ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

So you're ignoring the recruitment value of western bombs falling on the middle east? You're ignoring the potential for attacks to unite previously disparate groups against a common enemy in the same way we have decided to do in relation to Assad? 'Some bombs is better than doing nothing' is a huge statement to make with nothing to back it up, and it's a leap to assume that this will encourage in-fighting between groups as opposed to closer co-operation.
 
Isn't the main threat we have from Isis home grown here. It's not like their ideology is going anywhere even if the bombing does cause infighting and destruction of their hierarchy.
 
Mynight said:
Isn't the main threat we have from Isis home grown here. It's not like their ideology is going anywhere even if the bombing does cause infighting and destruction of their hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, that's why there was a debate to begin with, to fly it. "I hear your complaint and your complaint is important to us, please hold".
 
Caged said:
So you're ignoring the recruitment value of western bombs falling on the middle east? You're ignoring the potential for attacks to unite previously disparate groups against a common enemy in the same way we have decided to do in relation to Assad? 'Some bombs is better than doing nothing' is a huge statement to make with nothing to back it up, and it's a leap to assume that this will encourage in-fighting between groups as opposed to closer co-operation.
Click to expand...

You do realise they are already being bombed? This isnt new.

Uniting disparate groups is laughable - one thing we know about Muslims and the middle east is that they like killing each other more than they care about the west. The idea of a united Islamic state enduring is ridiculous - we just need to sow the seeds of division (with bombs).
 
The US and co should have been bombing ammo dumps and oil tankers which would have slowed them down ages ago.

Once Russia started their bomb that was the first thing they targeted. One video along showed a massive massive open area filled with oil trunks used to transport stolen oil, which of course was removed from the face of the earth.
 
Mynight said:
Isn't the main threat we have from Isis home grown here. It's not like their ideology is going anywhere even if the bombing does cause infighting and destruction of their hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it, but no, not really. The bigger they become the more power, money and training they get. They already have an area comparable to a decent sized county. Air campaign is not to destroy their ideology, it's to limit their spread, resources and man power, especially trained manpower.

At least the vote went the right way. However 200 and something constituents who really need to throw their MPs out, who don't have a clue. The debates and reasons for no have been absolutely dire, with some of the worse coming from Corbyn himself, which shows a clear and massive misunderstanding of the entire plan and of the entire area being discussed.
 
n111ck said:
You do realise they are already being bombed? This isnt new.
Click to expand...

You've undone your own argument. If bombing them already isn't helping then why are more bombs what's needed?

It's naïve to think that there won't be civilian casualties, and it's even more naïve to think that images of these casualties won't be used to recruit people.
 
Glaucus said:
Depends how you look at it, but no, not really. The bigger they become the more power, money and training they get. They already have an area comparable to a decent sized county. Air campaign is not to destroy their ideology, it's to limit their spread, resources and man power, especially trained manpower.

At least the vote went the right way. However 200 and something constituents who really need to throw their MPs out, who don't have a clue. The debates and reasons for no have been absolutely dire, with some of the worse coming from Corbyn himself, which shows a clear and massive misunderstanding of the entire plan and of the entire area being discussed.
Click to expand...

The whole debate was mediocre, you can't just blame the nays.
 
StriderX said:
Oh wow, so useful.
Click to expand...

It's very useful when taken into account of the coalition. It's not a very big area and with many countries supplying planes, it means IF cordinated properly you could quite easily have 24hr coverage so when Intel cones in you have assists within minutes that can take it out. It isn't a very big area in terms of air coverage, Syria is equivalent to a 270mile square and Isis control somewhere around 1/4 of that, so at what 600mph 4 aircraft can have a large impact and coalition where many cui tries supply aircraft it's even better coverage.
 
I don't think it's anything to do with the RAF it's not like they make the choice to drop bombs on Syria.

I'm sure they can feel proud of blowing up a nutter without hurting civilians. I do wonder though if a bomb did injure civilians how they'd feel about it :(. I don't think I'd be overly upset at killing someone who threatened our way of life but I don't think I could do it if there was a chance I'd kill someone who didn't deserve it (ironic I know).

Devlish said:
One of the historic parliamentary speeches and it was boring? Dont watch the Lawn Tennis Field Size Bill tomorrow!
Click to expand...

It was rather. Pretty much all of it had been covered in GD months beforehand :D. Cameron's quip was truly dire. It's becoming almost as bad as the argument nullifying cries of "racist/bigot" on the other wing it's "if you don't want to do X it's because you support/or are one of X".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom