Post by: celticdog on 01 December 2015, 10:50:20 pm
Post by: mickvp on 02 December 2015, 01:04:15 am
We will be though I think - because as normally seems to be the case, wherever the USA wades in, we blindly follow.
Post by: Slaninar on 02 December 2015, 06:01:38 am
I tend to agree:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner)
Post by: Skippernick on 02 December 2015, 07:27:44 am
Ground troops need to go in and capture/kill them.
But we need to educate the fundamentalists.
Post by: BBROWN1664 on 02 December 2015, 08:08:05 am
Ground troops will be needed too to go in a get others out for some waterboarding.
Post by: fazersharp on 02 December 2015, 08:25:54 am
Post by: Slaninar on 02 December 2015, 08:47:04 am
However, bombing is good for corporations - they sell more bombs, and the "good guys" don't have any casualties so everyone is happy (apart from the bombed civilians, but who cares about the 3rd world savages?!). :)
Before 1990s, it was the communism - everyone fears it, no one knows what it is like. But you had to prove someone is a communist - party membership, some activity, anything.
Now terrorism is invented: everyone can be accused of planning terrorist acts and arrested (USA can take people anywhere in the world, without trial and charges and keep them as long as they like, for just suspecting them of any link to any terrorist). Without doing anything wrong. Orwell's 1984 at it's best.
Bombing any country in the world. First it was democracy and human rights, now it's fighting terrorism.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k2CIcdYNzA#)
Post by: Frosties on 02 December 2015, 08:51:12 am
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 09:19:43 am
Post by: esetest on 02 December 2015, 09:30:16 am
Post by: fazersharp on 02 December 2015, 09:59:44 am
Most of the terrorists are homegrown , so I don't think bombing Syria will make a difference , more civilians will be killed , more Syrians will join Isis , and they will have more sympathy from Muslims here , we need to tackle the problem at home , who use our freedom to spout there hate .Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
Post by: johnakay on 02 December 2015, 10:04:53 am
Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
this place will be a good start....
(http://www.petershamgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/houses_of_parliament21.jpg)
Post by: esetest on 02 December 2015, 10:41:46 am
I am not suggesting bombing any cities here , we are constantly being told MI5 are watching thousands of radicals here , well stop watching and start arresting .Most of the terrorists are homegrown , so I don't think bombing Syria will make a difference , more civilians will be killed , more Syrians will join Isis , and they will have more sympathy from Muslims here , we need to tackle the problem at home , who use our freedom to spout there hate .Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
Post by: darrsi on 02 December 2015, 10:48:32 am
Post by: Robbie8666 on 02 December 2015, 11:51:57 am
I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!
errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
but only my opinion!
Post by: darrsi on 02 December 2015, 12:05:48 pm
I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!
errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
but only my opinion!
So just do nothing, other than take in all the refugees to bleed us dry, and in the process probably let in members of ISIS at the same time?
We're all doomed!
Post by: Frosties on 02 December 2015, 12:31:48 pm
I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!
errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
but only my opinion!
Errr nope. This time we send one out with each patrol and stick them right at the front..........to check for any IED's.
:lurk
Post by: Slaninar on 02 December 2015, 12:39:01 pm
So just do nothing, other than take in all the refugees to bleed us dry, and in the process probably let in members of ISIS at the same time?
We're all doomed!
The US (mostly), but with EU support, policy has created all the mess in the first place. It works OK for the US though.
The options I see are:
a) bombing and killing mostly civilians (yes, women and children too)
b) getting killed in Syria (sending in troops)
c) sending other people to get killed - smaller countries members of NATO, or local people - like Al Khaida was started in Afganistan.
d) working for half the pay when all the extra labour comes to town, good for the companies
e) sealing the borders and letting them starve
Post by: Skippernick on 02 December 2015, 12:47:12 pm
Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
this place will be a good start....
([url]http://www.petershamgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/houses_of_parliament21.jpg[/url])
No thats a beautiful building so don't destroy it, send in ground troops to arrest them and then firing squads.
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 01:17:41 pm
Post by: darrsi on 02 December 2015, 01:33:49 pm
And how can you tell if these civilians are not indeed the terrorists that were being aimed at in the first place?
Post by: BBROWN1664 on 02 December 2015, 01:56:30 pm
Crap editing, but you get the idea
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 02:11:04 pm
that's the fella haha. Course once he's chased them out of Syria they will start up somewhere else. You can't bomb an idea (as someone cleverer than me said).
Crap editing, but you get the idea
Post by: esetest on 02 December 2015, 02:11:54 pm
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 02:22:41 pm
On the bright side no point worrying about saving for our old age , we'll be fucking lucky , might as well spend it now while there are still shops to spend in .so we can all buy new bikes as long as they are not naked :lol
Post by: Robbie8666 on 02 December 2015, 02:23:51 pm
I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!
errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
but only my opinion!
