Tunisia ISIL attack on tourists

[Hangarshuffle]

Islamic State 'claims' responsibility for Tunisia attack as nation is left asking: what next? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11483994/Islamic-State-claims-responsibility-for-Tunisia-attack-as-nation-is-left-asking-what-next.html)


Again another attack, now getting very close to the bars and joints of Europe. Was on holiday in Tunisia once, a secular country even then. We stayed in a massive holiday complex ran in part by Thomsons as I recall, a split up of British, Dutch and German zones.
My guess is this is now exactly the sort of place they would love to attack and seize, and then murder the European holidaymakers by the hundred if not by the thousand.
That amphib .exercise we did back in Turkey (in 2009 was it) was partly a sort attempt to respond to this such event (but was a poor exercise, poorly planned and executed as I recall now).


Should the combined UK military, right now put up a contingency plan to deal with such an possible event for this Summer? I'll spell it out again. An Islamic terrorist group of in excess of perhaps 50 fighters heavily armed with automatic weapons seizes an entire holiday resort on the Mediterranean coastline of containing perhaps upwards of 3000 European holiday makers and begins immediately killing them.
Could we respond? Can we respond?
Something I think sometimes when I read the papers and then I remember Exercise Egeman 2009 and what a farce it was.
If this thread is too stupid or scary for them, happy for the mods to delete it now.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Anyone who travels on holiday to a country where IS might operate is an idiot. Full stop. We cannot, as you say, save them in this scenario.

Personally, I think the same applies to aid workers in terms of inability of saving them. The two I know who visit regularly go with no expectation of being saved, and would be mortified if anyone tried to do so. On that condition, I admire their conviction and see no need for a travel ban.

I think the Government advice on travel to such places needs beefing up.

[Mil-26Man]

Anyone who travels on holiday to a country where IS might operate is an idiot.

Sadly, that really doesn't leave too many options (including the UK!)

[highflyer40]

Anyone that goes on holiday to anywhere in North Africa deserves what they get. No help!

[Heathrow Harry]

We can't guarantee safety anywhere - Fusilier Rigby was murdered by nutters in Woolwhich, people were shot in a coffee shop in Sydney (and Copenhagen), 168 people were killed in downtown Oklahoma City.....................

None of these are "dangerous" tourist destinations....................

[chopper2004]

And to complement HH , also downtown Paris...

Sikorsky is currently negotiations with TUnisia re purchasing six or seven S-70i.

Cheers

[Pontius Navigator]

Now of course there are lots of Russians in the Med resorts :)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sadly, that really doesn't leave too many options (including the UK!)

Well, there is a difference between IS and IS sympathisers, which has quite an effect on the risk level. But if you are implying that the UK is now unsafe, I would agree.

[wiggy]

Anyone that goes on holiday to anywhere in North Africa deserves what they get. No help!

Anyone who travels on holiday to a country where IS might operate is an idiot.

Well guys speaking as a now commercial pilot may I point out you've just written off a fair chunk of the destinations served by a far proportion of the UK's airlines, both Long Haul and the LoCos.......

I'm about to head off to SYD but planning to spend some time in London on my return.....am I being irresponsible? FWIW myself and other's in my position regularly see the likes of Kenya and Nigeria on their roster...I have no sympathy at all with those who think treking in iffy parts of the Middle East is a good idea but there are many others who make more sensible choices..

Or should we all just shut up shop and barricade the borders? Fat lot of good that will do us...

[Moi/]

A tough one, we have relatives whom have booked a AI Holiday to Tunisia before this thing all kicked off. Now this is happened, its makes you think.


The holiday firm (a large TUI member) has said "Hey no problems with our holidays to Tunisia" and are following the FCO advice. If the FCO say "don't travel", then costs are refunded.

So the choice is... Swap out and pay a hefty fee (probably 100% again), or leave it see what happens and take the risk...

As said above...is sometimes being right in the face safer than being elsewhere..

[melmothtw]

Sikorsky is currently negotiations with TUnisia re purchasing six or seven S-70i.

