Jetpilot Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 Airstrikes it is then, apparently part of a 12 stage plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Hurrah, common sense prevails! Been keeping an eye on this today, some very good speeches by the Labour MPs voting in favour I thought. Corbyn as useless as ever, CMD not much better tbh. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Tally bally ho boys, over the top and give Johnny ISIS a damn good thrashing and we'll all be back in time for 6 o'clock drinks without a scratch on us, quicker than a ill though through, knee-jerk reaction. That said, I'll just hang back here whilst you get on with it all, love to come along but I've got a touch of gout. Damn shame what what. Dave and cohorts should be travelling to work on the bus and tube for the forseeable so they can get up close and personal for the inevitable reprecussions after his 5 minutes of flexing on the International Stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 This is going to sound daft, and with good reason why I'm no the PM But here me out. If I was PM and there was this decision about bombing etc. Why tell everyone? Keep it hush, or just keep it between the leaders who are bombing them. It's not like the Syrians/Isis are going to look up at the sky and be like ' Hang on a minute ere boys, we've been done, those brits have ****ing joined in now - Bit rude not asking first if you ask me' Also, it's not like we have a massive 'Great Britain vinyl on our jets or a giant voice over going - Great Britain has joined the game. We're already bombing Iraq, just take a detour over Syria : Keeps it hush hush, solves Isis getting wind and bombing us and also gets everyone to shut up on my news feed thinking they're the ministry of defense So yeah. There's that solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Why the hell would we want to back Assad? Because he's the only one that has a cat in hells chance of winning this, and stablising the country, backed by Russia. The alternative is we send ground troops to fight an enemy that will immediately melt back into the population, and attack us from the shadows, which will once again mean we will have to pull out, like we did in Iraq, because our ROE are so airy fairy that the military are forced to fight with one hand tied behind the back, and with the Guardian, et all, reporting every misdeed that goes on. No. ISIS need to be tackled old school. And Russia fights old school. And that's why they got results in the first two weeks, while the USA got nowhere in 2 years. Though I also wonder about the links between the USA and ISIS. Edited December 3, 2015 by Juggalo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Thank god we struck those oil fields first off, the stinking radicalised hydrocarbons, laying contemptuously beneath the ground, lurking, always lurking. They simply won't tolerate our way of life. Stage 2 was going to be bomb the munitions suppliers but they quickly recalled those flights when some bright spark realised it would have meant bombing ourselves and our "allies" in Saudi Arabia. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Why the hell would we want to back Assad? Because he's the only one that has a cat in hells chance of winning this, and stablising the country, backed by Russia. The alternative is we send ground troops to fight an enemy that will immediately melt back into the population, and attack us from the shadows, which will once again mean we will have to pull out, like we did in Iraq, because our ROE are so airy fairy that the military are forced to fight with one hand tied behind the back, and with the Guardian, et all, reporting every misdeed that goes on. No. ISIS need to be tackled old school. And Russia fights old school. And that's why they got results in the first two weeks, while the USA got nowhere in 2 years. Though I also wonder about the links between the USA and ISIS. So what are Russia doing differently? Genuine question, I've no idea. Assad is a mentalist, nearly as bad as Daesh themselves. Neither should be allowed anywhere near running a country, much less get support from the world. That's in a perfect world of course, where democracy reigns and folks in that region can understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Stu, did you read the Wiki link I posted? You need to expand the bits about what strikes happened in what years, they're very precision stuff we're doing rather than carpet bombing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Stu, did you read the Wiki link I posted? You need to expand the bits about what strikes happened in what years, they're very precision stuff we're doing rather than carpet bombing. TBF I was just a little. I did read the link and the extremely long list of targets. Broadly speaking I'm on board with eradicating this lot, I just don't think enough long term strategy has been outlined for how that'll happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 True, can't argue with that. I'm wondering if there isn't a long term strategy as we've not really fought anything like this before, as they're a different kettle of fish compared with the Taliban in Afghan. Perhaps it really is just a case of start with the obvious and see where we go from there, maybe we can keep them bottled up for so long that eventually their own people just give up? I don't know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm wondering if there isn't a long term strategy I watched a few bits on this last night. It would seem the airstrikes are making way for