Errr nope. This time we send one out with each patrol and stick them right at the front..........to check for any IED's.
:lurk
yeah I would go along with that idea or do a mad max and tie them to the front of our jackals!
the only problem is they would be seen as martyrs so would happily blow themselves up!
personally I think maybe we should all sit round a table and talk about it over a hubba bubba pipe :lol (then slot them!)
Post by: mr self destruct on 02 December 2015, 02:41:04 pm
Don't believe for one second that these people won't attempt to terrorise us again, whether we move in or not.
And how can you tell if these civilians are not indeed the terrorists that were being aimed at in the first place?
This is why IMO the best course of action is no action. If we go in we'll be kicking a hornets nest.
I believe bombing any country only serves to make the population more inclined to hate those doing the bombing and swell the ranks of those we're supposed to be defeating.
Also, their tactics are small scale acts of terrorism. Killing a few people, and putting the fear of god into thousands more, tying up billions of pounds in investigations, surveillance and military action. That's where the real damage is done, rather than the lost lives of the victims.
What the terrorists want is for us to give in to fear, to change the way we live because of that fear.
So how do we fight the terrorists? We as the public don't. We let our secret services carry on doing their jobs, let the counter-terrorism units do their work, and we carry on with our lives as normal.
If we close our borders to one and all, they've won.
If we refuse to use the London Underground, they've won.
If we get uncomfortable when a foreign-looking person sits next to us on a bus, they've won.
If one young British Muslim lad gets so pissed off with constantly being viewed with suspicion that he starts to hate the very country he was born in, they've won.
So let's take that away from them. Let's not fear or hate them, but show complete indifference, raise a middle finger to them and say "Fuck you, we're living how we want to live and you're not gonna change a fucking thing."
Because, to put the albeit tragic deaths of all terrorists' victims into context, very very few lives are lost due to terrorism.
According to these statistics:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily-chart-10 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/11/daily-chart-10)
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm)
There have been less than 500 terrorism related deaths in western Europe in the last 14 years.
There have been 552400 road traffic deaths in Europe in the same period. So over 1000 times more people die in traffic accidents than due to terrorism.
Even then, compare that with this:
http://www.escardio.org/static_file/Escardio/Press-media/press-releases/2013/EU-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2012.pdf (http://www.escardio.org/static_file/Escardio/Press-media/press-releases/2013/EU-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2012.pdf)
1.9 million deaths per year, so 26.6 million in the same period, of cardiovascular disease.
And which of these causes of death are we worried about most? Muslims.
If we're going to change the way we live, let's start eating better and looking where we're fucking driving before we kick out Johnny Foreigner.
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 02:47:58 pm
Post by: lew600fazer on 02 December 2015, 03:02:17 pm
Cameron is itching for a fight , he has never forgiven Parliament over the snub he suffered last year over the Syrian conflict.
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 03:57:21 pm
I think if we get more involved in the conflict in Syria, it will be a matter of time that either an RAF plane or a Russian plane is taken out off the air by one or the others air force. I would not put it past the yanks to pull the trigger on either and blame the other(FRIENDLY FIRE). A real fear here is WW3 and ISIS has achieved it's objectives. Keep out of it until ISIS hits the UK, then go and just Nuke the fecking whole middle east.(joking of course) :lol :eviltrouble is last time he wanted to bomb Assad and now he wants to bomb the people fighting Assad. (Assad is not very nice dont invite him round for tea with your mum)
Cameron is itching for a fight , he has never forgiven Parliament over the snub he suffered last year over the Syrian conflict.
Post by: noggythenog on 02 December 2015, 04:23:09 pm
I say the middle east sorts it out themselves and if that means them all destroying each other then so be it but the likes of saudi will quite happily relax while other powers do all the dirty work for them.
I say forget iraq & forget syria and if assad ends up staying after being rescued by russia then we have to just lump it.......russia will be more powerful and more cocky but in the meantime before all that we can at least build our forces back up to where they should be so that we can at least defend ourselves against future aggressors whether that be russia, or isis because at the moment that is one of the main reasons we are so reliant on assistance from the USA and rightly are obliged to assist them in return by showing willing or solidarity or whatever they call it.
Put it this way theres quite a land mass between us and syria.......soon enough all of those countries will be asking the uk for assistance...but until then im sorry for being jack but let them deal with it.
Post by: darrsi on 02 December 2015, 04:31:50 pm
I think we had our chance and we blew it........russia has stepped up to the plate since then and fair play to russia for that...they have the resources and the numbers to do so............pointless us wanting to jump in now to save face.
I say the middle east sorts it out themselves and if that means them all destroying each other then so be it but the likes of saudi will quite happily relax while other powers do all the dirty work for them.
