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.

WARSAW, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Poland cannot accept migrants under European Union (EU) quotas after Friday's attacks in Paris, Poland's European affairs minister designate Konrad Szymanski said on Saturday.

In a commentary published in the right-leaning news portal wPolityce.pl, Szymanski said his incoming government did not agree with Poland's commitment to accept its share of an EU-wide relocation of immigrants, and now, "in the face of the tragic acts in Paris, we do not see the political possibilities to implement (this)."

Szymanski will take up his position on Monday as part of a government formed by the last month's election winner, the conservative and eurosceptic Law and Justice (PiS) party. (Reporting by Adrian Krajewski; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

http://www.trust.org/item/20151114114951-l2asc

Wonder what nation is next after Poland.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

Yep, and it works so well I bet 50% of the crew will come back with a green, phosphorescent color and some cancers. The Charles de Gaulle is getting old.

 Jihadin wrote:
Only thing one can do is
Prepare as best you can and be ready for the worst case possible attack.

With previous terror attacks, I was all in favour of giving people guns to defend themselves, like what you guys have in the USA.

But if you're sitting in the bar, having a drink, gun at your side, not really paying attention, and somebody walks in with hidden explosives on them...

What can you do? I have no answers...

 LethalShade wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

Yep, and it works so well I bet 50% of the crew will come back with a green, phosphorescent color and some cancers. The Charles de Gaulle is getting old.

With talk like that, one would think you don't want the navy to have superpowers

Thoughts and prayers for the victims.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But if you're sitting in the bar, having a drink, gun at your side, not really paying attention, and somebody walks in with hidden explosives on them...

If you aren't paying attention then it doesn't matter if you are armed or unarmed. Pay attention to your surrounding.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

Yep, and it works so well I bet 50% of the crew will come back with a green, phosphorescent color and some cancers. The Charles de Gaulle is getting old.

the Enterprise was 5 decades at her final time in service, ships can last a while.

It seems as if ISIS wants the West and Russia to get together and dogpile its' butt. I think if it keeps this up, it'll happen.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

Yep, and it works so well I bet 50% of the crew will come back with a green, phosphorescent color and some cancers. The Charles de Gaulle is getting old.

With talk like that, one would think you don't want the navy to have superpowers

I've always advocated the extensive use of radioactive spiders to make super soldiers.

Going back to the topic, only solution I can see for now and for myself is leaving the country once I graduate, if I'm still alive in four years.
I'm not afraid, tho. Well. I kinda am but I don't let myself be poisoned by fear. Things are too grim to be afraid.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Thoughts and prayers for the victims.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But if you're sitting in the bar, having a drink, gun at your side, not really paying attention, and somebody walks in with hidden explosives on them...

If you aren't paying attention then it doesn't matter if you are armed or unarmed. Pay attention to your surrounding.

Nobody, not even an elite soldier will be fully alert 100% of the time. It's human nature. people get tired, attention gets diverted, somebody could bump into you, or spill a drink over you etc etc

Sometimes it's just fate...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LethalShade wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

Yep, and it works so well I bet 50% of the crew will come back with a green, phosphorescent color and some cancers. The Charles de Gaulle is getting old.

With talk like that, one would think you don't want the navy to have superpowers

I've always advocated the extensive use of radioactive spiders to make super soldiers.

Going back to the topic, only solution I can see for now and for myself is leaving the country once I graduate, if I'm still alive in four years.
I'm not afraid, tho. Well. I kinda am but I don't let myself be poisoned by fear. Things are too grim to be afraid.

It's easy for me to say this sitting in the middle of nowhere, but you're right - don't give way to fear. They want you and your countrymen to be scared. If you do that, these murdering scumbags have won...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nobody, not even an elite soldier will be fully alert 100% of the time. It's human nature. people get tired, attention gets diverted, somebody could bump into you, or spill a drink over you etc etc

Sometimes it's just fate...

Ordinarily I would rise to the bait of this type of comment, but given the nature of this thread I don't think petty quibbles about what should be obvious are appropriate.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
You are in the military ?

British Army. If France goes in I would imagine that the UK would as well. I am in a job that means that I would almost certainly be deploying if there is a ground presence.