Kurdish forces to retake positions by driving Isis/Deash/Isil or whatever they are called today out. This is apparently part of a 12 stage plan, i guess we havent been informed on what the other stages are yet. They certainly didnt **** about though did they, airstrikes within a few hours of the bill being passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Why the hell would we want to back Assad? Because he's the only one that has a cat in hells chance of winning this, and stablising the country, backed by Russia. The alternative is we send ground troops to fight an enemy that will immediately melt back into the population, and attack us from the shadows, which will once again mean we will have to pull out, like we did in Iraq, because our ROE are so airy fairy that the military are forced to fight with one hand tied behind the back, and with the Guardian, et all, reporting every misdeed that goes on. No. ISIS need to be tackled old school. And Russia fights old school. And that's why they got results in the first two weeks, while the USA got nowhere in 2 years. Though I also wonder about the links between the USA and ISIS. So what are Russia doing differently? Genuine question, I've no idea. Assad is a mentalist, nearly as bad as Daesh themselves. Neither should be allowed anywhere near running a country, much less get support from the world. That's in a perfect world of course, where democracy reigns and folks in that region can understand that. Russia is essentially bombing everyone, rebel and ISIS alike. They're backing Assad. And they've sent 150,000 ground troops to fight, and they have done. In fact, they've told Syria to stay out of Russian battles, while they engage the rebel factions. And they're winning. Assad is a complete asshole, no arguments from me there. But everyone in the country are assholes. So we have to choose the asshole that has the best chance of winning and stabalising the country. And that certainly isn't the Rebels,or ISIS. ISIS would be hell. And the Rebels would turn Syria into Libya, with splinters fighting each other for power. Logic dictates that Assad is the clear answer to winning this war. Edited December 3, 2015 by Juggalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 A comment also from last that rang quite true: No one in the CIVILIZED world likes Isis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You should listen to Hilary Benns speech, it is very well thought through and very well delivered. Airstrikes do not solve the problem, but they do make a difference. IS were knock on the door of Baghdad this time last year, now they are being pushed back and cities reclaimed. Bombing major revenue and arms stashes will make a difference - if someone dropped bombs on the houses of parliament, downing street, MI5 building etc it would make a difference. Its not about killing IS people on the ground, its about destroying infrastructure and the capability to operate at the level they are now. IS will claim that Frances involvement in bombing prompted the Paris attack, that is nonsense, all major European cities are targets whether they are involved or not - IS by definition hold every western civilization and democracy in contempt, and we must be wiped out, there are no 'conversations' to be had, if their leadership waver from this stand point their supporters who are fanatical Islam will not stand for it, they bought into the idea of wiping out the western worlds ideology. Killing people who are gay by throwing them off the roof of a hotel. Public beheadings and dead bodies hung from lamp posts. None of this is coming from reasoned leadership or a an ideology that should be present in this day and age. Its such a shame that Islam as a religion is being brought to the fore as the problem by the trash media in this country, these are fanatics who wave the religious flag as a way of justifying what they do - its a shame that genuine peaceful people who follow the same religion are in some way tarnished because of this. As for Assad, there is no way he can win, he cannot wipe out half his own people and declare that he has "won" - clearly if the west get involved there will be an agenda for an election ultimately. The combination of IS and the rebels would have beaten Assads forces by now...I imagine there are repercussions of that... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Here is part of what makes me suspicious of ISIS and the USA. Watch this video of ISIS artillery being destroyed by a US airstrike. And see if you see what I, and many other see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 What am I missing? They're expecting it. They're filming an umanned peice of arty. Waiting. One guy even walks past with his hands over his ears. Almost like it was all pre-arranged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Oh. Is that it? Tbh it's probably not hard to hear when there's artillery fire in the distance, and maybe the person who fired it (might not be the Yanks, it's not like the film was of the highest quality) missed the first time? They would certainly have been expecting it then! Or they could hear it being launched, or the site next door just got hit, or thug life they just ain't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Its not about killing IS people on the ground, its about destroying infrastructure and the capability to operate at the level they are now. Precisely, targets should include power stations, mobile phone masts, telephone exchanges, bridges, oil facilities and of course the leadership. No need to flatten Mosul or any of the other cities that they control, then give it 12 months at least. