Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

The use of Air Power is fundamental to the coalition. Western countries are not into sending troops and then to see some on YouTube being beheaded or burned alive. There would be huge backlash back home and that is not a good thing for our campaign against DAESH.

We are in the process of destroying all their infrastructure and economic capacity which they use to fund their war. Our soldiers are not cannon fodder. If we can do it with 1 aircraft and 1 pilot then why risk the lives of hundreds of soldiers?

Even if we insert boots on the ground, they will still have the protection of our aircraft and at any time the enemy is achieving a good result, we will withdraw them to a safe fall back and friggin Napalm the enemy to paradise.

[Garavnoss]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

The use of Air Power is fundamental to the coalition. Western countries are not into sending troops and then to see some on YouTube being beheaded or burned alive. There would be huge backlash back home and that is not a good thing for our campaign against DAESH.

We are in the process of destroying all their infrastructure and economic capacity which they use to fund their war. Our soldiers are not cannon fodder. If we can do it with 1 aircraft and 1 pilot then why risk the lives of hundreds of soldiers?

Even if we insert boots on the ground, they will still have the protection of our aircraft and at any time the enemy is achieving a good result, we will withdraw them to a safe fall back and friggin Napalm the enemy to paradise.

Your approach to the areas of conflict in and around the Middle East is perfectly clear in that which you illustrate above and under many circumstances would have to be regarded as acceptable.

However, since the entire scenario is the direct result of Western aggression [and serious misjudgment of it's outcome] the pursuance of the very same objectives which created the upheavals in the first place, seem to smack of "Bullying" no matter which way the West chooses to press it's issues against it's own creation.

Do you REALLY believe that those who are adamantly opposed to the pressures imposed upon them by Western ideology [which they so vigorously protest] are not entitled to fight against such pressures and in so doing, should be condemned because they do not have the same military technology and expertise of the Western powers that are arrayed against them ?.

Naturally [as with ANY rebellious force] the oppressed will resort to ANY means at their disposal [or not] in their battle to rid their lands of those forces that they KNOW are hell-bent on the destruction of their culture [ so different to the West] and the plundering of their resources [OIL] and colour it which way you like, THAT is at the base of the matter.

If the "Guerrilla" forces of IS [and others] had aircraft and similar facilities to those of their enemies [Western powers] you may be in no doubt that they would be delighted to use them in like fashion...., as it is, they are ill-equipped and unable to retaliate face to face with those who "Bully" them, therefore they are forced to resort to tactics which horrify us ALL and unfortunately blinds the horrors of what a "Guided Missile" or "Incendiary Device" can produce on innocent civilians, whether it be "Smart" or otherwise. [ youtube] ?.

YES, the West has "Nukes" and "Napalm" and, if they TRULY wished for peace in the Middle East [or world-wide] a bloody good spot to use them on would be ISRAEL........I wonder why nobody ever mentions it.

Good luck to ANY force that is prepared to die for it's cause against injustice and oppression, they are enviable for their "Courage".

[Paphitis]

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in ANY conflict, the savagery takes on another meaning when aerial bombardment is used as a substitute for good old fashioned [and honourable] face to face confrontation in the said conflict.

Can't help thinking that the term "Cowardly" is a good description when a mightily superior force chooses to prosecute it's furious demands upon a weaker force and one could easily describe the mightier of the combatants [resorting to such overwhelming devices] as savage.

It's just a matter of perception actually, which of the combatants are striking savagely in order to [historically] impose their will upon nations which are unable to counter the might of the [as THEY see it] aggressors.

Or the savagery that is relied upon by the lesser force in order to shock people into realization that the aggressors are responsible for ALL the savagery taking place, as a result of their initial actions ?.

It's worth thinking about.

The use of Air Power is fundamental to the coalition. Western countries are not into sending troops and then to see some on YouTube being beheaded or burned alive. There would be huge backlash back home and that is not a good thing for our campaign against DAESH.

We are in the process of destroying all their infrastructure and economic capacity which they use to fund their war. Our soldiers are not cannon fodder. If we can do it with 1 aircraft and 1 pilot then why risk the lives of hundreds of soldiers?

Even if we insert boots on the ground, they will still have the protection of our aircraft and at any time the enemy is achieving a good result, we will withdraw them to a safe fall back and friggin Napalm the enemy to paradise.

Your approach to the areas of conflict in and around the Middle East is perfectly clear in that which you illustrate above and under many circumstances would have to be regarded as acceptable.

