Following a lengthy over lunch discussion I'm unsure if my stance was right. The recent UK air strikes depicted for one, the destruction of a pick up truck - loaded with what I know not. My husband made out a lengthy case against the cost effectiveness of that.  My stand was that small but random sniper-like attack caused unsettling whereas bigger raids fed defiance. I know that sharp shooters in the US Civil war were to be reckoned with, as it was in Viet Nam and similar. Much of what happens in this current conflict may depend on getting into untried and untrained minds - so are sniper raids effective or am I wrong?

Thank you for your kind invitation to partake in this thread, Priscilla, my meagre knowledge on this subject tend to somewhat agree with the both of you.


To be suddenly next to an explosion is certainly shocking - as revealed and reported from many a witness experiencing this, but to one with some military training, this is to be expected and treated as 'everyday' occurrence.

To civilians this may appear cold and callous, but with the real intention of being able to strike back fast and effectively.


Directed sniper fire, against either 'valuable' military targets may be of strong tactical value.
Be it against groups of civilians the purpose is sheer terror/terrorism.


Thus, imo, the value of either depends on whether the purpose is terror or 'taking the main opposition out'.


And tonight the Parliament of this country is going to agree to send some planes southwards to take part as a member of this coalition.





Edited because of bad wording - this isn't either my first nor second language.

I admire anyone with language skills. I have 2. My first and the one I use which is a bad edition of the first. I also use a subcontinent language - and so badly that it gets me in to all manner of problems. But as they are usually resolved in laughter all round, somehow I survive - whilst wondering what the hell I actually said to have everyone falling about.

So your govt also had a debate. I watched ours all day. Politicians take constant flak but many when faced with such issues speak with great sense.  Back to the thread.

Being trained to accept falling comrades from sight unseen however prepared surely causes stress.
Slingers and archers used to have this role. That awful term, collateral damage is what many fear. The aftermath of D-Day on civilians and as in most other battles, horrendous. Britain may have endure months of bombing, huge casualties (50,000) but that only strengthened resolve - as indeed it did in Berlin. How it must be when those trying to help you do great damage to you and yours I cannot imagine. My father having been bombed several times by the US in Italy was, however somewhat pithy on this matter. 

Our news in UK is parochial. We are told little of who and what others are doing in the air zones awarded them. I find this most annoying. Otherwise our effort looks a tad fragile; two pick ups, a minibus and an undefined armed position. However, my husband thinks no none need know anything and they should just get on with it. Dinner should be interesting. Thanks, Per.

This type of attack certainly smacks somewhat of "breaking windows with guineas" (see http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/52096/what-is-the-meaning-and-origin-of-the-phrase-breaking-windows-with-guineas ), or of long periods of the Bomber Offensive in WWII when the damage inflicted on Germany was less than the cost of the raids to Britain, but I suspect part of the rationale is  that these attacks are not being made on trained armed forces, but on what are effectively armed civilian enthusiasts, and if they come to believe that getting into your "technical" and driving it about is a complicated method of committing suicide for no observable gain it will hamper their effectiveness on the battlefield.