It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

French launch airstrike against IS in Raqqa

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's all about appearances. Making the Homefront feel like somebody is doing something.

What gets me is okay, you want to punch them in the mouth. Why do you not understand, still, that "they" don't give a damn about missiles and bombs? They're inconvenient, but not a punch in the mouth.




posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
That'll be it sorted then...



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

Northrop Grumman just got awarded the new bomber contract and is looking at a $100B contract. Lockheed has just gotten several large contracts for C-130s as well as the latest buy of F-35s. Raytheon has a number of systems including sub systems for the F-35, C-130, and new bomber, as does General Dynamics. None of which has to do with Isis.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
What France are doing right now is useless and is built on nothing but frustration. The real terror threat is not in Syria. It is already in europe.... it is already in France.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Look, there are bad people out there -- don't get me wrong. We absolutely need to do something about it. . . What I'm thinking is that we always rush in with out planes and bombs, tanks and troops -- and we never seem to think about the larger picture or the long term consequences or goals.

Look at the mess Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into post-9/11. Have we really made the world safer, or kept Americans here in America safer since 9/11 with our military in those two countries? I'd argue that we've created even *more* terrorists.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Discotech

Northrop Grumman just got awarded the new bomber contract and is looking at a $100B contract. Lockheed has just gotten several large contracts for C-130s as well as the latest buy of F-35s. Raytheon has a number of systems including sub systems for the F-35, C-130, and new bomber, as does General Dynamics. None of which has to do with Isis.


Which is more than enough for a price spike.

No, nice long unending engagements helps things like the price of steel.
edit on 15-11-2015 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
So, will somebody tell me when they are going to go in for the real kill, and bring death to the idea of IS? Bombs and bullets won't do it Unless of course, we literally slaughter every Muslim. So, just how exactly are we going to defeat IS if we don't kill it as an idea?


One possible answer is included right before your question.....
Of course, I assume you are looking for OTHER answers besides that one.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm surprised at you Zaphod, the article I listed is from 2014 long before the contracts were awarded and let's be honest these companies need wars and constant dangers in order to keep getting these contracts, if the world was at peace and free from war these companies would cease to exist or would have to work on developing technology that isn't focused on killing.

War is big money, Hitler proved it by recovering Germanys economy by igniting the war machine building treaty breaking ships, a massive air force and lot's of tanks and the US became the global powerhouse it is today thanks to World War 2 kick starting the massive industry while they were still recovering from the depression mid world wars
edit on 15/11/15 by Discotech because: stuff



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Look, there are bad people out there -- don't get me wrong. We absolutely need to do something about it. . . What I'm thinking is that we always rush in with out planes and bombs, tanks and troops -- and we never seem to think about the larger picture or the long term consequences or goals.

Look at the mess Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into post-9/11. Have we really made the world safer, or kept Americans here in America safer since 9/11 with our military in those two countries? I'd argue that we've created even *more* terrorists.


Yeah. Why bomb tanks, tropps and dams and infrastructure in Iraq and Syria. WHen theese targets have nothing to do With who the terrorists are. Why ruine infastructure to force People to flee?

It is not IS in Syria or Iraq who are terrorising europe at the moment. It is IS within europe.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Fox News was on the TV and talking about the strikes. Whoever was the guest speaker said that the intelligence based off the strikes are poor.

Haven't we learned that bombing campaigns aren't working against ISIS? Especially when civilians are killed? I hope none of these airstrikes kills one single innocent civilian.

You know what would be smart? Sending in special forces units to take out key ISIS leadership instead of air strikes based off of poor intel.
edit on 15-11-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Actually weeks ahead of time in many cases. And many of the strikes we don't officially hear about until long after the fact.

Problem is, if they get wind of them the roaches scatter into the population, and then it's do-over time.

My point was really more what Sham eluded to. They gave France the targets so they could get their revenge. And are we even sure yet that it was IS that perpetrated the crimes in Paris? I've lost the will to follow that anymore.
edit on 11/15/2015 by ~Lucidity because: too short. added some.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

So kill not only the terrorists but civilians as well. Something like Hiroshima?



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Shamrock6

Fox News was on the TV and talking about the strikes. Whoever was the guest speaker said that the intelligence based off the strikes are poor.

