Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh, a kangooboom, I don't know if I must laugh or cry, it is so "original"...

I'm puzzled they didn't try to strike Disney before, there is a lot of people there.

I wonder how many more attacks the western world has to suffer before western governments pull their collective heads out of their ass's and get really tough on ISIS.

Define "get really tough" and you might have the answer to your question.

bound for glory wrote:
I wonder how many more attacks the western world has to suffer before western governments pull their collective heads out of their ass's and get really tough on ISIS.

That won't help. ISIS is more than just an organisation, it is an idea. You can't fight ideas by "getting really though" on them. Even if ISIS is destroyed, a successor will spring up almost immediately.
If anything, the West needs to pull out of the Middle East completely and ignore that that part of the world even exists. Without outside interference, things will calm down over there eventually.


Also, an exploding kangaroo covered in ISIS symbols is hilarious. Was that guy a real terrorist or just joking?

 Breotan wrote:
I carried a pistol when I went to Magic Mountain, CA. Never tried to bring one into Disneyland though.

Disneyland in France, I assume, very much discourages armed visitors.

Heck, Disney World in Orlando searches bags and stuff on the way in and is a 'gun free' zone if I remember my last trip there correctly.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Define "get really tough" and you might have the answer to your question.

Do what that model of restraint, Russia, isn't willing to do, I guess.

Kinda hard to "ignore" the middle east when the middle east is coming to us.

So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

What specifically do you think we should do?

Heres something i'd like our european members to answer:

Are any of you bothered at all over the flood of "refugees" coming into your countries?

 Ouze wrote:
So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

What specifically do you think we should do?

Arm all theme park costumed character actors.

bound for glory wrote:
Heres something i'd like our european members to answer:

Are any of you bothered at all over the flood of "refugees" coming into your countries?

 Ouze wrote:
So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

And, you have your answer Ooze.

Though the first clue was when I asked him to define what he thinks western nations should do and he completely ignored it in favor of more vague hate-posting.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

What specifically do you think we should do?

Arm all theme park costumed character actors.

Definitely a twist on "bear arms" when it's a costume bear with an M4 in his bear arms.

 Ouze wrote:
So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

What specifically do you think we should do?

Form a new coilition and put boots on the ground. Use all the resources the west has and destroy ISIS. I'm quite sure we would'nt kill them all, but better to go there and fight them, than have attacks like paris.

The very minimum the western governments can do is protect their people. If that means a real war, so be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry about the quote post above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
Heres something i'd like our european members to answer:

Are any of you bothered at all over the flood of "refugees" coming into your countries?

 Ouze wrote:
So, we're not going to have a serious conversation, right?

And, you have your answer Ooze.

Though the first clue was when I asked him to define what he thinks western nations should do and he completely ignored it in favor of more vague hate-posting.

Hate posting, huh? What unit did you serve with?

Well, just my opinion obviously but I don't think it's clear that a coalition of troops in Syria would actually stop lone wolf terror attacks. Truthfully, I'm not sure we can stop lone wolf attacks period, full stop. We've had domestic terrorism long before ISIL even existed.

I also don't think that the political will is there to do so. We're fought 2 such conflicts in the last 12 years and I don't think there's much evidence that either conflict made the world a safer place or were worth the sacrifices. Lets assume there is, though - why do you think this specifically would be different? I'm honestly asking.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, just my opinion obviously but I don't think it's clear that a coalition of troops in Syria would actually stop lone wolf terror attacks. Truthfully, I'm not sure we can stop lone wolf attacks period, full stop. We've had domestic terrorism long before ISIL even existed.

I also don't think that the political will is there to do so. We're fought 2 such conflicts in the last 12 years and I don't think there's much evidence that either conflict made the world a safer place or were worth the sacrifices. Lets assume there is, though - why do you think this specifically would be different? I'm honestly asking.

GEN(R) Dubik had an article I saw today and discussed with a colleague that you may find interesting:

http://www.armymagazine.org/2016/01/12/winning-the-war-weve-got-not-the-one-we-want/

He makes some interesting points.

I do not accept racism. I have zero problem with people fleeing war. I've been to war. I would'nt recommend it to anyone.
So stick your hate crap up it, buddy.

Say something with actual substance and I won't call you out on it then, breh.

Well, i don't have all the answers.

I'm gonna drop out of this. I ment no offense to anyone.I guess i see things a bit differently as a vet.

Be polite in this thread people. Just because it is a long one doesn't mean it is consequence free. For example, telling people to "stick your hate crap up it" isn't polite. So let's get a handle on that yeah?

