Cyprus-Forum.com

[Garavnoss]

A highly recommendable book written by Ernest Gann.

The "Antagonists" is a remarkably well presented account of the struggles between the Roman Conquerors and the Jewish resistance fighters who would not bend to the might of the Roman Empire.

As with ALL smaller forces when faced with superior opponents, a face to face confrontation is sensibly avoided since the outcome is usually a foregone conclusion.

Ultimately the Jews took refuge in "Masada" and their "Courage" is well documented (I suggest you read the book).

"Antagonism" can be a very effective means of extending an enemies resources and diminishing their morale, perhaps the IS forces are adopting precisely those tactics in the hope that they will goad the West into committing a ground offensive rather than a prolonged campaign of bombing raids.

Whatever the reasons, the Jews of "Masada" exhibited exactly the same degree of "Courage" as do the IS,they were not afraid to die.

[Paphitis]

A highly recommendable book written by Ernest Gann.

The "Antagonists" is a remarkably well presented account of the struggles between the Roman Conquerors and the Jewish resistance fighters who would not bend to the might of the Roman Empire.

As with ALL smaller forces when faced with superior opponents, a face to face confrontation is sensibly avoided since the outcome is usually a foregone conclusion.

Ultimately the Jews took refuge in "Masada" and their "Courage" is well documented (I suggest you read the book).

"Antagonism" can be a very effective means of extending an enemies resources and diminishing their morale, perhaps the IS forces are adopting precisely those tactics in the hope that they will goad the West into committing a ground offensive rather than a prolonged campaign of bombing raids.

Whatever the reasons, the Jews of "Masada" exhibited exactly the same degree of "Courage" as do the IS,they were not afraid to die.

I would suggest that IS would be defeated quite swiftly once the coalition deploy ground troops.

The coalition would gain control of Iraq quite quickly, but it may take a little longer in Syria. What happens in the aftermath is a big question mark at this stage.

Committing ground troops to Iraq would be easy, once the political will to do so is established. In Syria there are too many variables and many more things to go wrong. For instance, what will happen when Coalition Troops confront Syrian Forces. Then there is Hesbollah and its Iranian operatives, as well as Al Nusra.

I would suggest that ground forces are inevitable. Australian PM is actually considering sending another 3200 troops to Iraq on top of the SAS already there and undertake a combat role alongside the ISF and Peshmerga. It's the first country to consider sending combat troops at this stage, but Obama will follow.

It's little wonder the SAS were first in. I question the fact that the SAS were deployed in an advisory and training role - talk about sending in a sledgehammer and call it "training and advisory" (yeh right nice one). I would suggest that they had every intention of sending combat troops from 6 months ago, hence the deployment of the SAS to lay the ground work and gather intelligence.

There are an additional 2000 US Troops in an "advisory and training" role.

[Paphitis]

My theory is that Obama wants to send in US Forces right now but has an obstructionist Republican controlled Congress to deal with.

Hence Australian Combat Troops first in to allow for an easier and more cooperative Congress.

Watch this space because things are happening. Problem is, Australian Parliament is equally obstructionist without US Forces being first in.

The powers at be are positioning themselves and gauging the public reaction.

The realistic result will be that Ground Combat Troops will be deployed soon.

[Lordo]

it makes no difference how the west fights. the result is the same.
1. they cannot avoid civilian casualties
2. they are fighting in someone else's country which can never be legitimately claimed to be self defence despite the fact that empires going back to the romans have claimed it whilst colonising other countries.
3. ultimately their own population will defeat them.
4. they are getting better at hiding the damage they cause but all it means is the war is lasting longer and the casualties are greater.
5. the final result is a forgone conclusion - the west will lose.

[Paphitis]

it makes no difference how the west fights. the result is the same.
1. they cannot avoid civilian casualties

Where have you been. Civilians are being killed every day at the hands of DAESH.

2. they are fighting in someone else's country which can never be legitimately claimed to be self defence despite the fact that empires going back to the romans have claimed it whilst colonising other countries.

