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.

I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot

 Medium of Death wrote:
It is strange. A girl from about 3 or 4 miles away left the country to go join them. We also had that story of the two American girls that went over and are now apparently pregnant.

I'd just love to see their thought process. I mean, I'd maybe get it if this was a stable nation state but it isn't. It's a loosely defined area of contested land that's about to get the absolutely gak bombed out of it.

*sigh

If only that were true.

Sadly I think the bombing effectiveness will be mitigated by silly rules of engagement which allow for soldiers to hide behind civilians without fear of getting hit. And if they do they can parade the bodies of "innocents" around to show how horrible their foe is.

I truly wish we would bomb the everliving gak out of targets like we did in WW2. You'll notice the Germans are very peaceful now, to to point where they continue to apologize for stuff committed 4 generations in the past.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

I'll address a few of these.

1: I really don't think there's anything really confusing about this one. If our own stuff falls into the hands of our enemies, I think it's better to destroy our own stuff then just let our enemies have it and use it. It's not like, "Oh, our enemies have stolen some of our stuff, but we shouldn't destroy it now because it's our stuff!" Especially when the stuff we are talking about it military vehicles and weapons.

2: We're only on his side in the sense that we're both fighting ISIS. There are more than two sides here though.

3: This isn't really true. Although I believe McCain made a comment about wanting to arm ISIS, there are quite a few other more moderate, secular militias such as the Free Syrian Army that some Americans wanted to support. These militias still exist and still oppose both Assad and ISIS. We've still been discussing arming the FSA, who are not our enemies. Some people keep acting like ISIS is the only group opposing Assad, which isn't correct and never has been.

 Jihadin wrote:
I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot

I think that's awesome, I always thought females could not be jet pilots due to g forces and uteruses (uteri?) but it's likely i just heard an old wives tale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.

I have to laugh at the photo the car salesman is using for ID of his wife. Some how I don't think that's going to be very helpful.

Funny, I always heard it was the other way around. Women make better pilots because they have a higher G-force tolerance.

I don't know if either is true, but a lot of countries have female fighter pilots now, including the US.

Probably something to do with size. Tight confines are more comfortable if you are smaller.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably something to do with size. Tight confines are more comfortable if you are smaller.

Well, there is a height limit on pilots of either gender.

I heard gender doesn't matter if the pilot is laying flat down

 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.

I don't think that it is needless pedantry (I know you're all shocked I would say that ), I would say that it is an essential topic to examine whether the action taken against ISIS was in fact legal. Has there been any justification for military action that ISIS posed an "imminent threat"? To date the only reports I can see of a threat from ISIS is that of lone wolf/small cell attacks in revenge for the military strikes currently taking place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.

Just remember, they chose to move to an area governed by terrorists but if their children are hurt because of an airstrike we're the bad guys


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
*sigh

If only that were true.

Sadly I think the bombing effectiveness will be mitigated by silly rules of engagement which allow for soldiers to hide behind civilians without fear of getting hit. And if they do they can parade the bodies of "innocents" around to show how horrible their foe is.

I truly wish we would bomb the everliving gak out of targets like we did in WW2. You'll notice the Germans are very peaceful now, to to point where they continue to apologize for stuff committed 4 generations in the past.

I don't think that the military would ever be able to conduct itself in the same manner that it did in WWII. KM's article earlier was much better at explaining the reasons that I could manage.

 Jihadin wrote:
I heard gender doesn't matter if the pilot is laying flat down

The missiles/bombs don't care about gender either; they are equal opportunity kablooey.

 Ouze wrote:
I still hold that there is no lawful, constitutional basis for this military action. the language of the 2001 AUMF is clear and unambiguous. ISIL had nothing to do with the planning of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. They are an offshoot of a terrorist group that didn't even form until 2004. The whole thing is just nonsense. Anyway, I'll stop railing about this because it's clearly needless pedantry at this point.

Welcome to the New Millennium. Congress won't touch it if they don't have to. That way they can take credit or post blame depending on how it goes.

Liked the speech. Somehow a Reagan speech writer ninja'd in and substituted the speech.

However its just words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
I don't know if either is true, but a lot of countries have female fighter pilots now, including the US.

Women in bombers....terrifyingly awesome or awesomely terrifying?

You must be a bombshell to pilot one.

My thanks to everybody that replied to the points I raised - I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is confused as hell!


And yet...what is it about the middle east? Everybody that has ever lived, from Genghis Khan to Ronald Reagan knows that getting involved in the Middle East is like putting your foot on a pile of brown stuff. Empires have risen and fallen because of the ME, thousands of books have been written on the dangers of ME involvement...stories films, poems etc etc

AND WE'RE STILL GETTTING INVOLVED! sorry for the caps

It's like some kind of black hole that sucks everything into it

I know it's bad, you know it's bad, it's like some evil, alcohol fuelled cigarette that nobody can give up!