There is a lot of resistance to the use of military force against ISIS but I suspect that recent events would allow the Government to push a vote allowing military action through.

I doubt that. We don't need boots on the ground in Syria, we need more drones. More drones are likely.

The Russians are trying the large scale approach, the west the precise target approach, both from the air.

This also can be won. Because the casualties are so disproportionate and ISIS are being starved of legitimate targets. It will take time though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It's easy for me to say this sitting in the middle of nowhere, but you're right - don't give way to fear. They want you and your countrymen to be scared. If you do that, these murdering scumbags have won...

"Fear is poison to the mind". My psychiatric issues aside, I'll probably be fine. Can't say this will be the case for my fellow countrymen. My parents are clearly afraid. This is... Tiring, to say the least.


EDIT : I'd add that :



"Même pas peur." "Not even scared."

 Jihadin wrote:

Wonder what nation is next after Poland.

Hopefully? Germany. Realistically? None of the big ones.

Really gloomy atmosphere in France right now. People being very quiet on the streets, high police presence (understandably).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
How do you declare a war against a concept, i.e. terrorism?

I really struggle to see what France (or anyone else for that matter) can do in terms of retaliation; soldiers, bombs against ISIS in Iraq or Syria?

I would place a bet that these terrorists have come back from Syria or Iraq, their training for this attack and fanaticism nurtured in that cauldron of darkness and human suffering.

Unfortunately I think this is probably going to be the first of many such attacks on western targets, which will then engender a crack-down on civil liberties and even further polarisation of races/religions within Western Europe.

I really don't know what the answer is.

Sadly you are right. Terrorists hide amoungst the civilian population making it nearly impossible to attack without exposing yourself to accusations of racist attacks etc. I grew up and still live in Northern Ireland were we were faced daily with barbarism from the IRA some responded by attacking the community that supported them some by attacking the terrorists themselves and others peacefully protested. The sad reality is none of it worked. We all wanted to see the IRA destroyed for the evil they perpetrated but it never happened. Justice in the west is not designed for or brutal enough to cope with terrorism. You can call it soft or civilised but we can't cope with people with no morals and maintain our own. I have no answer either.

This is a completely different ball game. At least with the IRA, you knew their ultimate objective (united Ireland) and as history shows, you could sit down and talk to them, a la Good Friday agreement.

ISIS, on the other hand, revel in destruction for its own sake. Nihilism seems to be their only ethos. Difficult, if not impossible to compromise with that.

I'm sorry but you are quite wrong. ISIS are not nihilists they have a clear goal the establishment of their twisted version of an Islamic state. The IRAs stated goal was the removal of the British presence in Ireland and the creation of a socialist republic not a united Ireland that meant removing anyone who held unionism as a political belief which they interpreted as the Protestant people. ISIS will remove or bully anyone from the state they want to create who won't agree with them just as the IRA tried to remove or destroy those who disagreed with them from Ireland. The conflict with ISIS is in its infancy their will be many talks battles and trade offs with them in the years to come.

My point in drawing the comparisons was to show how we as civilised humans want to respond to inhumanity and barbarism but the complexity of effective response is generally beyond us and will take generations to come to any form of, imperfect, conclusion.

 Orlanth wrote:
I doubt that. We don't need boots on the ground in Syria, we need more drones. More drones are likely.

The Russians are trying the large scale approach, the west the precise target approach, both from the air.

This also can be won. Because the casualties are so disproportionate and ISIS are being starved of legitimate targets. It will take time though.

This is the crux of the matter. Putting boots on the ground will give ISIS what they consider legitimate targets, and it will give them a recruiting tool. They can shift their perception from murderers coldly executing prisoners and raping women to holy warriors fighting the good fight against the Infidel. They are hoping for rash action. They want another nation to have a kneejerk response and get suckered into a conflict that pits a conventional military against an asymmetric force for a protracted period.

That that is before we get into the myriad of players already involved in this conflict and their agendas; Russia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Hezbollah, Kurds, FSA, etc.

 Pacific wrote:
How do you declare a war against a concept, i.e. terrorism?