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, just my opinion obviously but I don't think it's clear that a coalition of troops in Syria would actually stop lone wolf terror attacks. Truthfully, I'm not sure we can stop lone wolf attacks period, full stop. We've had domestic terrorism long before ISIL even existed.

I also don't think that the political will is there to do so. We're fought 2 such conflicts in the last 12 years and I don't think there's much evidence that either conflict made the world a safer place or were worth the sacrifices. Lets assume there is, though - why do you think this specifically would be different? I'm honestly asking.

GEN(R) Dubik had an article I saw today and discussed with a colleague that you may find interesting:

http://www.armymagazine.org/2016/01/12/winning-the-war-weve-got-not-the-one-we-want/

He makes some interesting points.

From my reading of that, it looks like we need to start with "defining what victory looks like". If that's establishing a stable democracy in those middle eastern states, I don't think we have the capacity to do that.

bound for glory wrote:
Well, i don't have all the answers.

I'm gonna drop out of this. I ment no offense to anyone.I guess i see things a bit differently as a vet.

There are a lot of people on this forum and in this very thread who are veterans, on both sides of the issue.

You've referenced your military history three times in the last two pages now- please stop hiding behind it. You don't think the way you do because you're a vet, you think the way you do because you're you. Own your beliefs, my man.

 CptJake wrote:
GEN(R) Dubik had an article I saw today and discussed with a colleague that you may find interesting:

http://www.armymagazine.org/2016/01/12/winning-the-war-weve-got-not-the-one-we-want/

He makes some interesting points.

It's an intelligently written article, but imo the author falls into the standard pitfall of ultimately being very nebulous with his proposed solutions. "We have to have strong international cooperation, flexible goals and a thorough understanding of the regional ebb-and-flow at work" (to sum up his major points) sounds nice, but at the end of the day it's basically just a series of platitudes.

The tough questions that need to be answered by the people who are proponents of a boots-on-the-ground strategy are this:

- How does one mediate a regional civil war (which this conflict basically is) when both sides of the war frankly hate you, and tacitly subvert your efforts and influence?

- How does one "defeat" an army that essentially has no borders, does not have a uniform that differentiates it from civilians, is driven by an ideology that embraces death-by-war and only get gets stronger the more you hurt it?

- How are your answers to the two previous questions meaningfully different from the answers employed by the Bush/Obama Administrations?

Three questions that, to my knowledge at least, no supporter of a boots-on-the-ground solution have ever managed to or even frankly attempted to answer.

Except Grey Templar, who's proposal is to basically just glass the entire middle east. I disagree with that but I can respect how adequately it answers all three questions.

Between all the arguments in the UK media about migrants VS refugees, who is whom, what is what, the various media outlets have kind of succeeded in their goal.

I have no idea what opinion to hold, what viewpoint to make, whether any opinion I hold would actually remotely reflect reality.

So stuff it, it's too complicated anyway, when is <insert TV show of choice on>?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
Well, i don't have all the answers.

I'm gonna drop out of this. I ment no offense to anyone.I guess i see things a bit differently as a vet.

There are a lot of people on this forum and in this very thread who are veterans, on both sides of the issue.

You've referenced your military history three times in the last two pages now- please stop hiding behind it. You don't think the way you do because you're a vet, you think the way you do because you're you. Own your beliefs, my man.

 CptJake wrote:
GEN(R) Dubik had an article I saw today and discussed with a colleague that you may find interesting:

http://www.armymagazine.org/2016/01/12/winning-the-war-weve-got-not-the-one-we-want/

He makes some interesting points.

It's an intelligently written article, but imo the author falls into the standard pitfall of ultimately being very nebulous with his proposed solutions. "We have to have strong international cooperation, flexible goals and a thorough understanding of the regional ebb-and-flow at work" (to sum up his major points) sounds nice, but at the end of the day it's basically just a series of platitudes.

The tough questions that need to be answered by the people who are proponents of a boots-on-the-ground strategy are this:

- How does one mediate a regional civil war (which this conflict basically is) when both sides of the war frankly hate you, and tacitly subvert your efforts and influence?

- How does one "defeat" an army that essentially has no borders, does not have a uniform that differentiates it from civilians, is driven by an ideology that embraces death-by-war and only get gets stronger the more you hurt it?

- How are your answers to the two previous questions meaningfully different from the answers employed by the Bush/Obama Administrations?

Three questions that, to my knowledge at least, no supporter of a boots-on-the-ground solution have ever managed to or even frankly attempted to answer.

Except Grey Templar, who's proposal is to basically just glass the entire middle east. I disagree with that but I can respect how adequately it answers all three questions.

