"Two AC-130 Gunships And Four Low-Flying A-10s Were..." Topic

… Used To Destroy 116 ISIS Crude Oil Trucks In Syria On Monday.

"For the first time since the war against the Islamic State militant group began more than one year ago, U.S. warplanes launched strategic strikes on trucks carrying crude oil in Syria Monday, cutting off an important source of income for the terror group. The airstrikes were carried out by two AC-130 gunships and four low-flying A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft, and hit an estimated 116 trucks in Deir al-Zour in eastern Syria, according to a New York Times report.

Plans for the attack were formed before the terror group killed 129 people in attacks on Paris on Friday evening and early Saturday morning, according to officials…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

And it only took them how many years to take them out?

Yes till Putin put the shame in the open maybe.
This whole " war on a concept "( terror is a concept not an ennemy) is a costly spineless scam.
The more they do it the more it encourages 1000 to join as the fight of the poor with spirit against the souless, spineless and self defeating occident.
What a shame.

Putin 'put the shame in the open' after this had already taken place. But don't let mere facts get in the way of a good opinion…

Ok maybe. It looked like that in the news. Who knows when things were said.
It still took years to do it. And will they carry on?

It looked like that in the news because Putin said that on Wednesday. The strikes happened on Monday.

'Years'? The US started air strikes in Syria in September 2014 – just over 1 year. Most of the air operations thus far have been about hitting command and control assets and military units. Now they're starting to hit economic targets. Air campaigns develop with time. Prior to last Friday, hitting what are essentially 'civilian' targets may well have been viewed as politically undesirable.

Well that strike package sounds like a good mix … I'm sure there are more trucks, etc., that could use that treatment.

So do we have pictures of these destroyed trucks.

or

Is someone just saying that they destroyed 116 trucks.

Oh and we have hundreds of A-10's but are using very few of them.

There should be around 100-150 of them flying over Syria and Iraq each and every day.

With the rule of if it moves in ISIS controlled areas its gets destroyed.

They've known ISIS was gaining strength since 2012, based upon today's DIA report revelation, but that was dismissed since it didn't fit the narrative desired. They were only 700 strong, back then.

They've had at least 18 months to get rid of the tankers, so that means ISIS was able to earn about $500 USD+ million dollars in that time, in order to help fund their global jihad.

The Russians just started their bombing campaign a few days ago, and reportedly have destroyed 500 more tankers.

Interesting idea. Assign 10 or so air controllers to the Kirds and let them call for air support when they need it. Then between US and French air support see what the Kirds can do.

The US and UK already have SF on the ground with the Kurds calling CAS. In Syria and Iraq. It appears the French may do this also in Syria.

Syria and Lebanon were part of the spoils the French took from the Ottoman Turks after WWI. Along with the UK, they divided up parts of the former Turkish empire to suit their own needs, etc. …

Which as we see today there were some obvious errors. Like creating Iraq with a 60% Shia population and a 15% Sunni. We clearly see today after all these years the errors of such decisions …

France just attacked an ISIS comms HQ in a city west of Mosul.

My question is, why wasn't it taken out in the last 14 months, or so, along with a lot of other targets?

Seems like a lot of good targets are still being neglected, instead of neutralized.

Like the tankers, a lot of them will be 'civilian' targets and prior to 14th November would have handed a propaganda coup to Daesh – lots of dead civvies, burning civvy vehicles and trashed housing and much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the usual sectors. Daesh instead handed the propaganda coup to the French and those targets can now be hit with little press backlash (in the short-term, at least). Attacking economic targets is a very grey area when it comes to assessing legality.

Also worth bearing in mind that some of these will be new targets and targets of opportunity that didn't previously exist or have only recently been located or have been hit before and repaired/reoccupied.

Yes, Daesh may have finally pushed their luck. And the West has finally loosened up some of the ROE. But still the West is careful not to create too much CD. But Daesh has forced our hands to be less circumspect.

Plus, was a former US General noted, with anti-Daesh forces getting closer and in combat with them, etc. … Plus more US SF there with them calling CAS, etc. … Some of the targets have become more "clear". But in reality, IMO, the Paris murders have made us rethink the ROE, as well. Plus the inability of local forces, save for the Kurds and a few others, have proven to be less than effective in combat with Daesh.
Yes, I'm talking about Iraq as one of the most blatant examples.

Plus no one wants what happened in Paris happening in one of their cities or towns. And Daesh's inhumanity is unending …

"Attacking economic targets is a very grey area when it comes to assessing legality".

Doesn't seem like any "gray area" to me, when you're dealing with ISIS, and they pull in $1.2 USD billion per year via various schemes, to help fund their global, terrorism crusade.

I'm for total war on the jihadis, and wouldn't leave a stone, or rooftop in place when seeking them out for destruction.

Yet attacking civilian economic infrastructure is a war crime… One that Putin's propaganda machine would have made great capital of before last week (i.e. before it suited them)…

For the record, I agree entirely with you, but prior to the Paris attacks, the PR 'spin' on such an attack might have been to hand the other side a propaganda victory (including Russia, who despite the current 'we're all in this together' spin, never pass up an opportunity to ramp up anti-NATO propaganda even when it coincides with their war aims. Remember that their long-term propaganda goal is to split public opinion away from NATO and break up the alliance from within. Everything that RT, Sputnik and their legion of 'commenters' on western media outlets is totally geared to that objective. Their war against Daesh is only a short-term goal).