Latest French Attacks: updates (in English)

[SciFiAuthor]

Looks like land-based fighter-bombers out of UAE and Jordan, apparently De Gaulle is still en route.  The Syrian military has warned France they will attack the De Gaulle if the carrier launches strikes into Syria.  If the Syrians are stupid enough to do that, the French would reasonably be expected to hit Syrian military air and missile bases.  Would the Russian fighters, including very capable Su-30s, currently based In Syria try to intervene if that happens?

This is getting really dangerous. If the Syrians were to attack the De Gaulle then that brings NATO into the equation. With Russia supporting Syria, then this could all get really ugly really quickly.

[chefist]

This is getting really dangerous. If the Syrians were to attack the De Gaulle then that brings NATO into the equation. With Russia supporting Syria, then this could all get really ugly really quickly.

Imagine the embarrassing situation where the namesake of the Warsaw Pact is now a NATO member...

[pyewacket]

Yes, this'll show those terrorists- more madness from the left.

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has rejected calls to rethink the European Union’s open doors policy on migration. Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” â€" that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/15/eu-commission-president-borders-will-remain-open/

[Uncle Duke]

This is getting really dangerous. If the Syrians were to attack the De Gaulle then that brings NATO into the equation. With Russia supporting Syria, then this could all get really ugly really quickly.

Doubt NATO would get involved unless the Russians intervened.  According to the latest issue of "Air Forces Monthly", the Syrians have less than 30 operational combat aircraft left in their inventory.  With the a/c on the De Gaulle and land-based fighter-bombers in UAE and Jordan, the French would make short work of such a small force that's already having serious logistical/maintenance problems.

The smartest thing for Putin to do is tell the Syrians they are not to attack the French, he should have the horsepower to keep Assad in line.  Of course Putin and the Russian military are still pissed at the French for defaulting on the deal for the two LPHs.  Must gall the Russians to see them wind up in Egypt.

[Uncle Duke]

I think France should use its military to clean out some of those suburbs and Muslim areas at home and patrol their borders and waters for 'refugees' and other invaders. Let the Russians and Assad take out ISIS in the Syria, as that won't escalate a dispute between our countries and Assad apparently has already told Russia to help out.
France can help out in Africa, where Muslims are also running rampant, and has familiarity with operating there and in parts of the ISIS caliphate that is not in Syrian territory.

The French have been kicking some serious Muslim ass in Mali and other areas within the French sphere of influence in Africa, so I think it's a given they will continue to do so after the Paris attacks.  Agree also neither the Russians nor French want a military confrontation, but Assad and/or his military could put Putin in a no win situation. 

[VtaGeezer]

Looks like land-based fighter-bombers out of UAE and Jordan, apparently De Gaulle is still en route.  The Syrian military has warned France they will attack the De Gaulle if the carrier launches strikes into Syria.  If the Syrians are stupid enough to do that, the French would reasonably be expected to hit Syrian military air and missile bases.  Would the Russian fighters, including very capable Su-30s, currently based In Syria try to intervene if that happens?

Syria has no real naval capability.  Syrian AF would be target practice for the French.  It would have to be a Russian response.  There's (reportedly) a Russian surface action group in the E Med.  It could could get very nasty if Putin is nuts enough to put a torpedo or missile into DeGaulle.  France hasn't yet asked for a NATO Art. 5 commitment and I wonder if Obama has warned Hollande not to.

[SciFiAuthor]

Doubt NATO would get involved unless the Russians intervened.  According to the latest issue of "Air Forces Monthly", the Syrians have less than 30 operational combat aircraft left in their inventory.  With the a/c on the De Gaulle and land-based fighter-bombers in UAE and Jordan, the French would make short work of such a small force that's already having serious logistical/maintenance problems.

The smartest thing for Putin to do is tell the Syrians they are not to attack the French, he should have the horsepower to keep Assad in line.  Of course Putin and the Russian military are still pissed at the French for defaulting on the deal for the two LPHs.  Must gall the Russians to see them wind up in Egypt.

I'm not sure what the deal is with NATO in all of this. Does the Paris terrorist attack constitute an attack on a member state by another state? I.e. is ISIS a state or is it a terrorist organization and how does that relate to Article 5. Syria is certainly a state, but would an attack on the De Gaulle be grounds for France to invoke Article 5? Would the French even bother? I just don't know the particulars on how all of that works.