They would be fighting along side the dejure forces of sovereign Iraq. Their role would be to establish the Iraqi Governments control over its sovereign borders.

3. ultimately their own population will defeat them.

What population? Public opinion endorses intervention.

4. they are getting better at hiding the damage they cause but all it means is the war is lasting longer and the casualties are greater.

Don't know what you're talking about.

5. the final result is a forgone conclusion - the west will lose.

I don't think so. DAESH will lose because as Coalition Forces roll through, they will enjoy the support of Iraqis and the ISF will be in charge of all operations. Their country after all.

The Sunni Tribes will not fight the coalition. Futile.

[Lordo]

how many people have isil killed, a thousand, perhaps two thousand. there are 200,000 people killed in syria alone. boy are an ignorant son of gun.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I have had very little time for the forum, but my small forays leave me feeling you (Garavnoss et al.) are attaching too much romanticism to the IS movement. The facts are becoming blurred as you weave reasons for engaging support for their strategies.

IS are not protecting some established culture. They are asserting expansion by destroying pre-existing cultures (Christians, Kurds etc). It is IS that are therefore enlarging and akin to your Goliath or Roman Empire in wishing to take over the rights of others.

So America is bigger and IS are fewer - but it's not just about size ...

You seem to think because IS are fewer in numbers that they are a minority that needs to be protected.

[However, you have re-enacted the distraction another unchecked muslim minority caused.]

- A minority in numbers they might be, but (like the TCs) they are a LARGE MENACE!

[Paphitis]

how many people have isil killed, a thousand, perhaps two thousand. there are 200,000 people killed in syria alone. boy are an ignorant son of gun.

Are you serious?

they could have killed 5000 Azidi and another 5000 Turkmen alone.

Even if it were only 10, it's still an injustice so let's not go down that path.

[Paphitis]

More Special forces Troops on their way to Iraq.

143 New Zealand SAS to deploy in Iraq and join their Australian counterparts.

Apparently they will join the Australian mission to 'train and advise' the ISF.

Further unconfirmed reports have indicated that SAS Quad Bike Squads are averaging 8 Jihadi ISIS Kills per day as part of the training mission.

There are now up to 3000 boots on the ground from 4 countries - AUS, US, NZ and UK.

This is what ISIS will be dealing with:



http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-zealand ... 3nuay.html

[Garavnoss]

I have had very little time for the forum, but my small forays leave me feeling you (Garavnoss et al.) are attaching too much romanticism to the IS movement. The facts are becoming blurred as you weave reasons for engaging support for their strategies.

IS are not protecting some established culture. They are asserting expansion by destroying pre-existing cultures (Christians, Kurds etc). It is IS that are therefore enlarging and akin to your Goliath or Roman Empire in wishing to take over the rights of others.

So America is bigger and IS are fewer - but it's not just about size ...

You seem to think because IS are fewer in numbers that they are a minority that needs to be protected.

[However, you have re-enacted the distraction another unchecked muslim minority caused.]

- A minority in numbers they might be, but (like the TCs) they are a LARGE MENACE!

My OWN view on the strategies of IS (and I must stress that it does NOT mean that I support them) is that they are committed to the task of regaining those territories which were destroyed by the Western forces.

The Proposition that Iraq (and other nations) are better off since their invasions/uprisings or whatever other upheavals, does little to alleviate the suffering of those who now live amongst it.

The emergence of IS (and others) is directly attributable to the destruction of their homelands (AS THEY SEE IT) and it should come as no surprise that they are hell bent on resisting the political and military might which is forcing change upon them.

One may proffer the opinion that Materialism is a more comfortable way to live, that Democracy is better for the people and that a whole new culture would be beneficial to them but, respectfully, when those same people view the corruption and misconduct at most levels of the societies they are expected to emulate, they simply do not want it, they were better off as they were before.

One could argue that the leadership of those Middle Eastern nations were ruled by tyrants, we have heard it all before, the leaders NOW are non-existent and the future is looking rather dismal and will probably remain so for some time.