You can't fight an enemy, that you can't distinguish from friends and allies. You couldn't in Vietnam, you can't here. You can smash their logistics, and destroy their funding.
Idea's may be bullet proof, refineries aren't. Know who your allies are, and who to avoid.

 Compel wrote:
Between all the arguments in the UK media about migrants VS refugees, who is whom, what is what, the various media outlets have kind of succeeded in their goal.

I have no idea what opinion to hold, what viewpoint to make, whether any opinion I hold would actually remotely reflect reality.

So stuff it, it's too complicated anyway, when is <insert TV show of choice on>?

I know how you feel - one week the papers are demonising them all and then the next saying we should help all the innocents. Back and forth depending on drama and political point scoring.

Charlie Brooker 2015 wipe segment on it I thought was rather good - I would link it but it's got a lot of foul language (pm if you are interested though)

bound for glory wrote:
I do not accept racism. I have zero problem with people fleeing war. I've been to war. I would'nt recommend it to anyone.

bound for glory wrote:
Heres something i'd like our european members to answer:

Are any of you bothered at all over the flood of "refugees" coming into your countries?

Let me see if I got this correctly: you have no issue with people fleeing war, you just don't think people fleeing the Syrian civil war qualify as refugees?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
I do not accept racism. I have zero problem with people fleeing war. I've been to war. I would'nt recommend it to anyone.

bound for glory wrote:
Heres something i'd like our european members to answer:

Are any of you bothered at all over the flood of "refugees" coming into your countries?

Let me see if I got this correctly: you have no issue with people fleeing war, you just don't think people fleeing the Syrian civil war qualify as refugees?

He did not mention the Syrian Civil War...
A lot of the refugees streaming into the EU (about full half of them, iirc) are not from Syria at all, but from places like Pakistan, Albania, Morocco and other places that have no war.

bound for glory wrote:
When i was afghanistan(khunar prov.), 2 Latvian paras were grabbed one night while they were sitting at a listening post.God only knows how they let that happen, as the Lats are excellent soldiers.
Anyway, the poor bastards were found a few days later.In pieces. But some Afghany with a bit of humanity told our CO that the killers were "outsiders"(what the locals called foriegn fighters).
The Latvians go ape gak and after much hunting and not a little money changing hands(really), the found the house that these guys were holed up in.
They got them. turns out they were Chechen's.
The CO of the Lats told our CO that "we took care of them".

Is this a cover-up story of the incident you are talking about:

"Two Latvian soldiers have been killed and two wounded in separate insurgent attacks on a military outpost in the Kunar province of Afghanistan. Three U.S. soldiers were also killed in the attacks.
Sergeant Voldemars Ansevics and Private First Class Andrejs Merkusevs were killed in separate May 1 attacks near the border with Pakistan. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which were carried out with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades."

Latvians only lost four soldiers, this is the only instance where they've lost two of them at the same time.

Well, couple of things.
firstly, i am pretty sure the 2 men dead were privates. I may be wrong, but i don't think so.
Second, Latvians lost more than 4 dead, because on halloween of that same year, a rocket attack injured 9. As we were very close to their camp, we called in OUR medivacs to help them. 4 died before they reached Q-camp(a field hospital).

Mystery Sniper Doing God's Work in Libya

In the hometown of Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi and the current center of ISIS control in Libya, Sirte, legend is growing around a secret sniper that has taken out as many as 3 top ISIS leaders in under 2 weeks.

The result has been massive panic among ISIS leaders as the comb the city looking for the man – if in fact it even is a man, or only one man.

Here is a look at where the killings have taken place:


Rumors have surfaced that the sniper and his skills are probably a product of the violent revolution that took place as Gaddafi fell. Other rumors think he may be an American Special forces soldier gathering intel.

While ISIS’ rule has gone largely unchallenged, many experts do not believe the group is very popular and leaders of the group will remain the targets of attacks – especially from snipers as many of the city’s building still lay in ruin.

Many snipers popped up in the area after a 2001 film staring Jude Law called “Enemy at the Gates,” in which Law plays a Soviet sniper taking out Hitler’s forces, has gained popularity among militant men.

One victim of the sniper was Hamad Abdel Hady, a Sharia law official from Sudan, that was killed outside of a hospital in the city. A witness said:

“A state of terror prevailed among the Isil ranks after his death. They randomly shot in the air to scare inhabitants, while searching for the sniper.”

 Ahtman wrote:
Mystery Sniper Doing God's Work in Libya

Sounds like someone's gone Johnny Hopper.