Syria is no match for France, of course, but the Syrians may have some of those Russian P-800 anti-ship cruise missiles left. I agree, Putin should restrain Assad the problem is whether France starts targeting oil infrastructure. The Russians have interests at stake there. The LPH deal was funny, I don't know what the hell Egypt intends to do with them, status symbols I guess, but it was definitely a smack in the face to Russia.

[albrecht]

I'm not sure what the deal is with NATO in all of this. Does the Paris terrorist attack constitute an attack on a member state by another state? I.e. is ISIS a state or is it a terrorist organization and how does that relate to Article 5. Syria is certainly a state, but would an attack on the De Gaulle be grounds for France to invoke Article 5? Would the French even bother? I just don't know the particulars on how all of that works.

Syria is no match for France, of course, but the Syrians may have some of those Russian P-800 anti-ship cruise missiles left. I agree, Putin should restrain Assad the problem is whether France starts targeting oil infrastructure. The Russians have interests at stake there. The LPH deal was funny, I don't know what the hell Egypt intends to do with them, status symbols I guess, but it was definitely a smack in the face to Russia.

NATO Art.5 doesn't necessitate that it is a State actor who attacks, just that "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence" so France could call for it (as we did post-9/11.) That is, you attack any of us- you attack us all. But since pretty much everyone is already bombing ISIS and fighting various Muslim radicals in various places I'm not sure what good it does to invoke- except, maybe, to pressure Turkey to do more against ISIS and radical Muslims? And less against the Kurds who are fighting ISIS? Idk.

[Uncle Duke]

I'm not sure what the deal is with NATO in all of this. Does the Paris terrorist attack constitute an attack on a member state by another state? I.e. is ISIS a state or is it a terrorist organization and how does that relate to Article 5. Syria is certainly a state, but would an attack on the De Gaulle be grounds for France to invoke Article 5? Would the French even bother? I just don't know the particulars on how all of that works.

Syria is no match for France, of course, but the Syrians may have some of those Russian P-800 anti-ship cruise missiles left. I agree, Putin should restrain Assad the problem is whether France starts targeting oil infrastructure. The Russians have interests at stake there. The LPH deal was funny, I don't know what the hell Egypt intends to do with them, status symbols I guess, but it was definitely a smack in the face to Russia.

Is the P-800 air, ship, or ground launched?  The latter would pose the greatest threat, assuming the French TF commander was stupid enough to sail within range of land-based launchers.

[albrecht]

Is the P-800 air, ship, or ground launched?  The latter would pose the greatest threat, assuming the French TF commander was stupid enough to sail within range of land-based launchers.

According to Wiki, which is not a great source admittedly, the P-800 can be all of the above. I think the land-based were the ones Syria had (Israel bombed but experts say they still might have some.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks#Syria

[SciFiAuthor]

Is the P-800 air, ship, or ground launched?  The latter would pose the greatest threat, assuming the French TF commander was stupid enough to sail within range of land-based launchers.

Ground-based from a Bastion launch vehicle. The Israelis attacked the stockpile in 2013, but didn't get them all. 

[VtaGeezer]

Is the P-800 air, ship, or ground launched?  The latter would pose the greatest threat, assuming the French TF commander was stupid enough to sail within range of land-based launchers.

No air launch, ship launch from very few Ruski platforms.

[Uncle Duke]

The French have Hawkeyes flying off De Gaulle, and E-3s flying from various bases in the ME and Africa.  Safe bet we are also providing them real-time satellite imagery as well.  If a Syrian warship capable of firing those missiles put to sea the French would know it and take it out, with either an air strike or a sub, before it got into effective firing range.  Same with Syrian aircraft, the French CAP would get them before they got into range.  Mobile land-based launchers are harder to find/kill, but easy to avoid simply by staying out of range.

All that said, let's hope Assad and/or the Syrian military are not stupid enough to make any of this worth worrying about.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Ten French bombers just struck ISIS Hq, an ammo depot, and recruitment.training center in Raqqah.  CentCom ought to be infront of a Congressional committee tomorrow explaining how it is that these targets exist after 12,000 airstrikes. WTF...over!

Presumably to avoid civilian casualties in densely populated areas.  Now that France has declared an act of war, all bets are off.

