Obama has leaflets dropped an hour before bombing ISIS oil trucks

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2015 1:55 PM GMT
    Two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?_r=0

    ISIS had enough warning to disperse almost 900 trucks so only a little over 100 were destroyed.

    ISIS truck drivers are not innocent civilians.
  • 1blind_dog

    Posts: 377

    Nov 17, 2015 7:07 PM GMT
    "As many as 1000 trucks had been observed" from previous surveillance. ONLY 295 were in the area at the time. "In the area" doesn't mean they were on the road or within the target area away from civilian crowds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2015 9:41 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidTwo F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html?_r=0

    ISIS had enough warning to disperse almost 900 trucks so only a little over 100 were destroyed.

    ISIS truck drivers are not innocent civilians.


    They aren't? Did every German soldier under the nazis deserve to die?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2015 11:03 PM GMT
    In battle, yes. That's war. My father was shot by a German Soldier whom he had to end up killing.

    Obama is currently providing the French with bombing targets that Obama refused to bomb because he might hit a civilian. The French aren't dropping leaflets or warning off ISIS collaborators. The French are bombing. Obama knows the French are likely hitting civilians so he's a hypocrite.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 17, 2015 11:17 PM GMT
    1blind_dog said"As many as 1000 trucks had been observed" from previous surveillance. ONLY 295 were in the area at the time. "In the area" doesn't mean they were on the road or within the target area away from civilian crowds.

    Stupid policy. Planes could have first strafed and bombed the roads, so the trucks couldn't leave. The drivers would have gotten the message and fled, and truck could have been finished off on another run.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 3:00 AM GMT
    Who gives a fuck if we took out the truck drivers with the trucks?! No one dropped leaflets warning people not to come to work the day before they flew planes into the Twin Towers.

    You fight the enemy as they fight you. You're not going to win a fight following the Marquess de Queensberry Rules when your opponent is fighting dirty. Just ask the British who were fighting the colonists' guerrilla tactics during the American Revolution.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1035

    Nov 18, 2015 4:50 AM GMT
    This country seems to have forgotten how to fight a war. They brag about killing the top man, or the second in command - but someone else immediately rises from the ranks to replace them. That's how armies are structured. That's how it works.

    No one has ever won a war by killing generals. You win a war by killing soldiers. As many as you possibly can.
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Nov 18, 2015 6:39 AM GMT

    Actually many wars were won by killing generals.

    With divine right, that is the right to rule through hereditary position....often all you had to do was kill or capture the prince or would be king making a claim for the throne and the entire war drys up because there is no point in fighting it, until you can find a new heir.



    I am not mentioning this to be a smart ass, but merely to illustrate you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to conducting a war.

    I am pretty sure most generals know how armies work....and the bragging about killing top men, is for political purposes in most cases. To tell people, who also don't know what they are talking about, that "look at what we're doing".



    If you think anyone in the military top command is actually worried about ISIS oil trucks, it's beyond silly. ISIS is a tiny little group that will be easily defeated militarily the moment we need to defeat them, militarily.


    The political battle is much more important. That's what terror attacks are, they are political tools.

    Killing a bunch of people at a diner, isn't going to win ISIS their caliphate, unless it results in the west doing dumb stuff to weaken itself.
    ISIS is just a fire that started burning a long time ago, you can pour more gas on it trying to put it out, or you can be smart about it.


    We're fighting terrorists. Every terrorist you kill, has brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and neighbours and friends. We're not fighting an army or an established state, but an idea. Should we be killing them? yup, smartly. Crushing their morale and making their life difficult so they'd rather go home or find another solution. This idea that we are going to kill them all is silly, there is an endless supply of hate and revenge to go around. That's how they win, that's their plan. They are never going to win because they have more tanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 11:09 AM GMT
    I love how RJ's armchair generals think they know more about target selection, planning and strikes than the military commanders responsible for conducting these operations. The target here was apparently the oil and trucks, not the drivers and certainly not any civilians who happened to be in the area. We do not know what local intelligence commanders had while planning this operation. If recent military history has taught us anything, it is that indiscriminate bombing has the potential to ferment greater support for the enemy. Leaflet drops prior to bombing missions weren't invented by President Obama (and I highly doubt he had any personal involvement in the decision to drop leaflets on this occasion). We were doing the same thing in WW2.