I really struggle to see what France (or anyone else for that matter) can do in terms of retaliation; soldiers, bombs against ISIS in Iraq or Syria?

I would place a bet that these terrorists have come back from Syria or Iraq, their training for this attack and fanaticism nurtured in that cauldron of darkness and human suffering.

Unfortunately I think this is probably going to be the first of many such attacks on western targets, which will then engender a crack-down on civil liberties and even further polarisation of races/religions within Western Europe.

I really don't know what the answer is.

Strong border controls and revoking of citizenship? When a jihadist leaves for Syria or Iraq, make sure they're NEVER allowed back into the country.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Strong border controls and revoking of citizenship? When a jihadist leaves for Syria or Iraq, make sure they're NEVER allowed back into the country.

Don't let them even go there. Let them disappear.

Immediately shift all attention on strengthening EU borders. Introduce a strict immigration system comparable to the US one and send everyone else away.

 Knockagh wrote:
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong. ISIS are not nihilists they have a clear goal the establishment of their twisted version of an Islamic state. The IRAs stated goal was the removal of the British presence in Ireland and the creation of a socialist republic not a united Ireland that meant removing anyone who held unionism as a political belief which they interpreted as the Protestant people. ISIS will remove or bully anyone from the state they want to create who won't agree with them just as the IRA tried to remove or destroy those who disagreed with them from Ireland. The conflict with ISIS is in its infancy their will be many talks battles and trade offs with them in the years to come.

My point in drawing the comparisons was to show how we as civilised humans want to respond to inhumanity and barbarism but the complexity of effective response is generally beyond us and will take generations to come to any form of, imperfect, conclusion.

As someone born in Northern Ireland and who lived there for almost 30 years before emigrating I am sorry to say that your IRA and ISIS comparison is wholly disingenuous. The IRA wanted to have Ireland returned to the Irish and to remove the British presence from the island. It was a political struggle which used religion as a convenient designation for each side based on historic events (Reformation, Plantation, English Civil War, etc.). It was not a religiously motivated conflict. The fact that the primary motivation for the IRA was a political solution meant that eventually they could be negotiated with. The IRA was almost exclusively comprised of those born in Ireland.

ISIS on the other land want to establish a religious territory that they control which is not an established country that they are trying to free from a foreign presence. ISIS is motivated primarily by their religious interpretations of religious doctrine that other read without recourse to violence. ISIS has also has their ranks swollen from those sympathetic to their beliefs across the Middle East and beyond.

 Orlanth wrote:

I doubt that. We don't need boots on the ground in Syria, we need more drones. More drones are likely.

Air power, including drones, aren't going to make much, if any, difference, it never does. The only way to 'beat' ISIS in the short term is to take and hold ground and for that you need infantry. In the long term the only realistic option is diplomacy and completely reforming the public institutions in that part of the world but that will take decades.

The Iraqi army isn't up to the job, the Syrians are deeply, deeply divided and the Kurds are badly trained and equipped with the result that ISIS has been able to consolidate its hold on its territory and look for targets of opportunity. They need to be smashed in their heartlands which would allow the various local forces to keep them suppressed and seriously undermine the image that they try to project to the world. Another 10 year conflict would be disastrous but it won't take anywhere near that long to militarily beat them on the ground.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

I really struggle to see what France (or anyone else for that matter) can do in terms of retaliation; soldiers, bombs against ISIS in Iraq or Syria?

By smashing ISIS on the ground, in reality that's the only way to really hurt them. The French armed forces, supported by the Iraqis, Kurds and others, would roll right over ISIS, and to be honest I think the deployment of French troops, probably in Iraq, is now a very strong possibility. It will be costly in blood and treasure but someone has to do it and the forces currently ranged against ISIS are clearly unable to make much headway.

ISIS will survive of course but they will be significantly weakened.

ISIS rose due to the absolutely cack handed way that the Iraq war was handled once official war fighting ceased, that cannot be allowed to happen again.