Haven't we learned that bombing campaigns aren't working against ISIS? Especially when civilians are killed? I hope none of these airstrikes kills one single innocent civilian.

You know what would be smart? Sending in special forces units to take out key ISIS leadership instead of air strikes based off of poor intel.


That is not going to work. Doing anything helpfull in Syria aint going to happen as long as the west dont want to cooperate With Russia.

This is not going to work when the US, UK and France all want to do their thing. Sending SF would be useless and a Waste of reasources.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Oh I'm sure the US and Russia can work together in Syria if they both were drawing up plans to take out key leaders or sites in Syria and Iraq. In fact, I'm sure many allies would join together and hit ISIS from all sides with just special forces alone if the agenda for the west was to rid the planet of ISIS. You think Russia wants to spend years, maybe even decades, in Syria? I'm sure they've learned from their mistakes and ours!
edit on 15-11-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If we want to get rid of IS we would probably have to og after the Source... like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. US, Uk and and French the Nonleathal aid which they use to supply these thugs With reasources.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

And do you think that the modernization of our military started this year? It's been an ongoing project for the last five or six years at least.

The following contracts were awarded on August 20th of 2014:


GD/NG/BAE were awarded a $2.5B contract for CANES production units.
LM in New Jersey was awarded a $60M contract that potentially was worth $420M for Aegis Weapon System mods.
Raytheon was awarded a $59M contract for MK54 lightweight torpedo kits.
NG was awarded a $34M contract for Ship Self Defense System Mk2 hardware.
LM was awarded a $32M modification for CBASS FIR kits.
LM was awarded a $12.7M modification for F-35 LRIP VI.
GD was awarded an $8.9M contract for Trident II shipboard engineering and refueling.

That's just for one day in August, and just for the Navy.
edit on 11/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: spy66

Oh I'm sure the US and Russia can work together in Syria if they both were drawing up plans to take out key leaders or sites in Syria and Iraq. In fact, I'm sure many allies would join together and hit ISIS from all sides with just special forces alone if the agenda for the west was to rid the planet of ISIS. You think Russia wants to spend years, maybe even decades, in Syria? I'm sure they've learned from their mistakes and ours!


IF that was the case it would have been so right now. But it si not.

The US are in ME for one reason only: WHat ever is best for The interests of the United States Of America. The Russians are not interested in US interests in the ME, that should be prity Clear to everyone by now.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Any civilians living in Raqqa know the risks. If they haven't left already, then they are the enemy. Women and children, bomb them all. Yes, it's ugly, but war isn't a magic unicorn rainbow.

ISIS counts on the weakness of our rules of engagement, soon they will see the terror in the eyes of their comrades when they realize the west will be taking no prisoners. It's time to terrorize the terrorists.

#WesternArmchairWarriorYOLO
edit on 15-11-2015 by socketdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree.

Having been overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you firsthand, future generations do not want to see American and other coalition forces invade their homeland...For the most part they understand that our ultimate goal was to rid them of the oppression of terrorist organizations in the area...and that innocent casualties is a price that is paid in every war...

I've sat face to face with dozens of sheikhs from full blown towns to small villages...and none of them have been the least bit hostile...in fact, I don't remember a single one who didn't thank us for what we were trying to do...

ISIS preys on the young telling them that we despise their religion and only want to exterminate them because we're evil...but the kids I helped in Iraq and Afghanistan know better...I personally helped a couple young kids learn English...We gave them food when they didn't have any...Water when they didn't have any...We gave them books and toys...We gave them everything we could to make their life just a little bit easier...My time spent there was more about winning their trust than anything else...and they know that even if the politics behind it are skewed, the men and women wearing boots on the ground would never do anything to harm an innocent civilian.


As far as ISIS is concerned, I think it's time the west stop intervening. Maybe the muslim world that "condemns" this sort of violence can step up for a change and start to police their own...Last I heard Iranian President Hassan Rouhani condemned the terror attacks in Paris...but will Iran do anything(outside of its own borders) to stop them? Likewise with Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Egypt...

Surely with full international cooperation an organization like ISIS could not stand very long at all....So what's stopping us?

A2D
edit on 15-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Any nation is going to do whatever is in their best interests. Russia is there for their best interests, which includes basing rights and a warm water port. If it wasn't for that, they wouldn't be there right now. Nations don't do things just to be nice, and for no reason.




top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join