    The good news here is that destruction of the ISIS economic and logistics network is being expanded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 12:14 PM GMT
    War is not about rules or being fair....it is about cleaning their clock.....sorry about your luck if you drive a truck for a known, world wide enemy....you gonna die!icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Nov 18, 2015 12:51 PM GMT
    To those who advocate a more indiscriminate killing as a tactic, what's your overall strategy? So far, I haven't heard anything promising.

    The situation, as I understand it, is the Syrian civil war, with essentially three groups: Assad, ISIS, and a smaller rebel army. Assad has been a murderous, secular dictator that most Syrians want gone, but he is propped up by Russia and Iran. ISIS is supported by wealthy Wahabists, mostly from Saudi Arabia. The US have been supporting the revel army, mostly to keep either of the other parties from winning and to avoid a power vacuum when Assad falls, which everyone assumed would happen sooner. Unfortunately the revel army has little support in the population, and beefing them up pretty much failed.

    Up to now, the US wouldn't support Assad against ISIS, because Assad is wholly in the pocket of the Russians and Iranians, and the last thing we need is a state controlled by those nations next to Israel and Turkey. And the Russians have mostly bombed the rebel army on Assad's behalf, presumably to keep US influence out, and pretty much succeeded with that. Now ISIS made a strategic blunder with attacking the Russian jetliner, and they're now on the receiving end from Russia as well. So they decided to up the ante and go after France, and the West in general. Which won't end well, and with our without more US involvement will soon lead to Assad winning, and ISIS being pushed back mostly underground, but no less lethal. And pretty much no matter what the US does short of a long-term occupation of Syria, we will get what we don't want, that is a Syria that's controlled by Russia and Iran, and an underground terror organization funded by Saudi oil wealth.

    So does anyone have a better strategy? Just mindless killing out of frustration doesn't count.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 4:31 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidI love how RJ's armchair generals think they know more about target selection, planning and strikes than the military commanders responsible for conducting these operations. The target here was apparently the oil and trucks, not the drivers and certainly not any civilians who happened to be in the area. We do not know what local intelligence commanders had while planning this operation. If recent military history has taught us anything, it is that indiscriminate bombing has the potential to ferment greater support for the enemy. Leaflet drops prior to bombing missions weren't invented by President Obama (and I highly doubt he had any personal involvement in the decision to drop leaflets on this occasion). We were doing the same thing in WW2.

    The good news here is that destruction of the ISIS economic and logistics network is being expanded.


    I'm as chary of armchair generals as you are, but given his record of pandering to Muslims, Obama more likely than not did order the paper bombing. Indiscriminate bombing has never been a part of Western strategy or tactics in this conflict. As for WW2, the Sitzkrieg of then was largely being repeated until the Paris bombings put the situation into stark relief. And no, I don't mean the refugee kind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 4:33 PM GMT
    Ah the good old-fashioned American strategy:

    Hit it. If it keeps moving, hit it again. If that doesn't work, hit it harder from a different angle. If you've still not succeeded, start over from the beginning, your probably forgot a step.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 4:57 PM GMT
    Blather, rinse, repeat. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 5:05 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    I'm as chary of armchair generals as you are, but given his record of pandering to Muslims, Obama more likely than not did order the paper bombing. Indiscriminate bombing has never been a part of Western strategy or tactics in this conflict. As for WW2, the Sitzkrieg of then was largely being repeated until the Paris bombings put the situation into stark relief. And no, I don't mean the refugee kind.


    Sorry, you lost me at "pandering to Muslims".

    bush_abdullah001_16x9.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    This will help you find your way:
    obama-bows-to-islam.jpg
    Note bended knee; not even QE2 gets that!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    Obama's drone war a 'recruitment tool' for Isis, say US air force whistleblowers
    Four former US air force service members, with more than 20 years of experience between them operating military drones, have written an open letter to Barack Obama warning that the program of targeted killings by unmanned aircraft has become a major driving force for Isis and other terrorist groups.

    In particular, they argue, the killing of innocent civilians in drone airstrikes has acted as one of the most “devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/obama-drone-war-isis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers

    The targeting strategy in the battle against ISIS certainly isn't the straightforward issue some would have us believe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2015 3:12 PM GMT
    It's not unusual to warn of impending bombings. Israel does it routinely. Even Germany did it during WWII.