RAF bombs ISIS baddies.

lukey1965 said:
Did anybody say whether the virgins were women ??

They might all be blokes. Just desserts then !!
Click to expand...
That would explain a lot, but I'm not going to volunteer to check the "virgins" of Cardiff.
 
woof woof said:
......Maybe only time and a slow change in Islam can stop the madness we see all over the world.

One thing which has saddened me is the way in which soldiers, police and even politicians are pursued after the event.
Click to expand...

tbh the way it's going, the `slow change` in Islam, which has been happening for many many years, has been ever more anti-western and is getting worse.
I can't see a change in the other direction ever happening peacefully. :( (give em an inch, divide & conquer..... & all that)
Force is the only thing which will protect us unfortunately, certainly in the short term.


Ah the old feudal system. :mad:
 
Last edited:
lukey1965 said:
Did anybody say whether the virgins were women ??
Click to expand...
An 18-year-old suicide bomber blew himself up and appeared before Allah.
He said, "Oh, Allah, I did your bidding, but I have a request. Since I'm only 18 and spent all my time in terrorist training school, I never was with a woman. So, instead of 72 virgins, who also won't know what to do sexually, can I have 72 whores?

Allah regarded him for a moment, then replied, "Actually, the 72 virgins are here in heaven because ass holes like you murdered them before they could experience the pleasure of sex.
So you're here to service them. Since they're virgins, they're quite sexually hungry; and frankly, you'll be on a constant and very exhausting duty."

The bomber responded, "Well, I guess I can live with that. How hard can it be to keep 72 women satisfied for all eternity?"

Allah replied quizingly, "Who told you they were women?"
 
The IRA werent fighting for a reglious ideology (or made up bloke if you like).

We could have defeated them, but we were too soft, oh yeah and the americans liked them. Untill Sept 11th and the then the americans didnt agree with terrorism after that ;)
 
As far as I am concerned these terrorists should be bombed back into the dark ages. If one persons life in the the UK can be saved its fully justifiable.
 
Actually as the ISIS are killing Syrians and Iraqis, it doesn't have to be the just the life of a person in the UK that should be saved.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for sure that this is not going to have a happy ending, i hate to imagine what state the world is going to be in 10 years from now :meh: :indifferent:
 
ianp5a said:
Actually as the ISIS are killing Syrians and Iraqis, it doesn't have to be the just the life of a person in the UK that should be saved.
Click to expand...

I agree but in these times when just about any military action by a western nation (especially the evil USA or its lap dog the UK) is described as illegal I'd imagine the outcry from liberals and human rights activists would be deafening should the UK armed forces target and murder a Syrian for killing an Iraqi, or even 1,000 Iraqis. I'd imagine the fact that British drones have killed Britons somewhat lessens what the human rights squad can say. I'm surprised that the race of those killed and that of those who killed them hasn't been raised yet, but there's time for race to come into it.
 
I fear we have already lost and it is just a matter of time because every time we take any sort of action we have an extended period of self inspection and all the fluffy lefties question the legality of destroying our enemy.
Those politicians questioning the action should be made to watch over and over, the videos, and listen to the real innocents screaming for their lives as their throats were sliced by these evil Barbaric scum.
I wonder how many senior persons in the ISIS heirachy questioned the murderous methods of their evil footsoldiers.
The only negative thing about that drone strike was that their deaths were probably instantaneous and painless. They didn't get the opportunity to feel for themselves the outright terror they inflict on others.
Well done Cameron, on this occassion you have my unequivocal support.
 
It's probably best to keep emotions out of it. That is what drives the "do nothing" brigade.
 
Last edited:
Simplythebeast said:
I fear we have already lost and it is just a matter of time because every time we take any sort of action we have an extended period of self inspection and all the fluffy lefties question the legality of destroying our enemy.
Click to expand...

Just as a little example of this and how long it carries on there are still those who question the sinking of the Belgrano and regard Maggie T. as a war criminal. It's interesting that the same people aren't quite so vocal on the subject of the Sheffield, the Sir Galahad, the Sir Tristram or any of the others.
 
as graham so rightly points out ,isis has been beheading and shooting prisoners SOME OF THEM U.K CITIZENS since they came to power ,how soon we forget that simple fact ,my gut feeling is really that while we pussy-foot and listen to and debate with appeasers in our own ranks ,the russians under putin have no such fears ,i have a gut feeling that syria in 12 months time might be a puppet state of moscow ,they have the will ,the manpower and the weaponry to do it it will then just be a case of stopping it spilling over into iraq but the weakness of of the government there and there allegiance to iran might just create a buffer zone ,is the final battle of armageddon close as foretold ,yep i think it may be its the right area anyway .

thats the other thing that really puzzles me ,how the hell have the israelis managed to stay out of all this crap .

and lets not also forget who at the end of WW1 really created this mess ,if i'm correct wasn't it a french and british carve up and that gave borders to desert sheikhdoms ,in return for oil rights .