However, since the entire scenario is the direct result of Western aggression [and serious misjudgment of it's outcome] the pursuance of the very same objectives which created the upheavals in the first place, seem to smack of "Bullying" no matter which way the West chooses to press it's issues against it's own creation.

Do you REALLY believe that those who are adamantly opposed to the pressures imposed upon them by Western ideology [which they so vigorously protest] are not entitled to fight against such pressures and in so doing, should be condemned because they do not have the same military technology and expertise of the Western powers that are arrayed against them ?.

Naturally [as with ANY rebellious force] the oppressed will resort to ANY means at their disposal [or not] in their battle to rid their lands of those forces that they KNOW are hell-bent on the destruction of their culture [ so different to the West] and the plundering of their resources [OIL] and colour it which way you like, THAT is at the base of the matter.

If the "Guerrilla" forces of IS [and others] had aircraft and similar facilities to those of their enemies [Western powers] you may be in no doubt that they would be delighted to use them in like fashion...., as it is, they are ill-equipped and unable to retaliate face to face with those who "Bully" them, therefore they are forced to resort to tactics which horrify us ALL and unfortunately blinds the horrors of what a "Guided Missile" or "Incendiary Device" can produce on innocent civilians, whether it be "Smart" or otherwise. [ youtube] ?.

YES, the West has "Nukes" and "Napalm" and, if they TRULY wished for peace in the Middle East [or world-wide] a bloody good spot to use them on would be ISRAEL........I wonder why nobody ever mentions it.

Good luck to ANY force that is prepared to die for it's cause against injustice and oppression, they are enviable for their "Courage".

The coalition was not in Syria or Iraq when DAESH began to slaughter innocent peoples all over the countryside.

They picked a fight with us, and we took them up on it, but I would like to think that it is our duty to protect the lives of innocent Kurds, Yazidi, Assyrian, Alawite and Turkmen innocents.

[Garavnoss]

I think you are overlooking the simple fact that there was no such force as IS before the Iraqi nation was subjected to the unlawful and murderous attack by the Western aggressors.

Are you REALLY surprised that [whoever they are] factions should rise up in protest at the manner in which the West has clearly brought about the destruction of their governing bodies and leadership under the guise that they seek to introduce "Democracy" to those nations which have indicated that they do not want it, that have suffered [are suffering] the consequences of what took place in Iraq and are now subjected to humanitarian hardships the like of which have seldom been seen before ?.

That which really surprises ME, is that there are those who are unable to appreciate what is going on under their very noses, is it possible that their memories are capable of calling to mind only those events which have taken place over the last year or so ?

Probable might be more accurate than possible, the pages of history are littered with examples of just how easily the general populace is fooled when political chicanery chooses to rear it's head.

As always, MY view is that I commend ANY force that fights a genuine cause, particularly if the adversary is so mighty [as is the case here and now] that they consider it right to impose their will upon ANY nation that might be vulnerable to their campaigns of terror.

As stated previously, the West has stirred up a "Hornet's Nest" the "Hornets" are courageously A-buzzing and Good Luck to them !.

[repulsewarrior]

...the Rule of Law; as a result we can observe how important it is.

[Paphitis]

I think you are overlooking the simple fact that there was no such force as IS before the Iraqi nation was subjected to the unlawful and murderous attack by the Western aggressors.

DAESH did not form in Iraq. It formed in Syria, and there was no Western involvement in Syria as Assad escalated the Spring into Civil War.

DAESH infiltrated Iraq after our withdrawal. You need to convince me that they wouldn't have done that if Suddam was still in power. I find that difficult to believe when they currently control over half of Syria.

Are you REALLY surprised that [whoever they are] factions should rise up in protest at the manner in which the West has clearly brought about the destruction of their governing bodies and leadership under the guise that they seek to introduce "Democracy" to those nations which have indicated that they do not want it, that have suffered [are suffering] the consequences of what took place in Iraq and are now subjected to humanitarian hardships the like of which have seldom been seen before ?.

Yes, we have never really had any factions rise up against us before, either in Afghanistan or Iraq. We only had some previously existing groups like Al qaeda and Taliban. Never really seen the general population rise up against us. In fact, the general population in Afghanistan would welcome our troops when they came to their villages and get quite upset when they had to leave because they feared reprisals from the Taliban.