If, and I stress IF, we (the 'West') deploy ground troops once again to Iraq, then it should be purely an offensive operation. Send our European and American troops in as the elite vanguard of a ground offensive to push ISIS back to the Syrian border, then we GET OUT ASAP leaving mop-up and counter insurgency operations to the Iraqi's. The last thing I want is for my country to be bogged down in yet another decade long, bloody occupation with no clearly defined objective and end in sight.

We should stay the feth out of Syria unless we obtain the explicit permission and cooperation of the Syrian government (and by extension Russia). Its not worth risking a direct conflict with Russia by stepping on their toes and interfering in their (perceived) areas of influence. Drive ISIS out of Iraq and contain them in Syria, and leave it to Russia and the Syrians to deal with them.

Good article in the Guardian about French intelligence capabilities

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks

BBC saying that at least one of the attackers was French, with 3 from Belgium.

France has been here before with home grown terrorists (OAS springs to mind) but it always comes as a shock to see people turning on their own country like this.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
You are in the military ?

British Army. If France goes in I would imagine that the UK would as well. I am in a job that means that I would almost certainly be deploying if there is a ground presence.

There is a lot of resistance to the use of military force against ISIS but I suspect that recent events would allow the Government to push a vote allowing military action through.

I doubt that. We don't need boots on the ground in Syria, we need more drones. More drones are likely.

The Russians are trying the large scale approach, the west the precise target approach, both from the air.

This also can be won. Because the casualties are so disproportionate and ISIS are being starved of legitimate targets. It will take time though.

No, you need boots on the ground, as its easy to avoid drones; just hide under a solid piece of cover.
Without the ability to take and hold land, and actually flush them out of hiding, damage against ISIS will be minimal.
History will tell you that wars are won with infantry, not artillery and airpower alone.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Send our European and American troops in as the elite vanguard of a ground offensive to push ISIS back to the Syrian border, then we GET OUT ASAP leaving mop-up and counter insurgency operations to the Iraqi's.

Exactly. Some kind of rapid reaction force (stationed in Cyprus or Kuwait) set up to smash ISIS every single time that they gather in force would also be useful.

If we do go boots on the ground it should be overwhelming force. We can outnumber them if we want, if we go in we should do so. Any position we detect or think we detect gets the everloving crap blown out of it with artillery and airpower, troops advancing slowly and inexorably behind a curtain of firepower.

While US and Russia are bombing Syria, the terrorists lurk in the heart of Europe. In my opinion i think France and Germany should close the borders, just like Hungary did. I stand for this opinion and I don't care if does not fit the leftist political correct agenda.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Good article in the Guardian about French intelligence capabilities

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks

BBC saying that at least one of the attackers was French, with 3 from Belgium.

France has been here before with home grown terrorists (OAS springs to mind) but it always comes as a shock to see people turning on their own country like this.

If you asked them, they'd probably say they don't consider France their country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

RAF Akrotiri is in range. It has a longer runway too.
This is actually an understatement Akrotiri has one of the longest military runways in the world.
If you read the side notes on the story about the Syrian refugees that landed there Akrotiri is in active use already.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If we do go boots on the ground it should be overwhelming force. We can outnumber them if we want, if we go in we should do so. Any position we detect or think we detect gets the everloving crap blown out of it with artillery and airpower, troops advancing slowly and inexorably behind a curtain of firepower.

Even if you guys went in there full force with 100,000 troops, I doubt it would make much of a difference to be honest. The entire region seems to be completely and utterly fethed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


At least the French have got a working aircraft carrier. Here in the UK, ours is still getting built. Better hope the enemy has the courtesy to wait 5 years for us to build it!!

RAF Akrotiri is in range. It has a longer runway too.
This is actually an understatement Akrotiri has one of the longest military runways in the world.
If you read the side notes on the story about the Syrian refugees that landed there Akrotiri is in active use already.

I had forgotten about Cyprus

 DalinCriid wrote:
I stand for this opinion and I don't care if does not fit the leftist political correct agenda.

Which will do absolutely nothing to deter homegrown terrorists (which at least half of those involved here appear to be) nor will it do much to interrupt the supply of arms which this kind of operation absolutely depends upon.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


If you asked them, they'd probably say they don't consider France their country.

They consider France their country, but don't want to share it with the French unless the French convert to Islam.