from the region being destabilized, and I'm not sure there is a clear-cut way to destroy ISIS with its decentralized and fanatical nature.

I think we need to be wary of invading other nations and creating the kind of instability that birthed them.

Why would people who believe private citizens with guns could have stopped the Paris attacks, be afraid of Syrian refugees? Presumably these are open or concealed carry states.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens certainly would have helped, but the fear comes from a drummed up paranoia in my opinion.

It seems heartless and nonsensical to not bar refugees entry.

I suppose I'm sympathetic to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Sounds like a good way to spite ISIS if nothing else.

 

[red_elk]

Take away their immediate closest enemy and watch them destroy themselves or else pick a stupid fight they can't win.

Destroy themselves - how exactly? They will simply attack new targets - Lebanon, Iran or Israel, according to their plans for expanding the Caliphate. The only difference is that they will control large cities in Syria with several millions additional potential recruits. Are there any success stories of such states left for themselves - Afghanistan, Somalia, now Libya? It will turn into another terrorist hellhole with endless civil war and dozens of warlords fighting between each other.

The only hope for Syria is restoration secular government there. The West must learn on its mistakes in Libya and do not bring fundamentalists into power, covering under stupid rhetoric of installing democratic regime.

 

[Ironsided]

"ISIS are evil, therefore we should stop bombing them and attack their enemy, Assad instead"

Honestly, the question of who is more in the wrong; Russia, Iran and Assad or USA, Turkey, Rebels or ISIS is something I will not touch with a ten foot pole because it is impossible to make the call in this current media noise. The realisation that they all make a stellar combined effort to make life miserable enough for the Syrian population in the area is however very easy to make. This thread is not about that. It’s about what response to make to the Paris terror attacks.

What I’d focus on in the column is the fact that this French journalist who has every reason to be vengeful towards ISIS - suggests restraint. What ISIS want is more bombings. It serves their agenda. The beheadings and the terrorism is done to taunt the rest of the world into actions and animosity that will further divide and force parts of the Muslim community into picking a side. Their side.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Why would people who believe private citizens with guns could have stopped the Paris attacks, be afraid of Syrian refugees? Presumably these are open or concealed carry states.

Heh. Or the fact that of over 750,000 refugees accepted into America since September 12th, 2001, a whopping 0 of them have committed terrorist acts here.

 

[red_elk]

What ISIS want is more bombings.

Honestly, I doubt this is the case. What journalist heard, was bragging of some young deluded fanatics, which he himself call stupid. Except ideology, there are also military and economy aspects of bombing. Army must be fed, equipped and supplied, to fight effectively. When their oil infrastructure, roads, bridges and command centers are getting routinely destroyed, maintaining effective military is becoming quite difficult. When their best troops are becoming target practice for helicopters and unable to fire back, I can assure you, it's not very pleasant experience for them. And when bombing is accompanied with land advance of their enemy, which they unable to stop, this obviously lower their morale.

 

[Mark1031]

Happy, educated well-off people rarely decide to throw it all away to hurt other people.

If only it were true.

Among that handful were the 15 hijackers who joined the pilots aboard the four airplanes. All but one were from Saudi Arabia, most "were from families headed by tradesmen and civil servants, well-off, but not wealthy," mostly "unexceptionable men," none of whom "stood out for their religious or political activism." As McDermott writes, "that young men from good backgrounds would leave homes and families without fanfare or discouragement was evidence of the broad support within Saudi Arabia for jihad."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801315.html


It is hard for secular liberals to conceive of adopting such an ideology w/o some economic or political oppression. Ideas in the right context for some minds can have profound effects.

Think of the question this way. How do we get people to stop believing in Jesus. How do you get me (someone who favors reproductive rights) to oppose abortion access, or birth control. Now how do you do this from a completely different country and culture 1000s of miles away from those you wish to influence.

At best do no harm and keep from belicose political grandstanding which is exactly the response desired and becomes more unavoidable the more successful attacks are executed.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Heh. Or the fact that of over 750,000 refugees accepted into America since September 12th, 2001, a whopping 0 of them have committed terrorist acts here.

Well, that might have something to do with the fact that the US has an actual vetting process for refugees, we don't just throw open our borders and invite everyone in.

 

[BirraImperial]

I found this Guardian column piece by Nicolas Hénin very informative and probably the closest we can come to an “expert understanding”. He is a French journalist and author who was held captive by ISIS for 10 months and in daily contact with them, including executioners like Emwazi.

Linky

It sort of made sense until the "Assad is responsible for ISIS in Syria" part...If anything, Assad is the lesser of the two evils here...

 

[Borachio]

Honestly, I doubt this is the case. What journalist heard, was bragging of some young deluded fanatics, which he himself call stupid. Except ideology, there are also military and economy aspects of bombing. Army must be fed, equipped and supplied, to fight effectively. When their oil infrastructure, roads, bridges and command centers are getting routinely destroyed, maintaining effective military is becoming quite difficult. When their best troops are becoming target practice for helicopters and unable to fire back, I can assure you, it's not very pleasant experience for them. And when bombing is accompanied with land advance of their enemy, which they unable to stop, this obviously lower their morale.

This could be the case.

On the other hand, how much success do bombing missions historically have by themselves?

Sometimes they work (Bosnia for example - maybe); sometimes they don't (Vietnam).

Sometimes they have the very opposite of the desired effect (Libya).

There again, the more difficulties IS experience, the more jihadists are likely to flock to their cause.

 

[red_elk]

On the other hand, how much success do bombing missions historically have by themselves?

None, unless they were accompanied by land invasion, or at least a legitimate threat of it.

Sometimes they have the very opposite of the desired effect (Libya).

In Libya, unfortunately they had achieved desired effect - deposition of Qaddafi. What this deposition led to afterwards, was arguably not planned initially.

There again, the more difficulties IS experience, the more jihadists are likely to flock to their cause.

May be. But allowing them to capture large populated areas is worse alternative. Success will boost their morale and attract more volunteers from abroad, moreover they will be able to simply mobilize tens of thousands additional conscripts from Damascus and Aleppo.