RAF bombs ISIS baddies.

[woof woof]

The House of Commons was effectively debating whether or not to help what ultimately became Isis.

I think the commons were voting at a time when the opposition to Assad were thought to be quite moderate, respectable even. I'm sure ISIS and the other extremists came to the fore later.

 

[JonathanRyan]

I think the commons were voting at a time when the opposition to Assad were thought to be quite moderate, respectable even. I'm sure ISIS and the other extremists came to the fore later.

True that. But Mr Assad hasn't really shown any signs of becoming more moderate. My main point was that somebody we considered war against quite recently might make for an unstable ally.

Of course, there's another argument that if we had bombed him then Isis wouldn't exist. That's the problem with post match analysis.

 

[OldCarlos]

We really do need to stop pussyfooting around, certainly on home soil to start with.
We/the Govt have to play by the rules, law of the land/UN convention/human rights etc whereas the ones that want to destroy us don't! (& many of them are actually classed as British!)

It's a bit like someone boxing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules (+ having one hand tied behind their back) against a cage-fighter.

 

[arclight]

We really do need to stop pussyfooting around, certainly on home soil to start with.
We/the Govt have to play by the rules, law of the land/UN convention/human rights etc whereas the ones that want to destroy us don't! (& many of them are actually classed as British!)

It's a bit like someone boxing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules (+ having one hand tied behind their back) against a cage-fighter.

Shuffling and pussyfooting around is what the Westminster clique do. To quote an old, but very apt, phrase used to describe those bozos in the Foreign Office - they are a "hotbed of cold feet".

 

[cambsno]

Shuffling and pussyfooting around is what the Westminster clique do. To quote an old, but very apt, phrase used to describe those bozos in the Foreign Office - they are a "hotbed of cold feet".

With the way things are now, we would never had won WW2. When you are fighting a war, you have to do things that are generally not acceptable. That may be underhand practise, or bombing and getting civilian casualties. Had we played 'by the rules' we could have been beaten by Germany or the war could have dragged on for more years. If you are going to do the job properly you will have civilian casualties, and yes, that means women & children too. We could flatten parts of Syria like we did Dresden, which would wipe out many IS bases and people. That may sound harsh but IMO its that or just pull out all together and ignore what is going on.

 

[Dave *]

True that. But Mr Assad hasn't really shown any signs of becoming more moderate.

Assad associates with all sorts of people .

 

[arclight]

With the way things are now, we would never had won WW2. When you are fighting a war, you have to do things that are generally not acceptable. That may be underhand practise, or bombing and getting civilian casualties. Had we played 'by the rules' we could have been beaten by Germany or the war could have dragged on for more years. If you are going to do the job properly you will have civilian casualties, and yes, that means women & children too. We could flatten parts of Syria like we did Dresden, which would wipe out many IS bases and people. That may sound harsh but IMO its that or just pull out all together and ignore what is going on.

It can be ignored until Saudi and whoever else we need for oil is in danger then we must get involved. Saudi is always reluctant to get involved on it's own because the gov. is afraid that it's own military will turn on them. It is not, therefore, too keen on it's military being on the front foot (letting the genie out of the bottle so to speak).

 

[Llamaman]

Saudi is always reluctant to get involved on it's own because the gov. is afraid that it's own military will turn on them.

Not just Saudi either. Most of the gulf rulers are paranoid about being deposed. That's why they're buying up property in Europe like it's going out of fashion - got to have the wealth offshore in case you need to leave in a hurry.

 

[arclight]

Not just Saudi either. Most of the gulf rulers are paranoid about being deposed. That's why they're buying up property in Europe like it's going out of fashion - got to have the wealth offshore in case you need to leave in a hurry.

Maybe it also explains why they are not taking refugees from Syria. That could allow all sorts of dodgy types in.

 

[akr]

We really do need to stop pussyfooting around, certainly on home soil to start with.
We/the Govt have to play by the rules, law of the land/UN convention/human rights etc whereas the ones that want to destroy us don't! (& many of them are actually classed as British!)

It's a bit like someone boxing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules (+ having one hand tied behind their back) against a cage-fighter.

What are you actually proposing in practical terms?

With the way things are now, we would never had won WW2. When you are fighting a war, you have to do things that are generally not acceptable. That may be underhand practise, or bombing and getting civilian casualties. Had we played 'by the rules' we could have been beaten by Germany or the war could have dragged on for more years. If you are going to do the job properly you will have civilian casualties, and yes, that means women & children too. We could flatten parts of Syria like we did Dresden, which would wipe out many IS bases and people. That may sound harsh but IMO its that or just pull out all together and ignore what is going on.