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I know it sounds harsh, but the military are not going to use a £100,000 bomb to kill 8 IS grunts on the ground. Airstrikes are for high value targets, or strategic targets - which is why to actually wipe IS out you will need boots on the ground. But airstrikes are devastating at wrecking key infrastructure, communications and the like and are severely debilitating to any military force. Ultimately, the idea that NOT attacking IS in their homeland will make us safer is simply not true. I also don't buy into the whole idea that if we don't take part we don't get bombed but its alright for other countries to take the hit whilst trying to rid the planet of these fanatics, that is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Indeed. When even the French are calling for everyone to take up arms and eradicate this filth from the planet, you know it's really time to step up! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 The middle east merry go round continues apace. After the war my old grandad stayed in service and was involved in Palestine and Suez. He always said never trust an Arab as face to face they smile and shake your hand but if you turn round they will stab you in the back Obviously that's a generalisation and as we sit here passing judgement I can't help but feel the double edged sword is being pulled from its scabbard. ISIS are an abomination taking extreme actions with intention of shocking civilised people worldwide, the irony is the state of Saudi beheaded over 80 people last year and yet money and oil speak in softer tones. ISIS is indeed on a mission to convert non radicals but their flaw is rooted in the tribalism within Islam, more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims than any western folk. The Suni and Shite (spell) casts are also at war here perpetuating years of unrest, throw in the formation of a Jewish state and the recipe for disaster was served. The only option with ISIS is action, targeted air strikes are intended to assist those ground forces already striking back at them. Ideally this should have been actioned when ISIS were a smaller outfit and they were evolving, they are a result of disconcerted individuals who were fuelled by previous western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence the double edged sword, we will I'm sure as a unified front defeat ISIS but be prepared for escalation everywhere and also be prepared for the next re branding of what is essentially a medieval ideology abusing religious belief. My field is the security sector and to all those doubting air strikes I say this "Even before the decision was made to bomb Syria the amount of tangible threats to the UK had increased ten fold in the last 12 months, inaction or action makes no difference to our current threat level". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Indeed. When even the French are calling for everyone to take up arms and eradicate this filth from the planet, you know it's really time to step up! Now if the Italians were leading the charge it really would be serious What was the old joke, ahh yes it was something about Italian tanks in WW2 having one forward gear and five reverse gears. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 the irony is the state of Saudi beheaded over 80 people last year and yet money and oil speak in softer tones. I've seen this mentioned a few times now, so I just did a quick google to see what's what. It's actually 144 people beheaded in Saudi this year so far, probably more as the article I found was published at the start of November. However, I guess the argument there is that at least they have a justice system, with proper police and courts and stuff. The sentence may be harsh for some things, like drug trafficking, but at least it's all set in stone and you have half a chance at defending yourself. With Daesh you get none of that, and they'll kill innocents just for the sake of it. I don't think the Saudi system is one we should all aspire to, but neither do I think it's in any way comparable in terms of barbarism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 the irony is the state of Saudi beheaded over 80 people last year and yet money and oil speak in softer tones. I've seen this mentioned a few times now, so I just did a quick google to see what's what. It's actually 144 people beheaded in Saudi this year so far, probably more as the article I found was published at the start of November. However, I guess the argument there is that at least they have a justice system, with proper police and courts and stuff. The sentence may be harsh for some things, like drug trafficking, but at least it's all set in stone and you have half a chance at defending yourself. With Daesh you get none of that, and they'll kill innocents just for the sake of it. I don't think the Saudi system is one we should all aspire to, but neither do I think it's in any way comparable in terms of barbarism. Quite right Dan ! I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for over 2 years and I felt very safe and secure during that period. Yes, punishment is severe for people who commit crime, but the system means that nice people (like me) can go about their business without worrying that someone is going to nick their car, steal their money or knife them. One of the things I remember vividly are the jewellers shops with displays of gold, expensive watches, diamonds etc., all without massive security ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.