I say forget iraq & forget syria and if assad ends up staying after being rescued by russia then we have to just lump it.......russia will be more powerful and more cocky but in the meantime before all that we can at least build our forces back up to where they should be so that we can at least defend ourselves against future aggressors whether that be russia, or isis because at the moment that is one of the main reasons we are so reliant on assistance from the USA and rightly are obliged to assist them in return by showing willing or solidarity or whatever they call it.
Put it this way theres quite a land mass between us and syria.......soon enough all of those countries will be asking the uk for assistance...but until then im sorry for being jack but let them deal with it.
There is quite a land mass between us and Syria, ask any Syrian who's just landed here how their journey was!
And the thing is, we don't have a fecking clue if they are part of ISIS or not?
Call me pessimistic, but I prefer the "prevention is better than cure" method so would not be inviting any of them to stay over here.
Post by: noggythenog on 02 December 2015, 04:47:39 pm
I think we had our chance and we blew it........russia has stepped up to the plate since then and fair play to russia for that...they have the resources and the numbers to do so............pointless us wanting to jump in now to save face.
I say the middle east sorts it out themselves and if that means them all destroying each other then so be it but the likes of saudi will quite happily relax while other powers do all the dirty work for them.
I say forget iraq & forget syria and if assad ends up staying after being rescued by russia then we have to just lump it.......russia will be more powerful and more cocky but in the meantime before all that we can at least build our forces back up to where they should be so that we can at least defend ourselves against future aggressors whether that be russia, or isis because at the moment that is one of the main reasons we are so reliant on assistance from the USA and rightly are obliged to assist them in return by showing willing or solidarity or whatever they call it.
Put it this way theres quite a land mass between us and syria.......soon enough all of those countries will be asking the uk for assistance...but until then im sorry for being jack but let them deal with it.
There is quite a land mass between us and Syria, ask any Syrian who's just landed here how their journey was!
And the thing is, we don't have a fecking clue if they are part of ISIS or not?
Call me pessimistic, but I prefer the "prevention is better than cure" method so would not be inviting any of them to stay over here.
I think im looking at it in the context of conventional war Darrssi so while i dont deny your point about terrorists....there isnt a land army here in the UK, nor will there be and if we do indeed strengthen our defence, intelligence, police resources......& most importantly policies then we will root them out from within.....not as we are doing now but a totally different approach........bombing syria and and sending in troops is conventional, will increase hatred towards us and in the end we are but a ripple in the ocean because our forces have been dry humped for years now.......we are not a big influence......we are small coal.
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 05:07:06 pm
Post by: esetest on 02 December 2015, 05:18:22 pm
So what are you treating yourself to .On the bright side no point worrying about saving for our old age , we'll be fucking lucky , might as well spend it now while there are still shops to spend in .so we can all buy new bikes as long as they are not naked :lol
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 05:22:23 pm
im hoping isis dont take over the country before they put a half fairing on the mt10 :)So what are you treating yourself to .On the bright side no point worrying about saving for our old age , we'll be fucking lucky , might as well spend it now while there are still shops to spend in .so we can all buy new bikes as long as they are not naked :lol
Post by: Val on 02 December 2015, 07:53:12 pm
Bear in mind the question and the voting today is for something that already is hapening. UK bombs IS in Iraq already, how is that diffrent by bombing IS in Syria :pokefun
Listening to the radio it appears a lot fo MPs didn't now that, what can I say here...
im hoping isis dont take over the country before they put a half fairing on the mt10 :)
:agree Hence the yes vote :)
Post by: Slaninar on 02 December 2015, 08:19:20 pm
Yes and we need ground troops as well. I am not happy about military industrial complex myself, BUT how exactly do you harm IS if not bombs what? Send them flowers? And doing nothing is actually helping them so there is not much of a choice here.
Bear in mind the question and the voting today is for something that already is hapening. UK bombs IS in Iraq already, how is that diffrent by bombing IS in Syria :pokefun
Listening to the radio it appears a lot fo MPs didn't now that, what can I say here...im hoping isis dont take over the country before they put a half fairing on the mt10 :)
:agree Hence the yes vote :)
Attack - bomb other country that hasn't attacked you. Germany did that some 50 years ago. With some success - at first at least.
Post by: bri h on 02 December 2015, 08:39:47 pm
Post by: slappy on 02 December 2015, 09:39:38 pm
Post by: Frosties on 02 December 2015, 09:42:40 pm
Don`t drop bombs on them, drop bacon.
Beaten to it by minutes ya bastid :lol
Post by: slappy on 02 December 2015, 09:44:51 pm
Don`t drop bombs on them, drop bacon.
Beaten to it by minutes ya bastid :lol
I`m surprised nobody else had already suggested it :)
Post by: Robbie8666 on 02 December 2015, 10:16:12 pm
No Comms - No Bombs!!