Contract for 8 awarded earlier this week - Tunisia orders Black Hawk helos - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/50012/tunisia-orders-black-hawk-helos)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

FCO advice not to travel? - good luck with that. The FCO are not advising against travel to Tunis, despite the attack. Oddly enough, they never seem to advise against areas where major travel companies go...what a coincidence.

Please note, I am advising against tourist travel, not commercial travel. IS are clearly targetting Western tourists; and commercial travellers tend to, and are able to, make more secure arrangements.

[Tourist]

Fox3

Well done for assisting IS in their attempts to alter the behaviour of westerners through fear.

The entire point of the attack is to make westerners fear to go to Tunisia on holiday.

I hope that their are others around with more of the British spirit willing to give you a damn good ignoring.

I will continue to go on holiday to North Africa, and yes I expect the British military to make an attempt to rescue me if necessary. It's part and parcel of being a world power. The day we retreat from such things is the day we cease to be worthy of respect, and don't give me guff about not having the kit or military for the job. Our current capabilities to rapidly move an SF force with suitable capabilities are superior to any time in history.

Frankly, stop being a wuss and pour yourself a large glass of man the f@ck up.
There is vastly more chance of being killed by bad driving in North Africa than by IS.
The way to beat terrorism is to ignore it.
1,000,000 people are killed on the roads every year. Do you still get in a car?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The way to beat terrorism is to ignore it.

How's that working out for you?

[ACW418]

Fox,

I am a supporter of all you say normally but I do think your post was more than a little limp wristed and does not fit with your former profession in the RAF.

I would never be so bold as to offer advice to someone like you but were you having a bad day?

ACW

[ShotOne]

It's stange how the end of the Cold War seems to have reset our risk tolerances. Not long ago we cheerfully got on with our lives despite the real threat of nuclear destruction. Yet now when faced by IS, a relatively small number of inadequate but murderous fanatics and loonies armed only with what they've nicked from our allies, everyone wets their pants.

[Bigbux]

I will continue to go on holiday to North Africa, and yes I expect the British military to make an attempt to rescue me if necessary.

No problem. The lads just go in and get you. Wherever you are. Job done.

Well worth risking their lives for. A Global power defines itself by the freedom with which its citizens can choose their Summer Holidays.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I am in favour of increased direct action* to rid the world of IS as soon as possible. I think that anything that detracts from that, such as rescuing tourists, is foolish. Furthermore, I think removing tourist dollars from Islamic countries forces them to take effective action both to protect tourists and suppress IS. To quote from a Tunisian today "Insh'Allah, security will get better". Well, Insh'Allah isn't a plan, much less effective action. We have a hundred years of experience that the average Islamic country will do f-all effective if the money keeps flowing.

Let's stop mucking around.

There, does that fit with the image? Just because I think tourists shouldn't be travelling doesn't mean I've given in to terrorism.

*Up the bombing. IS's philosophy relies on the expansion of the Caliphate. The quicker its area of occupation reduces, the faster it will fall. I want the ROE free-ing up a lot. Personally, I'd send in the B-52 'Carpet Suppliers'

http://johnweeks.com/tour/wtc/b52ammo2.jpg

[Tourist]

Bigbux



"A global power defines itself by the freedom with which its citizens can choose their summer holidays"

Yes, pretty much exactly.

I think I will adopt that as my definition

It covers both the economic power to afford the holiday plus the reach of the country to look after its own..

....and yes, I think the boys would enjoy doing just that. Sitting around bored waiting for a shout is dull. Do you imagine that the scary boys sign up hoping to not get used?

Fox3

So the fact that neither we nor the Germans managed to win a war through carpet bombing doesn't put you off?
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

Nobody has ever tried ignoring terrorists. I think it is worth a try. The very nature of it is all in the mind. The cost in both lives and treasure disappears in the noise compared to many many other everyday tragedies which we routinely ignore. Treat them like any other criminals. Don't dignify them with combatant status.

