| Tango01 | 27 Sep 2017 9:56 p.m. PST |
"Inside the ruined 'capital' of the Islamic State group Quentin Sommerville is on the streets of Raqqa with Syrian Democratic Forces. He finds a city devastated by IS rule and Western-led bombardments. Civilians are trapped – with many being used as human shields. There is a moment in the journey into Raqqa when you leave the real world behind. After the bombed-out Samra bridge, any signs of normal life vanish…." link Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| VVV reply | 27 Sep 2017 11:46 p.m. PST |
'We had to destroy the city to save it' – words that have been heard before.
Time possibly for AP robots to go through a built up area and kill individuals, without damaging the area. |
| Mike Target | 28 Sep 2017 1:24 a.m. PST |
Now…what would be handy would be, say, a chemical weapon of some sort that can kill people but leave buildings standing… |
| Great War Ace | 28 Sep 2017 6:18 a.m. PST |
Of course the "real world" is left behind. The city is a war zone. And of course there will be "civilian" casualties. ISIS isn't an army, it is a horde of brigands; and its victims that can't get away will suffer. The city is the people. I don't like sarcasm when it is about death. Buildings standing intact but empty are no city. Who would want to live in a place like that afterward? Everything will need rebuilding after this war. Just like every other war that finally ends. Who will help in the rebuilding is what will determine attitudes and feelings going forward. |
| VVV reply | 28 Sep 2017 8:52 a.m. PST |
Now…what would be handy would be, say, a chemical weapon of some sort that can kill people but leave buildings standing… Bad news for the civilians of course. Who would want to live in a place like that afterward? The people whose homes they are. How about thinking this way. A bunch of criminals come into your town, kill a few people and settle in. The police to clear the town drop bombs and use artillery, so by the time the criminals are all dead, there is not an intact building left. Would you have preferred something that killed the criminals but left the town intact? |
| PrivateSnafu | 28 Sep 2017 9:09 a.m. PST |
I'd drop a nuke….on this thread. |
| Supercilius Maximus | 28 Sep 2017 10:14 a.m. PST |
@ Mike T – How about the neutron bomb? link |
| Private Matter | 28 Sep 2017 11:10 a.m. PST |
I agree with Great War Ace. The affects of that warfare scars the land for years and the people forever. In reference to Supercilius Maximus's mention of the Neutron Bomb; When my wife and I travel to a nice place that is occupied by seemingly stuck-up and/or rude people we jokingly refer to the place needs a Neutron Bomb city/town. |
| Tango01 | 28 Sep 2017 11:11 a.m. PST |
|
| PMC317 | 29 Sep 2017 11:43 p.m. PST |
Gosh, it's almost like urban warfare is bloody, brutal, and indiscriminate. See also Mosul, Stalingrad, Berlin… If I thought two armed groups were going to war in my home town I would pack my  and leave, expecting to return to a rubbleised flat. |