Post by: Frosties on 02 December 2015, 10:47:34 pm
as an ex-Royal Naval Radio Operator / Communicator I say cut all their internet!
No Comms - No Bombs!!
Agreed, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut - can't we still stick one at the front of each patrol to check for the IED's..............and if he finds one then bring another one up from the back?
Post by: lew600fazer on 02 December 2015, 11:05:00 pm
Ive been watching some of the arguments for and against in the house of commons and they both have merrits even though the only one that i can understand thats for bombing is the show solidarity with the French. As bad as what happened in paris is i cant think of too many times that the French have shown solidarity with us in fact i remember a story my granddad told about a french officer showing a german officer what was what on a map at Dunkirk.The next day they poured diesel oil on the sea and set fire to it to burn the british and commonwealth troop trying to get to the rescue boats. The other thing thats peeing me off is that for something so important there seemed to be a lot more mp there to vote on their 10% pay rise than to hear all the arguments.The fact is without ground troops its a waste of lives.
Never believe all the stories your grand fathers tell you, the French fought nearly to the last man defending the surrounding areas leading to Dunkirk, so we could get the feck out of it. History lesson, 1956 the French & Brits invaded Egypt over the Suez crisis, it was our friends the USA told us to get the fuck out of the place, thus allowing Nassi to take control of the Suez canal zone and gain the protection of the Russians. The Brits being a Colonial power handed Vietnam back to France after WW2. Again the USA had it's head up it's own arse. They refused to back Chang Ki Shak against Mao and the republic of China, China armed the Viet Cong and kicked the French out. The USA got there butts kicked in Vietnam. Why are we big mates with the USA , they never win anything on there own lol. Back the Russians, way to go Valadimir, top man.
Post by: joebloggs on 02 December 2015, 11:53:36 pm
Post by: darrsi on 03 December 2015, 07:02:32 am
Agree re the Russians and with Putin's backing of Assad, seems to me the Middle East needs dictators to keep the peace, we may not like what we see but the world was a far safer place while the people where kept in check by a brutal regime
You couldn't have predicted these horrible ISIS cnuts, they've way overstepped the mark.
Post by: BBROWN1664 on 03 December 2015, 08:57:27 am
They showed Hilary Benn giving his speech in favour of bombing whilst stood right next to his boss who looked like a bulldog chewing a piss soaked wasp :rollin
Post by: lew600fazer on 03 December 2015, 02:05:44 pm
I am not anti the actions as ISIS has to be dealt with , but we will get sucked in more and more we will have boots on the ground by the Spring time.
Post by: celticdog on 04 December 2015, 12:31:33 am
Post by: Slaninar on 04 December 2015, 06:06:06 am
Part of me thinks bomb the lot of them . . . What did the Arabs do end up with such a foccin shit religion, not that Christianity is much better. We know they're not all bad people, it's a pity but think we're heading for the big one . . . .
It's not about religion, religion is just an excuse for wars. All the big religions teach love. I've seen a lot of people claiming to be Christian, but if they really were, there wouldn't be any job for the police and the courts, would it ("Though shall not kill, steal etc...").
Besides, Christians started first with crusades. Until the advanced culture got militant enough to push back, there were occupied, constantly under attack. When the most savage Seldzuk tribes took the lead, that's when it turned, and Muslims invaded Europe. It's been middle ages down there ever since, unfortunately.
Post by: darrsi on 04 December 2015, 07:12:00 am
More fool you if you even attempt to talk to me about it face to face, it's a subject that really fucks me off. :stop :grumble :wall
Post by: Slaninar on 04 December 2015, 08:16:17 am
Religion is pure fantasy bullshit, all of it.
More fool you if you even attempt to talk to me about it face to face, it's a subject that really fucks me off. :stop :grumble :wall
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/files/2015/05/George-Carlin-Slider.jpg)
Post by: darrsi on 04 December 2015, 12:15:45 pm
The same as if you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit, if that's what floats your boat then that is your choice, but please just keep it to yourself. :whip
Post by: mr self destruct on 04 December 2015, 12:26:41 pm
If you want to believe in it in privacy, I'm all good with that.
The same as if you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit, if that's what floats your boat then that is your choice, but please just keep it to yourself. :whip
As an agnostic married to a Christian I have to disagree with this. If you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit feel free to post pictures! :D
Post by: darrsi on 04 December 2015, 01:21:55 pm
If you want to believe in it in privacy, I'm all good with that.
The same as if you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit, if that's what floats your boat then that is your choice, but please just keep it to yourself. :whip
As an agnostic married to a Christian I have to disagree with this. If you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit feel free to post pictures! :D
I'm a bit tied up at the minute. :lol
Post by: Frosties on 04 December 2015, 01:34:29 pm
If you want to believe in it in privacy, I'm all good with that.