[ShotOne]

Well, fox I share those same sentiments in terms of hating IS and terrorism but disagree 100% on your plan for dealing with them. To paraphrase your own post, "carpet bombing...how's that working out for you??" We dropped countless tons on Iraq and that facilitated rather than eradicated IS. How about Libya; do you count that as an example of successful use of air Power?

IS have targeted Tunisia precisely because they have lost the battle of ideas there and the population have overwhelmingly chosen our values over theirs. If we were to start lobbing airstrikes there, IS would delighted!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

So the fact that neither we nor the Germans managed to win a war through carpet bombing doesn't put you off?
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

Carefully targeted carpet bombing, combined with other precision bombing in a sustained campaign, does work, e.g. Gulf War.

Air Power in recent years has, almost without exception, been used piecemeal to attain highly media-oriented objectives with no long term strategic aims behind it. This includes Libya. Don't blame air power for underlying political failings.
I have never suggested air strikes on Tunisia; it would be stupid for the reasons you give. We need to stick to attacking the Caliphate. I regard IS operatives in other countries as that country's problem. Withdrawing tourist dollars should help them see that effective action is necessary.

In terms of carpet bombing in Iraq being responsible for the rise of IS, you will recall that Canada did not take part in the Invasion of Iraq, and that the UN Secretary General declared said the operation in 2003 was illegal. I think the reasons for invading Iraq and the post invasion management had far more to do with the rise of IS than any air power action within the Invasion. IS's precursor organisation formed in 2004 in direct response to the sectarian divisions arising in Iraq as a consequence of US post-invasion political management. It was nothing to do with the Invasion itself. Whether any post-Saddam political strategy could have worked is another question - arguably not, in which case Iraq shouldn't have been invaded in the first place.

[Two's in]

So, eradicating the socio-economic conditions where strapping on a suicide vest for a bunch of lunatics is preferable to the never ending struggle of daily life is not an option then? Thank god (small g) we got that option off the table quickly.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

A very fair point Two's In - leaving the enemy with no option but a fight to the death is always a bad idea. The Romans on Hadrian's Wall always sallied to attack raiders from one direction only, leaving them with the 'run away bravely' option.
As to the socio-economics, then again hope is vital. I advocate removing tourist money until IS is disabled and the situation is safe, not forever.

[West Coast]

Socio economic huh, if only OBL had a factory job assembling widgets prior to 911. Same for his number 2, you know, the doctor.

Ideology trumps employment.

Jobs for jihadis sounds great when you try to solve the issue minus addressing the root cause.

[ShotOne]

"Removing tourist money until IS is disabled..."? Nothing would be more calculated to ENable them than crumbling deserted resorts, massive unemployment and an impoverished government.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

There are no guarantees. Removing tourist revenue could result in your scenario, or the commencement of effective action against IS terrorists that I expect would be the consequence in Tunisia.

In terms of the air power aspect, I think the primary problem is the political failure to declare war, or formally refuse to do so and take the consequences thereof. A lack of a clear statement leads to highly restrictive ROE and force-sizing, and therefore ineffective action. IS in the ME is a de facto state rather than a terrorist organisation, and therefore can be attacked.

One of the biggest issues is the risk of civilian casualties, but International Law specifically forbids the placing of military assets in civilian areas (which IS and Hamas do) and therefore specifically permits the bombing of such areas where military assets have been so placed. By excluding civilian areas, it is in fact politicians who are giving in to IS terrorism, and indeed encouraging the placement of military assets among civilians as a tactic since it clearly works.
One waits to see what Hamas do next time after Israel wasn't prepared to exclude such targets during the recent conflict.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtVjY4YIMAAI0ts.jpg

[The Old Fat One]

Tunisia, along with most of that coast, is a little bit of a dump. Can't think for the life of me why anyone would want to go there?

Interestingly when it all went off in Egypt, TUI (Germany) were giving refunds to cancellations to Germans, whilst Thomson (UK) [which, as you all know, have the same parent company] were quoting the Foreign Office and refusing to give refunds to Brits. Tiny bit random and arbitrary don't you think?