If the view was that 'home grown' terrorists were more of a threat than those abroad, would you be happy to bomb parts of the UK also to eliminate the threat?

I accept I am far from knowledgeable history wise, however I don't think a comparison to WW2 is valid in this instance. Different (much smaller) enemy, comparatively limited threat to UK civilians in comparison. I don't understand the region enough but from my limited knowledge it would appear a bit more pressure on the Saudis might lead to a better long-term outcome.

The local populations of Syria and Iraq are the ones most at risk and suffering the most casualties, displacement, rape, murder and genocide, whilst I'm sure they want an end to it all I'm fairly confident being blanket bombed is not the solution they are hoping for.

 

[OldCarlos]

What are you actually proposing in practical terms?

Any fecker who preaches anti-British doctrines, or supports isis or any terrorist organisation, should be locked away for life.
If it was up to me it would be in solitary confinement too.
(Actually, if it was totally my decision I'd execute them)

 

[Blank_Canvas]

What are you actually proposing in practical terms?



If the view was that 'home grown' terrorists were more of a threat than those abroad, would you be happy to bomb parts of the UK also to eliminate the threat?

I accept I am far from knowledgeable history wise, however I don't think a comparison to WW2 is valid in this instance. Different (much smaller) enemy, comparatively limited threat to UK civilians in comparison. I don't understand the region enough but from my limited knowledge it would appear a bit more pressure on the Saudis might lead to a better long-term outcome.

The local populations of Syria and Iraq are the ones most at risk and suffering the most casualties, displacement, rape, murder and genocide, whilst I'm sure they want an end to it all I'm fairly confident being blanket bombed is not the solution they are hoping for.

Blanket bombing ? - not been done since WWII and you're the first person I've heard to even mention this !

 

[akr]

Blanket bombing ? - not been done since WWII and you're the first person I've heard to even mention this !

I was quoting Cambsno's post where he specifically mentions WWII and flattening parts of Syria 'like we did in Dresden' - I think if you review my post the quote below is also in it

With the way things are now, we would never had won WW2. When you are fighting a war, you have to do things that are generally not acceptable. That may be underhand practise, or bombing and getting civilian casualties. Had we played 'by the rules' we could have been beaten by Germany or the war could have dragged on for more years. If you are going to do the job properly you will have civilian casualties, and yes, that means women & children too. We could flatten parts of Syria like we did Dresden, which would wipe out many IS bases and people. That may sound harsh but IMO its that or just pull out all together and ignore what is going on.

 

[akr]

Any fecker who preaches anti-British doctrines, or supports isis or any terrorist organisation, should be locked away for life.
If it was up to me it would be in solitary confinement too.
(Actually, if it was totally my decision I'd execute them)

I'm glad you didn't have a 4th line, as each line got more severe

Preaching anti-british doctrine - probably hard to define and as a nation of moaners you'd probably have half the country locked up! All these anti-royalists for a start would be in jail I expect....

Whilst it is a fine line between freedom of speech and limiting support for such terrorist groups, I don't have an issue myself with it not being legal to support or promote groups like ISIS, though I would not go with your penalty. The problem comes when the groups are more contentious - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as they say, and that is where it becomes hard when you want to maintain freedom for everyone.

No easy answers.

 

[woof woof]

Blanket bombing ? - not been done since WWII and you're the first person I've heard to even mention this !

Sorry to be a pedant but without putting too much thought into this I think the Americans carpet bombed a few places in the 70's. Vietnam, Cambodia and god knows where else.

Carry on...

 

[OldCarlos]

I'm glad you didn't have a 4th line, as each line got more severe

Haha, yeah.
In hindsight I should have typed them in reverse order. At least it wouldn't have sounded quite so harsh then.

tbh, we don't have `free speech` anyway so there shouldn't be a major issue in that regard and the majority of folk can identify the real differences with the scum we are talking about.
I know what you mean about differing tolerances & opinions though.

You are correct in that there aren't any easy answers, but a major part of that is BECAUSE our hands are tied & the do-gooders seem to get the larger platform to spout their disdain at the way these scumbags are treated. We really need to toughen up BIG time!

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Sorry to be a pedant but without putting too muvh thought into this I think the Americans carpet bombed a few places in the 70's. Vietnam, Cambodia and god knows where else.

Carry on...

But we were talking RAF weren't we, as in the thread title !!

 

[woof woof]

But we were talking RAF weren't we, as in the thread title !!

