paris
Comments
-
I am not against bombing in Syria, but accept that the situation is more complex than Iraq. In Iraq we are part of a coalition providing air support to local forces and have been careful in the selection of targets. The RAF have been at pains to limit civilian casualties. If Fallon's claim is true, that is a remarkable achievement.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-forces-air-strikes-in-iraq-monthly-list/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-march-2015
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/isis-raf-air-strikes-michael-fallon
I would like to envisage a similar operation in Syria, whereby we give support to groups like the Kurds who are fighting on the ground. I don't envisage carpet bombing.
Matters may be further complicated by duplicitous behaviour by countries such as Turkey who are less than enthusiastic about supporting the Kurds and seem to think 'Your enemy is my friend'. Turkey is not the only state in the region to have mixed motives.0 -
Whilst I dislike Comrade Jezza, I have to agree with his stance on expanding the RAF combat role in the region.
We seem to know what the strategy is - Bomb IS/ISIL/Whatever they're called.
But nobody in the West truly knows what the Objective is.
There are too many players involved in the region for any good conclusion to this escalated warfare. The genie was let out of the bottle when after 911 the USA/UK put in to action the deposing of Saddam Hussain. Since then the whole region has descended into bedlam and Europe is now paying the price.
And all the time the Saudi King and Princes who fund IS sit back on their thrones and watch with keen eyes as their perverted form of Islam spreads throughout the world.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Whilst I dislike Comrade Jezza, I have to agree with his stance on expanding the RAF combat role in the region.
We seem to know what the strategy is - Bomb IS/ISIL/Whatever they're called.
But nobody in the West truly knows what the Objective is.
There are too many players involved in the region for any good conclusion to this escalated warfare. The genie was let out of the bottle when after 911 the USA/UK put in to action the deposing of Saddam Hussain. Since then the whole region has descended into bedlam and Europe is now paying the price.
And all the time the Saudi King and Princes who fund IS sit back on their thrones and watch with keen eyes as their perverted form of Islam spreads throughout the world.
My thoughts exactly. We are making a knee jerk reaction here out of sympathy for France and our perceived obligation to help them. France themselves got dragged into America's war when Obama became president because of his dislike of the UK. I do sympathies with France but I think we would be better of leaving the Arabs to fight amongst themselves. Then we should turn our attention to pushing them out of Europe.0 -
I've already posted what I think it should be earlier on.
Okay, change the wording to "continuing " or "expanding".As Bally said, we are already bombing IS in Iraq so I don't understand your phrase 'before beginning'.
Now answer the question.
What is the objective?
Now you go ask the government what their objective is."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ah!
I've already posted what I think it should be earlier on.
Okay, change the wording to "continuing " or "expanding".As Bally said, we are already bombing IS in Iraq so I don't understand your phrase 'before beginning'.
Now answer the question.
What is the objective?
Now you go ask the government what their objective is.
"Just kill the ****ers."
Good plan that. At least we will know when we are done.
DC should outline the objective during the debate today but I don't hold high hopes on hearing anything definite.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ah!
"Just kill the ****ers."
Good plan that. At least we will know when we are done.
So, you really are David Cameron?0 -
No.Ah!
"Just kill the ****ers."
Good plan that. At least we will know when we are done.
So, you really are David Cameron?
That was Stevo's proposal earlier in the thread. I had to go look following his response.
I was being sarcastic.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That is the question for me when objectives are mentioned...what exactly do IS have to bomb? My limted understanding of warfare is of targeting infrastructure, supplies or equipment, like heavy armour/weapons. Do IS even have any of these? Or have they progressed beyond a bunch of deluded maniacs with AK's and Toyota pick-ups and I've missed it? Otherwise what exactly are airstrikes going to achieve?0
-
No.Ah!
"Just kill the ****ers."
Good plan that. At least we will know when we are done.
So, you really are David Cameron?
That was Stevo's proposal earlier in the thread. I had to go look following his response.
I was being sarcastic.
so was i
0 -
I guess we both have the lowest form of wit.
No.Ah!
"Just kill the ****ers."
Good plan that. At least we will know when we are done.
So, you really are David Cameron?
That was Stevo's proposal earlier in the thread. I had to go look following his response.
I was being sarcastic.
so was i
Doesn't make us wrong.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
1 picture = 1,000 words?0 -
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Can't think of who it reminds me of "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Can't think of who it reminds me of
Can't think of anyone. 0 -
I have figured out the objective.
DC is retiring as party leader within 4 years.
Perhaps he wishes to become the future Middle East Peace Envoy?
That appears to be the trodden career path.
DC. The new TB.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pretty much. Not really brutal satire is it?
And even if it was, why wouldnt I want terrorists to think about the idea that the whole religion thing is just a facade?0 -
Can't think of who it reminds me of
Can't think of anyone.
i know who you mean, must be this guy, john Baron MP former Soldier and platoon com in NI who is a terrorist sympathiser, because he votes against bombing syria.
Have to say, if there were tories like him around, i could be persuaded back to the fold, finally a tory talking sense, very few around, esp on here
Didnt think the piece was v. satirical tbh, i dont think there are very many people who truly believe IS attacks do not have a strong relgious islamic element to them do they? who are they? in power or on the fringes/has beens?0 -
"Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
U.S. President Barack Obamain power or on the fringes/has beens?