The same as if you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit, if that's what floats your boat then that is your choice, but please just keep it to yourself. :whip
Another feckin whiplash claim eh :lol That'll bollox the insurance.
Post by: darrsi on 04 December 2015, 01:36:07 pm
If you want to believe in it in privacy, I'm all good with that.
The same as if you enjoy Miss Whiplash kicking you in the nuts whilst tied up in a dungeon in a gimp suit, if that's what floats your boat then that is your choice, but please just keep it to yourself. :whip
Another feckin whiplash claim eh :lol That'll bollox the insurance.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
Post by: lew600fazer on 04 December 2015, 06:19:04 pm
Part of me thinks bomb the lot of them . . . What did the Arabs do end up with such a foccin shit religion, not that Christianity is much better. We know they're not all bad people, it's a pity but think we're heading for the big one . . . .
It's not about religion, religion is just an excuse for wars. All the big religions teach love. I've seen a lot of people claiming to be Christian, but if they really were, there wouldn't be any job for the police and the courts, would it ("Though shall not kill, steal etc...").
Besides, Christians started first with crusades. Until the advanced culture got militant enough to push back, there were occupied, constantly under attack. When the most savage Seldzuk tribes took the lead, that's when it turned, and Muslims invaded Europe. It's been middle ages down there ever since, unfortunately.
Ah well at least no one is blaming the Jews this time around, just those horrible Christians and the Muslims. Is it Buddhism that if you live your life like a twat you come back as Cockroach??
Post by: Slaninar on 04 December 2015, 07:59:12 pm
There's a story about man driving a car with his family, being stopped by some militant muslims, pointing guns at them, asking him to say a quote from Kuran in order to proove he's a Muslim. He quotes the bible. They let him go. When his wife asked how was that possible, was he crazy, he replies: "they aren't real Muslims, if they knew Kuran, they wouldn't be doing this".
Post by: darrsi on 04 December 2015, 09:57:03 pm
That's not what I meant. I meant that people starting wars are never really religious - no religion promotes war, hatred, violence. None.
There's a story about man driving a car with his family, being stopped by some militant muslims, pointing guns at them, asking him to say a quote from Kuran in order to proove he's a Muslim. He quotes the bible. They let him go. When his wife asked how was that possible, was he crazy, he replies: "they aren't real Muslims, if they knew Kuran, they wouldn't be doing this".
Just another fairytale methinks!
Post by: fazersharp on 04 December 2015, 10:40:59 pm
Post by: Frosties on 04 December 2015, 11:01:03 pm
I love Jesus -- top bloke that, his first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding, I bet he was invited to a lot of weddings after that ! and the reason all the other weddings are not in the Bible is because everyone got so pissed they don't remember:lol :lol
Post by: darrsi on 05 December 2015, 07:40:10 am
"Fuck off" is usually my next response to whatever answer is given. :rolleyes
Post by: VNA - BMW Wank on 05 December 2015, 11:53:30 am
Not at this time. The bombing campaign has not worked - it is not working.
The coalition has conducted 59,015 sorties (as of 3-12-15), of which only 8,573 have resulted in air strikes - so the great majority of planes return to base not having used their weapons. And what have the 8,573 strikes achieved - well did they keep Paris safe? And now another attack in the USA.
DC's 70,000 moderates? Well of the variety of groups from the YPG, The Free Syrian Army, Tajamu Fastaqm Kama Umrat, Thuwar al-Sham, Jabhat al-Asala wal Tanmiya and so on and so on. The YPG (Kurdish) are secular and moderate but they certainly don't trust us or even like us and often find themselves under attack from Turkish forces. The rest are generally fundamentalist Islamist fighters many affiliated to Al-Qaida. So extremists one day, moderates the next. These groups generally hate us (and not without good reason) they expect us to use them, what they are trying to do is get more use out of us them we do of them. None are our friends or allies.
These groups generally act independently of each other. They generally share common enemies in Assad and Isis, but take those away and they will, probably fight each other.
So the 70,000 moderate forces ready to fight together against ISIS is as big a lie as Tony Blair's '45 minutes'.
Meanwhile Turkey still will not close it's border with Syria. The YPG has closed most of it, but they keep getting attacked by Turkey. We back factions that are fighting Assad but they keep getting attacked by Russia.
The most effective fighters against ISIS are the KPP (Kurdish), The Syrian Army, The Iranian Army and perhaps Hezbollah, but we see them all as enemies. We oppose or attack them.
The Turkmen (minority in Northern Iran) with some support from Turkey are attacking Assad's forces but are under attack from Russia, whom Turkey got upset about and shot down a Russian military fighter.