P.S anyone know where they do arabic night school classes just in case :whistle::whistle: :naughty: :wave:
 
the black fox said:
thats the other thing that really puzzles me ,how the hell have the israelis managed to stay out of all this crap .
Click to expand...
But have they?...

I'm sure if their people or border is threatened, we'll hear from them.

Remember Iran is helping to fight ISIS in Iraq. So fill in you conspiracy theory here. Like Israel being behind ISIS. Or similar nonsense.
 
Last edited:
An interesting thing about the Russians... whilst we were eyeing them with suspicion and fear during the cold war they told us they were no threat to us and that the real threat was Islamic extremism. Of course the west didn't listen and I'm not sure what could have been done if we had... but the Russians saw this coming decades before it hit us in the face.

I don't know if you can blame the French and us or indeed any other northern Europeans in general for the middle easts woes. Before us Brits and in no particular order there were the Mamluks, Turks, Greeks, Romans and a hundred others. I think blaming us for the current mess is a bit like blaming the Beaker People for the troubles in Northern Ireland. I'm tempted to blame the global civil war between the Sunni and Shi's before "us."
 
woof woof said:
Just as a little example of this and how long it carries on there are still those who question the sinking of the Belgrano and regard Maggie T. as a war criminal. It's interesting that the same people aren't quite so vocal on the subject of the Sheffield, the Sir Galahad, the Sir Tristram or any of the others.
Click to expand...

The Belgrano was a perfectly legitimate target and totally justified. Had we have lost a carrier we would have lost our top cover and that would of made the beach head landing extremely hazardous. There was another Argentinean destroyer (a British made Type 42 that we sold them!) making a pincer movement towards the Task Force. The Belgrano was heading towards shallow water and Conqueror would not be able to carry out further surveillance on her and ran the risk of losing her. She had to be sunk. There were lots of reports that the Belgrano was heading away from the TEZ but so what, a ship can change course in under five minutes. Sinking her was the right thing to do.

The current drone strikes is the right thing to do. There is no difference!! The namby-pamby lefties need to grow a set and look at the wider strategic issues.
 
Last edited:
It also saved the lives of the rest of the Argentinian navy who never risked leaving port after that.

Whether that drone strike was precisely the best thing to do is unclear. But there is clearly need for positive action. Doing nothing about it, is not an option. 'Every' country should be prepared to contribute to sort the ISIS and Assad problems out. The sooner the better. Before even more lives are lost. And likewise look after the refugees.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
It also saved the lives of the rest of the Argentinian navy who never risked leaving port after that.
Click to expand...

But they did manage to sink their own (British made ) Type 42 destroyer in port themselves by leaving a main sea valve open !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The Belgrano was a perfectly legitimate target and totally justified.
Click to expand...

I agree but it's interesting that in a liberal democracy such as the UK there are those who to this day question the sinking of the Belgrano, a warship of a fascist regime with an appalling human right record which had instigated an illegal aggressive war. I can't imagine there are too many nations on earth so intent on self flagellation as us Brits even in the face of an aggressive enemy out to kill us.

I'm sure that the arguments over this latest drone strike will rumble on for years with some calling for the prosecution of Cameron for war crimes.

There was a woman on TV today, I forget her name and that of the organisation she represents but the gist was that the UK had committed yet another illegal crime against humanity. Anyway, the thought that went through my mind was that next time someone in deepest ISIS land is intent on mass murder rather than aim a nice shiny missile at them we should send her over to make a citizens arrest.
 
Last edited:
There is no easy way to solve this in the modern day, however the fix in my eyes is rather simple but will never be implemented due to people allowing emotions to make decisions which is why were in this mess as it is.

1. Leave the EU.
2. Declare war on isis on the grounds of executing British citizens.
3. Make any links to terrorism be it spouting religious hatred, burning flags/poppy's, willingly supporting 100% illegal followed by a swift 90 year jail sentence no chance of parole no if's no buts.
4. A tactile one off nuclear strike, failing that a 12 month non nuclear reign of fire from the sky. Yes many innocent would perish however many millions over the next millennium would survive.
5. A joint police force over the next 20 years to stabilise the effected regions and stop this viscous cycle going round and round. Along with specialist teams to search and destroy any splinter groups or factions before they get to big.
6. Mostly funded by cutting the foreign aid budget, tackling the ridiculous benefit system and putting unemployed to work during a time of war.