The argument is that they have directly threatened the US. PLus we have no borders at this point (and border partrol found Korans and prayer rugs on the border).

Frazzled of course thinks thats nuts. Close the border and stay out.

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument is that they have directly threatened the US. PLus we have no borders at this point (and border partrol found Korans and prayer rugs on the border).

Frazzled of course thinks thats nuts. Close the border and stay out.

You know as well as I do that anybody who refuses to drink coca cola is deemed to be acting against American interests

The definition of American 'interest' is so vague as to be laughable.

I yearn for the days of the cold war. True, everybody was pointing nukes at each other, but at least you knew what side everybody was on.

Well Putin's trying to help you with that. Thats another whole mess of death I want nothing of.

Time to go back to US policy before FDR helped drag us into WWII. The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well Putin's trying to help you with that. Thats another whole mess of death I want nothing of.

Time to go back to US policy before FDR helped drag us into WWII. The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.

So you're advocating a return to the 1980s, eh?


I approve. Someone call Duran Duran!

It must lunchtime because I'm...hungry like the wolf.

 Frazzled wrote:
The US has effectively been at war since 1991. Enough of this perpetual war crap. My kids have never lived in a time we weren't bombing someone.

I agree, but I think you already knew that.

And now for some good news.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence

The UK is doing their part.




Anjem Choudary was arrested on suspicion of being members of a banned Islamist group.

This is a guy who supported ISIS and their terroristic methods:

 Frazzled wrote:
And now for some good news.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence

Hopefully now the people who keep asking where the moderate Muslims who are against Islamic extremism and terrorism are can all shut up.

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And now for some good news.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence

Hopefully now the people who keep asking where the moderate Muslims who are against Islamic extremism and terrorism are can all shut up.

I haven't said a word.

 Hordini wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not for the first time, I'm struggling to get my head around this

So let me get this straight:

1) American tax payer funded missiles are being used to destroy stuff that American taxes paid for (equipment captured by ISIL) The last time America destroyed its own stuff was the civil war

2) Assad, the greatest threat to the world , is now not the greatest threat to the world. Technically, we're on his side.

3) The rebel groups that we supported, are now the bad guys

I'll address a few of these.

1: I really don't think there's anything really confusing about this one. If our own stuff falls into the hands of our enemies, I think it's better to destroy our own stuff then just let our enemies have it and use it. It's not like, "Oh, our enemies have stolen some of our stuff, but we shouldn't destroy it now because it's our stuff!" Especially when the stuff we are talking about it military vehicles and weapons.

2: We're only on his side in the sense that we're both fighting ISIS. There are more than two sides here though.

3: This isn't really true. Although I believe McCain made a comment about wanting to arm ISIS, there are quite a few other more moderate, secular militias such as the Free Syrian Army that some Americans wanted to support. These militias still exist and still oppose both Assad and ISIS. We've still been discussing arming the FSA, who are not our enemies. Some people keep acting like ISIS is the only group opposing Assad, which isn't correct and never has been.

From what I've been reading, the FSA is down to its last 3 men, and 2 of those have got leg injuries! I exaggerate, of course, but they really have hit rock bottom, and can't be relied on as a serious fighting force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I find it funny that a pilot from Qatar bombed ISIS.....a FEMALE fighter pilot

I think that's awesome, I always thought females could not be jet pilots due to g forces and uteruses (uteri?) but it's likely i just heard an old wives tale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Suffer the little children

tl;dr Idiots are migrating to ISIS areas with children as they see it as a safe place to raise their kids in a holy land.

I have to laugh at the photo the car salesman is using for ID of his wife. Some how I don't think that's going to be very helpful.

I heard that old wives tale as well

Some old wives tales are rubbish, but there is a grain of truth about some of them. Stuffing cold pork up your nose to stop a nosebleed really does work!

HQ unit from the 1st Infantry Division are moving into place CentCom and Iraq..frame work for a GLOC and ALOC to move combat troops in

Ground Logistical Operation Center
Aviation Logistical Operation Center

 Jihadin wrote:
HQ unit from the 1st Infantry Division are moving into place CentCom and Iraq..frame work for a GLOC and ALOC to move combat troops in

Ground Logistical Operation Center
Aviation Logistical Operation Center

Buddy... dial back the military jargon and spell out what that means to us civvies.

I did..I use acronym and spelled it out for you all....now use your Google Fu.

 Jihadin wrote:
I did..I use acronym and spelled it out for you all....now use your Google Fu.

But what the does that mean sir!

Is it foreshadowing that The Boots™, despite what Obama said in the past, will be stomping back in the mideast?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You know as well as I do that anybody who refuses to drink coca cola is deemed to be acting against American interests
.

Those damn Scots , next they'll be planning some form of Scottish Republican Army and haggis bombing people.