Ideology and funding - The Isis ideology, it's interpretation of Islam is Wahhabbist. Saudia Arabia is the birthplace of Wahhabbism and is a Wahhabbist state. Saudi with it's vast wealth has spread the Wahhabbist faith round the globe like a cancer over the past few decades. Saudi is the source of the whole problem. But nobody wants to speak the truth.
Many millions upon millions of pounds of cash is pouring into ISIS hands via very rich individuals in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait and other sympathetic countries.
So clearly bombing at this moment is a complete waste of time, and will I guarantee you only make matters worse. The whole situation is a farce. A disaster. A coalition of fighting muppets if you like.
The priority must be for political solutions. ISIS is having things it's own way just now, their plan is working perfectly with everybody fighting them but more importantly each other. Right now they are in a cannot lose position.
Further the coalition of bombing muppets will in the long term lead to further destabilisation of the Middle East and further distress amongst M.E communities around the globe, the young and ignorant may well turn to 'extremist' ideology in greater numbers. Expect more attacks and events on our soil.
Of course ISIS have to be snubbed out. But that cannot be achieved until the major players and forces on the ground have come to a rough agreement. And if that was achieved then there must be further joint work on achieving a peaceful political solution, otherwise this civil war will keep spreading.
Hillary Benn's speech? It was a great performance, passionately delivered, rousing and all the rest of it. Sadly there was no substance or sense - it was in fact a load of bull. Hillary voted in favour of war following Tony Blair's 45 minute claim.
Post by: Slaninar on 05 December 2015, 11:57:46 am
That's not what I meant. I meant that people starting wars are never really religious - no religion promotes war, hatred, violence. None.
There's a story about man driving a car with his family, being stopped by some militant muslims, pointing guns at them, asking him to say a quote from Kuran in order to proove he's a Muslim. He quotes the bible. They let him go. When his wife asked how was that possible, was he crazy, he replies: "they aren't real Muslims, if they knew Kuran, they wouldn't be doing this".
Just another fairytale methinks!
But the point is that no religion teaches hatred and war. That's a fact. The problem is when someone reads "don't kill", then goes to army and says that it's OK to kill for a good cause, in spite of the direct order from God. :)
BTW today if you went into a mountain and came back with another 10 commandments, saying you talked to God, they'd put you in a mental hospital. But when someone brings a book written several thousand years ago stating the same claim, some people take it for granted. :)
Post by: Oldgit on 05 December 2015, 01:46:54 pm
Post by: bri h on 05 December 2015, 05:35:47 pm
Post by: noggythenog on 05 December 2015, 07:13:02 pm
A part of me enjoys the thought of blatting as much of this isis scum as possible....in that sense i wouldnt really be too bothered if i heard that we'd just used chemical weapons on them......im not too fussed about the civilian casualties either to be brutally honest.....at the end of the day we bombed whole cities during the 2nd world war.....a life under isis rule isnt really a life in my book and it would put allot o folk out of their misery before isis start raping them and torturing them as if they are on some kind of sick version of crystal maze.
I just think that the countries closer to the troubles should deal with it themselves......let turkey do a bit more...iran is a mahoosive power...let them crack on too.....actually while im at it who let turkey into the EU anyway they are a bunch of backstabbers they arent any better than those little islamist fighter groups we call allies......yeh let crack on with it.
And yes those saudi lot i agree they are some of the worst....i wish there was a solution to the likes of them...and qatar and the likes.......what if we all just stopped being mates....they have enough money to get by for a whike no doubt.
But if we do just part ways from the middle east then how will we do for oil.........USA are ok they are almost self sufficient with shale gas now they actually dont need middle east oil.....at the moment anyway......but europe would be fucked......where does that leave us....begging Russia perhaps.
Post by: joebloggs on 05 December 2015, 08:01:25 pm
Post by: chaz on 05 December 2015, 08:12:59 pm
Post by: bri h on 05 December 2015, 08:20:57 pm
Post by: noggythenog on 05 December 2015, 09:08:23 pm
I think turkey are buying isis oil yet another twist. Noggy once we start fracking we'll have shed loads of oil of our own. :lol
Oh yes we cant move for natural resources bri :lol .................if only we could run our cars on Pot Noodle :b ......[size=78%]but we do have the dregs of north sea...big.....or small we still have it.........the Scandahoolies will always be our allies we have much in common with them.......regardless if you've never been outta your home county the average brit would at least get their culture.....we are simillar shall i say........Turkey are a bunch of dodgy.......errrrr....turks lol......i wouldnt go there.....every tale i hear of folk going there is something i dislike....not culturally simillar.........same with half of these other middle eastern countries....why should i feel ashamed of not agreeing with their ways....i have no wish to go there, either for fun or to kill....im happy here in the windy black wilderness.[/size]
Anyway i digress.............we need the USA.....they are culturally simillar.....they have shit loads of supplies and if we let go the middle east we will soon be requiring shit loads of supplies......some more than others ahem!!! :\ ........i have cut down my bacon intake..........i look forward to more LNG imports from the US and give the middle east the middle finger.