I like to think outside the box something has to change, I'm not thinking about the next 5-10 years but over the next 50 years when the choices we make today will shape that time and it will be too late then all this pansy footing around the issue is absurd most of the situation could of been controlled last year without refugees swamping the EU borders and allowing any tom dick or harry to get through, but no we now have untold wolves nesting within the sheep just waiting.

However for the time being were going to be stuck with refugees flooding the EU and everyone stopping any kind of military action as they don't want boots on the ground/it's not our fight/head under the sand and wait. With rising numbers of hate attacks already occurring it won't be long till we tear ourselves apart from the inside.
 
Actually we should be working more closely with our allies such as the EU. We should not have to take action on our own, and then get all the blame and body bags again.

The UN is the place where we should stand together and share the burden of taking action. Some countries shirk their moral responsibility, and should be shamed. And then we must work against the real Bond villain. Putin and his security council veto.
 
Last edited:
Do isis care about human rights, the geneva convention and rules of engagement?

We need to fight them following the same rules they do and stop berating ourselves every time we manage to kill a couple of them.
 
cowboy said:
Do isis care about human rights, the geneva convention and rules of engagement?

We need to fight them following the same rules they do and stop berating ourselves every time we manage to kill a couple of them.
Click to expand...


I completely agree that we need to stop berating ourselves every time we kill a couple. However if we do so without regard to human rights, geneva convention etc what differentiates us from them? If we behave as they do what remains to choose between us. If you're fighting for democracy & to prevent threats to our way of life how does ignoring what we fight for make us better?
 
daza said:
4. A tactile one off nuclear strike, failing that a 12 month non nuclear reign of fire from the sky. Yes many innocent would perish however many millions over the next millennium would survive.
Click to expand...


I assume that you mean "tactical"?

We did the "reign (I suppose that you mean "rain") of fire from the sky" in Afghanistan and Iraq - look how that worked out.

Yes, many hundreds of thousands of innocent people would die, thus creating many hundreds of thousands more - TERRORISTS!.

A tactical nuclear strike would not work, simply because it is concentrated on one small area, and considering ISIL are spread across North Africa and most of the Middle East, bombing of any kind will not work.

It should be left to a UN peacekeeping force, to step in and protect designated refugee areas in Syria and Iraq, and then another UN "offensive" force to take on ISIL on the ground, possibly by surrounding and "kettling" them in the main trouble areas - Kobane, Mosul, Irbil, Kirkuk - before wiping them out.
 
The first option should always be to bring these people before a court of law. Of course, the situation in Syria is such that a snatch and rendition operation was probably not viable, so a measured tactical strike with a drone was an acceptable compromise to nullify a genuine threat to the UK (if what we've been told is correct...).

However, such actions should not become commonplace and should be reserved for those situations where there is sufficient evidence that the target would be found guilty in a court of law, if we were able to get him/her into one. We also need to be careful, because if we indulge in overuse of extrajudicial killing, we lose our moral authority to criticize others for doing so. We can hardly complain about Putin using drones to assassinate Russian dissidents in the UK (which I'm sure he'd love to do) if we're picking targets off in the Middle East for posting messages about Cameron's botox on Twitter.
 
After reading some of the posts here - one in particular, I retract my comment earlier about this being an excellent thread and realise my second sentence carries ever more weight than I might have first thought.

The inter connectedness and complexity of situations and events seems to have completely passed some folk by. A careful study of Newton's Third Law of Motion might be of value here.

Anthony.
 
ianp5a said:
ISIS killed 17,000 innocent Iraqi civilians last year. more
Click to expand...

Actually (and it was only a quick read I'll admit), that article specifically credits ISIS with only 4,325 of those deaths.
 
Ok. it was stated as such in another report. It's still not acceptable.

Anthony.Ralph said:
After reading some of the posts here - one in particular, I retract my comment earlier about this being an excellent thread and realise my second sentence carries ever more weight than I might have first thought.
The inter connectedness and complexity of situations and events seems to have completely passed some folk by. A careful study of Newton's Third Law of Motion might be of value here.
Anthony.
Click to expand...
The over reactions we often see in these cases, are a basically a reaction to terrorism.
 
I'm uncomfortable with the fact those men were killed for something they might have gone on to do. It's a bit too Minority Report to me. A little bit shady.
 
norters said:
I'm uncomfortable with the fact those men were killed for something they might have gone on to do. It's a bit too Minority Report to me. A little bit shady.
Click to expand...

We don't know the full facts and we probably never will but at the moment we're been told it was self defence... So if someone is pointing a gun at me/us and I/we don't have the means to arrest him and bring him to trial but do have the means to kill him I/we obviously are not going to wait for him to pull the trigger.

I therefore don't see this as Minority Roport (I thought it was a poor film...) but the whole things hangs on if the version of events we have is the truth.