Sorry to be a pedant but the perpetrators or other limiting parameters other than since WWII weren't specified in your post.

I am a pedant aren't I? I'll go and have a cup of tea.

Interesting also that while the RAF carried out carpet bombing in WWII the Americans didn't but actually they did but they didn't call it carpet bombing... the technology at the time didn't allow the video game stuff we see on the news these days.

Carpet bombing seems obscene these days but things need to be judged in context and in time to. That was then, this is now and now it's possible to hit a Toyota technical from x thousand feet while the pilot sits on his base anywhere in the world. Who'd have thought this would be possible...

My parents are from South Bank on the outskirts of Middlesbrough and my mother still talks about the bombing raids in WWII. South Bank was the first place in England to be bombed. Bombing these days is a very different thing. I suppose that's a good thing.

 

[mex]

An interesting point of view.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=760326817347344

View: https://www.facebook.com/thekilluminatis/videos/760326817347344/?fref=nf

 

[boyfalldown]

An interesting point of view.

He may have the odd interesting point, but if he does it gets lost in his rant and bluster

 

[Justso]

I was waiting for him to say the Queen is a lizard

 

[mex]

He may have the odd interesting point, but if he does it gets lost in his rant and bluster

I don't think he is a speaker, per say, I think he is just an ex-soldier?

I was waiting for him to say the Queen is a lizard

You can carry on with your head in the sand, there is quite a lot of truth in what the guy says.

 

[kendo1]

Just came across this from John Cleese:

Edit: allegedly, but erroneous. With thanks to Andy and Dave


NATIONAL LEVELS OF ALERT - THREATS TO EUROPE
From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "p***ed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

Regards,
John Cleese,
British writer, actor and tall person

And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

 

[crofter]

I don't think he is a speaker, per say, I think he is just an ex-soldier?




You can carry on with your head in the sand, there is quite a lot of truth in what the guy says.

So what are those of you with your heads above sand level going to do about it ? I'm quite happy watching the world of man go down the toilet.

 

[the black fox]

With the way things are now, we would never had won WW2. When you are fighting a war, you have to do things that are generally not acceptable. That may be underhand practise, or bombing and getting civilian casualties. Had we played 'by the rules' we could have been beaten by Germany or the war could have dragged on for more years. If you are going to do the job properly you will have civilian casualties, and yes, that means women & children too. We could flatten parts of Syria like we did Dresden, which would wipe out many IS bases and people. That may sound harsh but IMO its that or just pull out all together and ignore what is going on.

er i hate to tell you ,but if you look at the news i think you will find there own people have already done that with barrel bombs ,,no point bombing bomb sites .

just a thought really but what if during the blitz our parents and grandparents had all decided to flee to somewhere nice and warm like syria .
A ll these thousands of young men i see on the news coming to europe should perhaps be at home fighting for there own country there seems to be enough armies or militia to join whichever side they support to put a end to all this .

 

[Llamaman]

Just came across this from John Cleese:

Amusing, but not written by John Cleese. (He doesn't work for free!)

 

[Dave *]

Amusing, but not written by John Cleese. (He doesn't work for free!)

According to Snopes it's from an anonymous writer, probably written sometime in 2005.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/terrorismalert.asp

 

[Deleted member 49549]

er i hate to tell you ,but if you look at the news i think you will find there own people have already done that with barrel bombs ,,no point bombing bomb sites .

just a thought really but what if during the blitz our parents and grandparents had all decided to flee to somewhere nice and warm like syria .
A ll these thousands of young men i see on the news coming to europe should perhaps be at home fighting for there own country there seems to be enough armies or militia to join whichever side they support to put a end to all this .

I don't think you can compare the British State headed by the coalition during WW2 that was largely a safe place to live, and the current Syrian state headed by a dictator with a brutal civil war that is getting from bad to worse.

Do you really think the 2 are comparable, or did you just want to think that the Syrian civilians are an inferior bunch?

 

[MartynK]

According to Snopes it's from an anonymous writer, probably written sometime in 2005.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/terrorismalert.asp

Quite possibly. I remember it being around at least 7 - 8 years ago.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

er i hate to tell you ,but if you look at the news i think you will find there own people have already done that with barrel bombs ,,no point bombing bomb sites .

just a thought really but what if during the blitz our parents and grandparents had all decided to flee to somewhere nice and warm like syria .
A ll these thousands of young men i see on the news coming to europe should perhaps be at home fighting for there own country there seems to be enough armies or militia to join whichever side they support to put a end to all this .

I imagine a lot of them would have tried to flee if the British Govt had been trying to kill them as well.