[chefist]

Presumably to avoid civilian casualties in densely populated areas.  Now that France has declared an act of war, all bets are off.

Am I wrong to believe they are just words! Will France actually go on the offensive?

[VtaGeezer]

All that said, let's hope Assad and/or the Syrian military are not stupid enough to make any of this worth worrying about.

Yep.  The beef is with ISIS, Assad's mortal enemy.  I don't understand why Syrians would want to interfere with French strikes.  Not that I think any of this stuff will have any permanence; remember Jordan after their pilot was burned in a cage.

[VtaGeezer]

Presumably to avoid civilian casualties in densely populated areas.

...civilians; a better defense than SAMs. 

[chefist]

Yep.  The beef is with ISIS, Assad's mortal enemy.  I don't understand why Syrians would want to interfere with French strikes.  Not that I think any of this stuff will have any permanence; remember Jordan after their pilot was burned in a cage.

Vive la France...some on BellGab said you can't hit back because ISIS is not a country...well, you can always "play dead" or "run"...

[albrecht]

Yep.  The beef is with ISIS, Assad's mortal enemy.  I don't understand why Syrians would want to interfere with French strikes.  Not that I think any of this stuff will have any permanence; remember Jordan after their pilot was burned in a cage.

Yeah, unless the French are going after Assad forces/areas I wouldn't understand why he would care if they bombed ISIS or other Muslim radicals in the region. But if they take the Obama's view, at least until recently, that Assad worse that ISIS/ISIL/SI, and want to go after Assad's assets or in areas he still controls I can see him trying to respond or pleading with Russia or Iran to do something. But, to me, everyone (pretty much) in the region has an enemy in ISIS so kill them....and I could care less if it is barrel-bombs, drones, troops, or whatever. I still say we should out-source the bombing to Russia and camp and refugee management to Serbs. Once gone then get back to posturing, Kissing-Brzezinski realpolitk against Russia, Sunni/Shia high-jinx, nation-building, corrupt kick-back arms sales, and all the other crap etc.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yep.  The beef is with ISIS, Assad's mortal enemy.  I don't understand why Syrians would want to interfere with French strikes.  Not that I think any of this stuff will have any permanence; remember Jordan after their pilot was burned in a cage.

It's all about the oil infrastructure. France knows that to defeat ISIS, and Assad for that matter, Syria's oil infrastructure must go. Russia has a vested interest in keeping that oil infrastructure intact as well.

[albrecht]

It's all about the oil infrastructure. France knows that to defeat ISIS, and Assad for that matter, Syria's oil infrastructure must go. Russia has a vested interest in keeping that oil infrastructure intact as well.

But with the Saud's going balls to the wall production and oil prices so low why would Assad (and especially Russia) care if some of the ISIS controlled oil infrastructure shuts down? At least temporarily? If anything it would help Russia by, maybe, making oil and gas prices rise a bit (even the unstable nature of the machinations in the region might make them rise.) I could care less about Assad- I'm still not sure how the toast-of-the-town 'modern' beautiful wife and modern Assad went from gracing Western magazine covers and tv shows to the most evil guy since Saddam or Hitler? So he is tough on radical Muslims and might even barrel-bomb them? So? Who gives a crap? Minority religions, women, etc were pretty ok under his aegis versus ISIS/ISIL/SI or other Obama/McCain 'rebels' and 'springers' or even under our 'allies' like in Saudi Arabia!

[bateman]

It's all about the oil infrastructure. France knows that to defeat ISIS, and Assad for that matter, Syria's oil infrastructure must go. Russia has a vested interest in keeping that oil infrastructure intact as well.

You also need to take the land, not just bomb the shit out of it. No land = no caliphate. The problems with that are, boots on the ground, and ISIS wants an invasion. I don't think we have the stomach for another prolonged ground war and occupation though. So what the solution is, I really don't know. An embedded German journalist said it's something the Arabs have to take care of.

[chefist]

You also need to take the land, not just bomb the shit out of it. No land = no caliphate. The problems with that are, boots on the ground, and ISIS wants an invasion. I don't think we have the stomach for another prolonged ground war and occupation though. So what the solution is, I really don't know. An embedded German journalist said it's something the Arabs have to take care of.

Does the average Arab care about those who died in Paris!