That which really surprises ME, is that there are those who are unable to appreciate what is going on under their very noses, is it possible that their memories are capable of calling to mind only those events which have taken place over the last year or so ?

Probable might be more accurate than possible, the pages of history are littered with examples of just how easily the general populace is fooled when political chicanery chooses to rear it's head.

Got any examples?

As always, MY view is that I commend ANY force that fights a genuine cause, particularly if the adversary is so mighty [as is the case here and now] that they consider it right to impose their will upon ANY nation that might be vulnerable to their campaigns of terror.

You're entitles to your view, but DAESH was formed in order to fight Assad and the Syrian Armed Forces. It had nothing to do with the West. We probably would have let them get on with business, if they didn't invade Iraq and start targeting Westerners. I should hope not though, because that would sicken me.

As stated previously, the West has stirred up a "Hornet's Nest" the "Hornets" are courageously A-buzzing and Good Luck to them !.

I wouldn't worry about the hornet's nest. They only exist because we are unwilling to deploy our troops.

They are significantly degraded and fighting a losing war. In addition, they can't do very much with our planes in the air constantly other than stay among their Human Shields in Raqqa. That means they are not out in the countryside killing Kurds, Yazidis and Turkmen.

[Linichka]

Also, Chimp in the Suit, what the hell has ISRAEL to do with all this?

[Garavnoss]

It is my hope that between us, we might revive this forum somewhat, certainly there is a wide gulf between our perceptions and only time will tell which of us will prove our case.

I am bound to state that I think your views weigh rather heavily on the ability of those who fly missions of destruction in relative safety to eradicate dedicated ground forces, I do not think such tactics are altogether possible and furthermore, I regard them as cowardly actions.

Being more of a "Fixed Bayonets" and face to face kind of guy, I cannot see much evidence of a "Get out there and Kick Ass" attitude when a well armoured ground force equipped with superior weaponry,is apparently afraid to meet the enemy that the Western forces regard as so despicable.

Whether it be in government circles [fearful of public opinion] or even in the ranks, there is no doubt in MY mind that there is a distinct lack of "Courage" and many signs of "Cowardice" when innocent civilians [and even enemy fighters] are indiscriminately slaughtered merely because the Western forces have the means to do so with their Aerial bombardments.

There is an old saying :- "The Rats and the Snakes will scurry and crawl upon the earth, long after the Lion is dead", the trick is to determine which is which.

[Garavnoss]

Also, Chimp in the Suit, what the hell has ISRAEL to do with all this?

Well, Jew in the Yarmulke, if you don't know the answer to your stupid question, "I" can't help you.

[Paphitis]

It is my hope that between us, we might revive this forum somewhat, certainly there is a wide gulf between our perceptions and only time will tell which of us will prove our case.

I am bound to state that I think your views weigh rather heavily on the ability of those who fly missions of destruction in relative safety to eradicate dedicated ground forces, I do not think such tactics are altogether possible and furthermore, I regard them as cowardly actions.

You fail to look at the facts.

Air Power has most certainly stopped their advances. It has also resulted in their retreat and the liberation of large areas. It has also degraded their military capabilities enormously, their financial and economic output, communications and command and control. It has also saved many populations from certain genocide (Yazidis and Turkmen in particular). That alone points to its success.

Sure, we can't get them out of their strongholds, but we already knew that.

The cowards are those who attack innocent civilians and commit genocide. The pilots don't do that.

Being more of a "Fixed Bayonets" and face to face kind of guy, I cannot see much evidence of a "Get out there and Kick Ass" attitude when a well armoured ground force equipped with superior weaponry,is apparently afraid to meet the enemy that the Western forces regard as so despicable.

Yes but our face to face guys love our pilots and rely on them heavily and for good reason. You should ask them to understand, that they want there Air Cover all the time. We have the means and we are entitled to use it to protect our soldiers from death as much as possible.

Whether it be in government circles [fearful of public opinion] or even in the ranks, there is no doubt in MY mind that there is a distinct lack of "Courage" and many signs of "Cowardice" when innocent civilians [and even enemy fighters] are indiscriminately slaughtered merely because the Western forces have the means to do so with their Aerial bombardments.

There are no concerns from our side. Our boys and girls are employed to do a job and they do it well.

There is an old saying :- "The Rats and the Snakes will scurry and crawl upon the earth, long after the Lion is dead", the trick is to determine which is which.

I will leave this nonsense to you if it makes you feel better.

And btw, Israel has played no part in any of this.