If the targeted guy was deep in a plot to cause an outrage on the streets of the UK or anywhere else for that matter then someone needs to stop him. Sending in an SAS snatch squad (if there is such a thing) and getting them in front of a jury at The Old Bailey carries risks to someones son, father, husband or lover so all in all if he had to be stopped I personally agree with not putting our people in unnecessary danger and I agree with the use of a missile if we can do it without blowing up civilians too and thank God it looks like this time we did.

If we are being told the truth then I think the outcome is as good as we can hope.

I wont say that I'm glad the targeted guy is dead but I will say that I'm glad he will no longer be able to kill and maim others.
 
I have to admit I don't have a huge issue with this, it sounds very likely the two guys were over there up to no good and in this situation very likely is good enough for me.

The operation must have been a little bigger then we are being led to believe, they must have had accurate location information on these chaps so I assume there were contacts on the group directing the strike.

The main worry is there is no clear strategy or end game to fix this situation. There has to be a collaboration between the Syrian government, the coalition, turkey and the kurds - and is that going to happen, no way!
 
benc98 said:
There has to be a collaboration between ...turkey and the kurds - and is that going to happen, no way!
Click to expand...
Not whilst Turkey is, with the blessing of the UN, bombing Kurds, no.
 
Aren't the objections, not about the use of the drones themselves, but around the complete lack of due process? There'd been a vote on the issue, it was agreed we would offer air support and target IS with air strikes within Iraq only. Any escalation of that mission should be agreed by parliament, especially with all the fuss the Tories et al make about the Iraq invasion (even though they supported it at the time).
 
woof woof said:
We don't know the full facts and we probably never will but at the moment we're been told it was self defence... So if someone is pointing a gun at me/us and I/we don't have the means to arrest him and bring him to trial but do have the means to kill him I/we obviously are not going to wait for him to pull the trigger.

I therefore don't see this as Minority Roport (I thought it was a poor film...) but the whole things hangs on if the version of events we have is the truth.

If the targeted guy was deep in a plot to cause an outrage on the streets of the UK or anywhere else for that matter then someone needs to stop him. Sending in an SAS snatch squad (if there is such a thing) and getting them in front of a jury at The Old Bailey carries risks to someones son, father, husband or lover so all in all if he had to be stopped I personally agree with not putting our people in unnecessary danger and I agree with the use of a missile if we can do it without blowing up civilians too and thank God it looks like this time we did.

If we are being told the truth then I think the outcome is as good as we can hope.

I wont say that I'm glad the targeted guy is dead but I will say that I'm glad he will no longer be able to kill and maim others.
Click to expand...
By definition, self defence can (and must be able to) include pre-emptive action to prevent someone from carrying out an offensive act, which is what the government says they had to do this time.
And, as I said earlier in the thread, I feel that we have to trust our government and security services to take these decisions.

My concern though, is that self defence has been defined as "If the police or the military do it, it's self defence. If we do it, it isn't." The problem is that the government and its agencies sometimes seem to use the MIUAYGA principle and we have no way of knowing the truth.
 
norters said:
I'm uncomfortable with the fact those men were killed for something they might have gone on to do. It's a bit too Minority Report to me. A little bit shady.
Click to expand...
I believe they were killed for something they were actually in the process of doing. Thank God Cameron is capable of making the right decision....if it were up to some of those on the other side, particularly he who would be leader, we would have had to wait until the pair had carried out their killings and innocent lives had been lost before acting. Weak Politicians are the last thing we need when facing these people.
 
Garry Edwards said:
no war has been declared either by this country against Syria or by Syria against us, therefore it was illegal to deliberately kill them
Click to expand...

However, war has been declared on this country by Isis (certainly our dear leader has said that it has and how could we question him?). And we've effectively declared war on Isis by voting to bomb them in Iraq. Either way you look at it, they won't be coming round to Christmas dinner. I think the legal experts would tell us you can have a war against a non-sovereign nation. (Al Qaeda for example)

But with the cold view of hindsight it looks a bit iffy. He claims they were terrorists and there was no other way. We just have to believe him.

cambsno said:
I really don't get how this could be 'illegal'. What makes a war legal or not? As has been said, damned if they do and damned if they dont, however I don't like this dipping in and out. IMO we should either do nothing or send everything in. Work with Assad and Russia etc... to wipe them out of Syria.
Click to expand...

It's a technical point that often gets overlooked, but the vote in the commons not to bomb Syria was actually a vote not to bomb Assad's side in Syria. The House of Commons was effectively debating whether or not to help what ultimately became Isis. I wouldn't underestimate the cost of allying ourselves with that nice Mr Assad. Or Putin come to think of it.

It won't matter soon: there's a real war coming. The longer it delays, the bigger it will be. And it's looking pretty big right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top