I suppose Obama is all three.
He is correct in asserting that most of its victims are Muslim though.0 -
"Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
U.S. President Barack Obamain power or on the fringes/has beens?
I suppose Obama is all three.
He is correct in asserting that most of its victims are Muslim though.
Big flaw there, Obama/USA is leading the way both militarily and diplomatically in finding a solution for this crisis, because as in former Yugoslavia europe cant - so quite an insult to call Obama a has been/on the fringes and not in power
they ve spent $5bn, flown 10s of 1000 of missions in the last 12months, so Obama falls very much into the articles description doesnt he?
There is also a big difference between saying IS isnt Islamic and that the religion of Islam commands it followers to kill.
However is is very true that many people within Islam have twisted the Koran to suit their views.
do you think IS is an islamic terrorist group or a just terrorist group? from what i can see, they are both.0 -
Untwist your underwear.i dont think there are very many people who truly believe IS attacks do not have a strong religious islamic element to them do they?
I gave you a quote fom Obama saying just that.
You didn't ask who was spending the most fighting them.
As for my line about him being on the fringes/has been, that was an attempt at sarcasm which lost its meaning somewhat in the printed word.0 -
Blakey, I would be interested to hear what your views are and what you think should be done?I have figured out the objective.
DC is retiring as party leader within 4 years.
Perhaps he wishes to become the future Middle East Peace Envoy?
That appears to be the trodden career path.
DC. The new TB."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Blakey, I would be interested to hear what your views are and what you think should be done?I have figured out the objective.
DC is retiring as party leader within 4 years.
Perhaps he wishes to become the future Middle East Peace Envoy?
That appears to be the trodden career path.
DC. The new TB.
I am surprised it's so hard for you to work out. It is clearly a long term project but I would hang my hat on 3 routes to improved peace:
1) The global fight against terrorism starts with the entire world refusing to trade and arm Saudi Arabia (and Qatar)
2) Ask the Turkish PM to stop buying £2M of IS oil every day
3) Develop green fuels so we don't need to rely on oil so we can get out of bed with the Saudis and Qatar
Furthermore, based on historical evidence, I haven't read a single expert view that believes bombing alone will work. There is no coordination between nations. It will lead to nothing but greater security threats and greater share prices in arms manufacturers.0 -
1. Cut off the money supply. Doesn't matter who, or how. Bombing the oil fields and refineries is the only case for bombs. But they don't want to do that. Too many vested interests in future oil.
Blakey, I would be interested to hear what your views are and what you think should be done?I have figured out the objective.
DC is retiring as party leader within 4 years.
Perhaps he wishes to become the future Middle East Peace Envoy?
That appears to be the trodden career path.
DC. The new TB.
Keeping the oil appears more important than getting the terrorists.
2. Target the men, not the land. Worldwide.
PS:- Any completion is going to take years and probably decades at a minimum. We are in this for the long haul.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Untwist your underwear.i dont think there are very many people who truly believe IS attacks do not have a strong religious islamic element to them do they?
I gave you a quote fom Obama saying just that.
You didn't ask who was spending the most fighting them.
As for my line about him being on the fringes/has been, that was an attempt at sarcasm which lost its meaning somewhat in the printed word.
No, i suspect you meant that Obama is a weak President who has lost his mandate to govern, which on the domestic front might well be true and is on his way out.
but you providing a quote from Obama to support a hand wring liberal satirical piece is ridiculous, he has, i ve said, doing more to support the bombing of IS as anyone.0 -
When Stevo posted his 'satirical' piece. I took it to mean he was gently poking fun at some on here. I then posted in green in what I had hoped was a light hearted manner. You then assertedi dont think there are very many people who truly believe IS attacks do not have a strong relgious islamic element to them do they? who are they? in power or on the fringes/has beens?
I gave you a direct quote from Obama in which he seemed to say exactly that.
I didn't post the quote to support the satirical piece, I posted it in direct response to your statement.
I am fully aware of America's contribution to the campaign and meant no demean that. I repeated your phrase about being on the fringes/has been in what I thought was an ironic manner, as the US President, Obama is the most powerful politician in the world.0 -
We will have to agree to disagree on this Bally, and move on.0
-
If only everyone in the World could adopt that approach.We will have to agree to disagree on this Bally, and move on.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Blakey, I would be interested to hear what your views are and what you think should be done?I have figured out the objective.
DC is retiring as party leader within 4 years.
Perhaps he wishes to become the future Middle East Peace Envoy?
That appears to be the trodden career path.
DC. The new TB.
This isn't my personal view (I favour trying to cut off oil sales and the inflow of weapons and fighters in the first instance and seeing if that works), but what if the best course of action were to do absolutely nothing? We might end up with a situation like in Algeria, when a brutal civil war ended up with Islamist infighting and a complete collapse of support. It wouldn't be pretty, but then bombing isn't either, and taking a step back may lead to young Muslims becoming disillusioned with violent jihad, rather than with the West.
Like I say, this isn't what I would advocate, but it's worth considering when we are talking about what should be done.0 -
We will have to agree to disagree on this Bally, and move on.
My thoughts as well. If I could shake your hand across the ether, I would. 0