Post by: VNA - BMW Wank on 05 December 2015, 09:13:53 pm
Quote
im not too fussed about the civilian casualties either to be brutally honest
But isn't this exactly why this is being debated and the UK is now acting - though without too much thought - yes civilian casualties.
Don't forget that the catalyst to this was George Bush and Tony Blair with their fantasy religious neo con dreams.
And the Paris victims, if you like, are collateral damage.
And as far as I am concerned, it's here we go again - hold onto your hats, as, as long as we stay in denial and keep making the wrong decisions the worse it's gonna get.
Oh, and noggy, while you might not be too bothered about civilian casualties ISIS positively love it, here or on their own soil.
And David Cameron, he's a fucking idiot, 70,000 'moderate' troops on the ground ready to fight ISIS? Then his comment about "terrorist sympathisers" - what a fucking tool that man is.
So presumably DC should be a very worried man, as according to opinion polls and his own, umm, logic, that must mean there are about 30,000,000 terrorist sympathisers in the UK alone :eek :eek :eek
Post by: noggythenog on 05 December 2015, 10:40:01 pm
Paris victims were tragic....and sad.........amongst many other deaths........i hope france sorts its own act out as a result and yet again im greatful for not being french as they have less backbone than the uk.
What is the righ decision though...we are all good at the negatives......what is difficult is the positives....thats why we are not employed to make such decisions.
And the politics of the prime minister are not my concern...i didnt vote for him....i have no like for him or his party....but i trust that the majority of my fine kingdom did & i stand by their decision......i just hope that they se sense next time round.
Post by: joebloggs on 06 December 2015, 08:41:58 am
Once I'd got off my soap box my friend said quietly 'In my town in Pakistan, this happens virtually daily, such a common occurrence it hardly makes the news papers any more, other than the obituaries'
Many Pakistani worked at this company and at the end of the conversation he leaned in and whispered ' be careful Mel. there are terrorists everywhere'
I sometimes wonder what Butt new
Post by: darrsi on 06 December 2015, 08:55:07 am
I worked alongside a Pakistani on the day of the London bombings, when it was broadcast on the radio I made a comment about how the UK police and anti terror squad will probably over react, arresting innocent people, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, scaring families and causing more resentment. I wasn't wrong, I was living in Leicester at the time, many people were taken in such a manner, none of which proved to have links to any terrorist organisations.
Once I'd got off my soap box my friend said quietly 'In my town in Pakistan, this happens virtually daily, such a common occurrence it hardly makes the news papers any more, other than the obituaries'
Many Pakistani worked at this company and at the end of the conversation he leaned in and whispered ' be careful Mel. there are terrorists everywhere'
I sometimes wonder what Butt new
You were doing so well until that last sentence, which makes no sense?
Post by: Slaninar on 06 December 2015, 09:01:40 am
im not too fussed about the civilian casualties either to be brutally honest.....at the end of the day we bombed whole cities during the 2nd world war.....a life under isis rule isnt really a life in my book and it would put allot o folk out of their misery before isis start raping them and torturing them as if they are on some kind of sick version of crystal maze.
I believe life in England with lots of rain is not much of a life. Here, let me put you out of your misery. And your children too.
How about that? :)
Post by: darrsi on 06 December 2015, 09:13:07 am
im not too fussed about the civilian casualties either to be brutally honest.....at the end of the day we bombed whole cities during the 2nd world war.....a life under isis rule isnt really a life in my book and it would put allot o folk out of their misery before isis start raping them and torturing them as if they are on some kind of sick version of crystal maze.
I believe life in England with lots of rain is not much of a life. Here, let me put you out of your misery. And your children too.
How about that? :)
Think that comment is more appropriate for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the weather is positively shit at all times.
Post by: Slaninar on 06 December 2015, 09:24:20 am
Think that comment is more appropriate for Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the weather is positively shit at all times.
NOW you tell me?!
Hmm... should I call of the nuke attack, or mark England as "collateral damage" and get on with it...
It's not even funny, more sad, but noggys post about civilian casualties pissed me off, really.
Post by: noggythenog on 06 December 2015, 10:17:01 am
im not too fussed about the civilian casualties either to be brutally honest.....at the end of the day we bombed whole cities during the 2nd world war.....a life under isis rule isnt really a life in my book and it would put allot o folk out of their misery before isis start raping them and torturing them as if they are on some kind of sick version of crystal maze.
I believe life in England with lots of rain is not much of a life. Here, let me put you out of your misery. And your children too.