[albrecht]

You also need to take the land, not just bomb the shit out of it. No land = no caliphate. The problems with that are, boots on the ground, and ISIS wants an invasion.

Idk, there are scenarios in which you can take the land, or at least, eliminate the people. Bio, chemical, nukes, poison water/wells, engineered flu or bacteria to take down crops/fodder/livestock, genetic-targeted bio-weapon....whatever happened to that neutron bomb deal (ERW) Even leave some of the shacks and ancient sites (not destroyed already) still standing....or a "nude bomb," ala Get Smart and really get those crazed Muslims upset! Don't give them what they want (some huge war confrontation on horseback to a final reckoning.) Do it scientifically. Kill them with bombs, radiation, disease, starvation, heck, even weather modification maybe? And you also can have some 'deniability'. Gee, that global warming is bad? Sorry. Or, 'we got to stop these GMOS, sorry there is no crops?' Let captured militants go back infected with stuff. And let them go thanking them for 'helping out'. Then let others kill them, get infected, and also set tribe against tribe, family against family, and sow discord about who can be trusted. How about that new SARS-like stuff over there? Put it in a lab and increase the vector and symptoms and release it back out there. Withhold all humanitarian aid and drugs. (And, like Obama is doing, bomb the hospitals.) There are OPTIONS.....mine the harbors and monitor borders with drones and landmines. Cheap, proven effective- Princess Di withstanding.
I'm kidding, of course, but there are OPTIONS.

[bateman]

Does the average Arab care about those who died in Paris!

If they don't care about the countless numbers of Shiites and moderate Sunnis already murdered by ISIS, I'm gonna say no.

[chefist]

If they don't care about the countless numbers of Shiites and moderate Sunnis already murdered by ISIS, I'm gonna say no.

Sad but true..

[bateman]

Report from inside Raqqa tonight:

"No civilians hit so far, the hospitals are reporting. Electricity and water shut down. Panic among the civilians,” the group posted on its website. “Areas hit: Stadium, museum, hospital, government building (municipal).”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/15/paris-terrorist-attacks-airstrikes/75837088/

[Dr. MD MD]

I still think that there are a few telling aspects to this situation that people should consider. First, how did the terrorists get so heavily armed? We're told that there were weapons caches left for the Iraqis that were seized when they retreated. However, I'm pretty sure this is intel that the US would've gotten pretty quickly. Why wouldn't they have sent some drones into to blow that stuff up rather than let it fall into the hands of an enemy of the state, especially one that's already done so much damage? Second, why after everything we've been through and all the official stories we've been told would the US be more interested in Assad than Isis (or whatever of the myriad of names they've been called)? I get that he's not a nice guy but the US has buddied up to lots of trolls and monsters over the years when there was something they wanted more (usually oil). Shouldn't they have wanted to defeat Isis more than Assad? Sorry, but I can't help seeing the terrorists as Goldstein to the US's Big Brother. I mean they're using this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker on all of us but now we're told that the reason the terrorists keep getting away with it is they're really clever and are using encryption now. Alright, since they're not using openly accessible communication anymore you can stop spying on the rest of us, right? Fat chance. Welcome to the new world order!

[Dr. MD MD]

Report from inside Raqqa tonight:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/15/paris-terrorist-attacks-airstrikes/75837088/

I don't know about you but it really bothers me how hospitals have become acceptable targets now. Did they just scrap the Geneva Convention altogether? This is the kind of shit that creates terrorists in the first place.

[SciFiAuthor]

But with the Saud's going balls to the wall production and oil prices so low why would Assad (and especially Russia) care if some of the ISIS controlled oil infrastructure shuts down? At least temporarily? If anything it would help Russia by, maybe, making oil and gas prices rise a bit (even the unstable nature of the machinations in the region might make them rise.) I could care less about Assad- I'm still not sure how the toast-of-the-town 'modern' beautiful wife and modern Assad went from gracing Western magazine covers and tv shows to the most evil guy since Saddam or Hitler? So he is tough on radical Muslims and might even barrel-bomb them? So? Who gives a crap? Minority religions, women, etc were pretty ok under his aegis versus ISIS/ISIL/SI or other Obama/McCain 'rebels' and 'springers' or even under our 'allies' like in Saudi Arabia!

Not certain how all this fits together either, but the oil infrastructure was the specific reason Syria gave for the threat against the De Gaulle.