Personally, I think it's a matter of common sense and self-preservation as much as anything else.

Would I drastically change my lifestyle because of nutters who want to murder people - no chance.

Would I avoid a hotspot/high risk destination and pick somewhere else - you betcha.

I mean, I am no stranger to flying and I know the stats, but there are plenty of airlines I will never fly with.

Common sense innit.

[ShotOne]

Galloping generalisations aside, many of the resorts there have been developed to an exceptionally high standard and they have invested heavily to do so. If a boycott were to bankrupt their pro-west, IS hating govt and create a few million restless hungry unemployed, who know what would replace it? IS targetted tourism exactly for these reasons. Do we really want to help their policy?

"..waits to see what Hamas do next time" your own words, fox, highlight that Hamas were not destroyed or even disarmed by those attacks and that the one certainty is there will be a next time

[barnstormer1968]

Perhaps it may be of general help if a NATO member didn't buy bulk oil from ISIS, and stopped killing people who are fighting against ISIS.

ISIS selling oil to a NATO member is just about in the same 'idealist' fold as PIRA selling drugs to loyalists back in the day. Idealism is all well and good and it makes for great propaganda videos, but money seems to have the same effect on terrorists as it does on fat cat capitalists :)

[highflyer40]

The "west" also includes all of South America, South Africa and many other countries that Muslim fanatics don't seem to care about... I wonder what they are doing different... Oh yes that's it, they are minding there own business and not trying to impose their philosophies on others.

[melmothtw]

Oh yes that's it, they are minding there own business and not trying to impose their philosophies on others.

And yet when there's a natural catastrophe or some other calamity, like the Asian Tsunami or the Pakistan floods, who is that these countries all call upon to help? The West.

They can't have it both ways - either they get our 'interference' or they don't.

[highflyer40]

Are you seriously saying that humanitarian aid is reliant on the fact that a nation must bend over and accept what it gets?? You are warped

[melmothtw]

I'm saying that you can't decry the West as 'the great Satan' the one moment, and then expect it come riding to your rescue the next.

[highflyer40]

I would agree to disagree with you on this one. I think most Muslim fanatics wouldn't want the wests help in a humanitarian disaster. It is the rest of the population that requests help.. You know just like they did in reverse. I seem to remember Pakistan sent almost 5000 aid workers to Thailand after the tsunami.

[melmothtw]

I'd suggest most Muslim fanatics would believe a natural disaster to be the work of Allah, and so help would be the last thing on their minds.

I don't know Pakistan's contribution to the Tsumani relief effort, so will go with what you say. Invariably though it is the West that they call upon (it is certainly the West they blame if no help comes).

I take your point about other 'Western' countries not being affected by terrorism to the same degree (you say it's because they don't 'meddle' in ME affairs), but as the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya showed, that's no real protection unfortunately.

[melmothtw]

I'd also suggest that, with regard to the example of South America that you brought up, other factors besides foreign policy probably have a bigger part to play in their not being targeted. Factors such as proximity to Muslim lands, the lack of a Muslim population of any significant size, population demographics, the religious composition of the continent, regional history, etc.

[highflyer40]

Well it is really. As this meddling has been going on since the 50's/60's.

I would love to see allterrorist/extremists eliminated, but we also live in the real world and that is just impossible.

I just think a new way of trying things would probably work, not right away but after a few years they would go on with their internal fighting and forgot about the west. Just like they have never been bothered with South America, which lets face it is the most western religious continent in existence

[melmothtw]

Just like they have never been bothered with South America, which lets face it is the most western religious continent in existence

See my post above. I think there are far more relevant reasons that have nothing to do with foreign policy as to why South America has not been caught up in this current conflagration.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The "west" also includes all of South America, South Africa and many other countries that Muslim fanatics don't seem to care about.."

these wouldn't be the fanatics who bombed the Jewish Centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and is causing Mrs Kirchner so many problems then......