How about that? :)
I think rain is slightly less justifiable than rape & torture somehow..........the rain is good for one of thing though...........keeps the unsavouries indoors......even bad guys dont like being cold & wet........fair weather baddies 8)
Post by: VNA - BMW Wank on 06 December 2015, 11:00:34 am
Quote
nd the politics of the prime minister are not my concern...i didnt vote for him....i have no like for him or his party....but i trust that the majority of my fine kingdom did & i stand by their decision......i just hope that they se sense next time round.
But the vast majority of my fine kingdom voted against this bombing campaign. 97% against, but despite that we are being dragged into this against our will by Westminster.
And the no.1 reason for Labour's demise in Scotland - the Iraq war.
And once more, let us not forget that it was our actions in Iraq that lead to the birth of ISIS.
So hey, what to do, why not try what has never worked before - gotta work sometime ain't it?
Post by: joebloggs on 06 December 2015, 11:35:34 am
I worked alongside a Pakistani on the day of the London bombings, when it was broadcast on the radio I made a comment about how the UK police and anti terror squad will probably over react, arresting innocent people, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, scaring families and causing more resentment. I wasn't wrong, I was living in Leicester at the time, many people were taken in such a manner, none of which proved to have links to any terrorist organisations.
Once I'd got off my soap box my friend said quietly 'In my town in Pakistan, this happens virtually daily, such a common occurrence it hardly makes the news papers any more, other than the obituaries'
Many Pakistani worked at this company and at the end of the conversation he leaned in and whispered ' be careful Mel. there are terrorists everywhere'
I sometimes wonder what Butt new
You were doing so well until that last sentence, which makes no sense?
His name was Butt Mohamed!
Post by: Slaninar on 06 December 2015, 12:17:42 pm
I think rain is slightly less justifiable than rape & torture somehow..........
When is it justifiable to kill a child?
Post by: darrsi on 06 December 2015, 02:25:09 pm
I worked alongside a Pakistani on the day of the London bombings, when it was broadcast on the radio I made a comment about how the UK police and anti terror squad will probably over react, arresting innocent people, knocking down doors in the middle of the night, scaring families and causing more resentment. I wasn't wrong, I was living in Leicester at the time, many people were taken in such a manner, none of which proved to have links to any terrorist organisations.
Once I'd got off my soap box my friend said quietly 'In my town in Pakistan, this happens virtually daily, such a common occurrence it hardly makes the news papers any more, other than the obituaries'
Many Pakistani worked at this company and at the end of the conversation he leaned in and whispered ' be careful Mel. there are terrorists everywhere'
I sometimes wonder what Butt new
You were doing so well until that last sentence, which makes no sense?
His name was Butt Mohamed!
Nice name :lol
Post by: Slaninar on 06 December 2015, 02:36:15 pm
- Butt.
But what?
- Butt Mohammed.
I'm not Mohammed. What's the problem with you man?
Post by: lew600fazer on 06 December 2015, 09:59:27 pm
I think rain is slightly less justifiable than rape & torture somehow..........
When is it justifiable to kill a child?
Define child?
Post by: Slaninar on 06 December 2015, 10:29:40 pm
I think rain is slightly less justifiable than rape & torture somehow..........
When is it justifiable to kill a child?
Define child?
(http://cdn.aquila-style.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/000_Nic6321293-e1401512281575.jpg)
Post by: lew600fazer on 07 December 2015, 04:17:41 pm
Or is it the result that some so called caring religion who have used this child as a mule to walk up to a security checkpoint and pull the pin.
Post by: griff86 on 07 December 2015, 05:04:01 pm
Post by: Slaninar on 07 December 2015, 08:16:55 pm
It's justifiable when the child is probably going to grow up to be a terrorist anyway. Fuck'em! Men, women, children, they can all die for all I care.
Nuke the whole planet, just to be on the safe side. :)
Post by: VNA - BMW Wank on 07 December 2015, 08:54:32 pm
And you certainly wouldn't want him near any children :eek
Post by: lew600fazer on 07 December 2015, 11:32:22 pm
Post by: Slaninar on 08 December 2015, 06:20:42 am
Well feck me VNA we agree on something, Slaninar may have a point, but use the Nutron bomb, is that the mother that just depletes the O2 levels but leaves the infra structure in place, just think in one foul swoop the middle east would become a peaceful place and then we can all have even cheaper oil, all those in favour say aye!!!!
Better act globally! Wipe 'em all out, just in case. You never know...
Post by: slappy on 08 December 2015, 07:55:48 am
Post by: lew600fazer on 08 December 2015, 08:04:29 am
Post by: Frosties on 08 December 2015, 08:10:42 am
get out of here slappy, he never is :rollin :lol
His comments are getting shorter Lew, just keep bobbing and weaving, roll with the punches, jab jab jab - he's on the ropes :lol
Post by: dazza on 08 December 2015, 11:42:34 pm