Grow up
Chill out dude. You did come flying in here and miss the point with your first couple of posts
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Chill out dude. You did come flying in here and miss the point with your first couple of posts
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report
Impossible to have six deaths in two years of air strikes, look at our previous wars this decade..
Impossible to have six deaths in two years of air strikes, look at our previous wars this decade..
Those posting the crap like only terrorists will get hurt are.
Said the man crying straw-man.
You claimed the only children in the area are teenagers, with the very clear implication that they are willing to fight under the ISIS flag. I refuted that, along with the rhetoric crap that the only people being hurt are, to paraphrase, those that deserve it.
Crap like balky's "they made their bed" (yes, he was 'only' referring to his own family, which is even more telling, frankly) nonsensical rubbish that completely ignores that not everyone in that zone is a valid target. There are children in the zones, there are people being held captive, there are slaves. It is a surprise to me that they aren't already creating human shields.
The zone(s) controlled by ISIS didn't materialise out of nothing. These were people's homes and workplaces they have taken and anyone claiming that the only people occupying these places under their own free will are a just lying. I don't even mean those being forced to remain by direct threat or even imprisonment, slavery or whatever either. I mean those who don't have any viable alternative because they just can't get out due to economical or other reasons, perhaps even sheer stubbornness that keeps them there. You can bet the work force needed at these oil fields and other targets like any kind of factory or even stockpiles will have people who just don't know better, or are being forced to work, will be hurt in these strikes.
Last edited:
But somehow the UK are amazing and aren't going to kill anyone except terrorists! please, the arrogance and naivety of that is laughable.
Also many left leaning papers have contacted The ministry of defense regarding evidence for this amazing claim that in over a year of bombing no civilians have been killed...... they have yet to receive a response!!
In any conflict there will always be civilian casualties, particularly when targeting an unconventional organisation such as IS. They mingle within the civilian population. Then use the ensuing carnage to further their own propaganda to purport muslims as victims of western aggression. Yet they are more than willing to carry out heinous acts against their fellow muslims. The palestinian terrorist groups often play the same victim card, ie israel attacked a hospital. A hospital that was later proved to be a tunnel complex that led into israel to enable raids by palestinian terrorists.
And anyone who thinks im defending israel would be wrong, they are wrong on a lot of issues with their treatment of the palestinian people. My brother lives in israel, his girlfriend is an israeli citizen and an ex IDF soldier, she doesnt even agree with the way her government treats the palestinians. But, as an israeli citizen she still does have a fear of militant groups in the country. Bit off topic so i apologise for that.
And anyone who thinks im defending israel would be wrong, they are wrong on a lot of issues with their treatment of the palestinian people. My brother lives in israel, his girlfriend is an israeli citizen and an ex IDF soldier, she doesnt even agree with the way her government treats the palestinians. But, as an israeli citizen she still does have a fear of militant groups in the country. Bit off topic so i apologise for that.
That's a great example of irrational fear, we are willing to sacrifice the life of thousands of innocent Syrians because we have a 1 in 15 million chance of being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the UK. Seems like a very fair and balanced response.
As for the people who think this bombing is going to make us safer and prevent a Paris like massacre!! Seriously?
One of the reasons many of these massacres have occurred is because of said countries bombing other countries, we know that because the terrorists have explicitly said that!!
As for the people who think this bombing is going to make us safer and prevent a Paris like massacre!! Seriously?
One of the reasons many of these massacres have occurred is because of said countries bombing other countries, we know that because the terrorists have explicitly said that!!
Personally myself i dont think bombing will prevent a lone, (or two or more) gun men running amok in a uk city. What it will help to do in iraq and syria is weaken the infrastructure of IS, their ability to manouveure, co ordinate and keep hold of territory. But ultimately it has to help local forces to take back the territory that IS has taken over.
However we are still a target whether we bomb them or not even if in the short term it made us more of a target. (With the assumption the long term was about removing them as a threat).
I don't think bombing can produce a solution but the worst thing we could do is sit back and do nothing to hinder the ability of ISIS to solidify and expand its position (in terms of moral, equipment/resources, etc. as well as physical land).
What countries did India, Thailand, Mali bomb?
I have a simple rule, and that's to not automatically believe anything people say, especially if they're deranged psychopaths like jihadis. Of course they're going to send a message that they've just attacked us and if we retaliate some more then they'll just attack us harder - I imagine they'd love it if we stopped attacking them and let them have a safe harbour in which to plan more attacks to achieve their goal of a pan-national Islamic caliphate.
Crazy, as much as I get what you're saying, sort of, why do you keep going UK this UK that?
It's not all about the UK. Yes a goal is to make the UK safer, but do we not have a duty to help those in the Middle East out?
Or do we just leave them to it because we might be target of a retaliatory attack?
We have the ability, along with others, to stem the flow of ISIS pretty effectively and with minimal risk via our air forces. Creating breathing space for world leaders to hash out more of a long term plan with those very countries that need help in the Middle East.
It's not all about the UK. Yes a goal is to make the UK safer, but do we not have a duty to help those in the Middle East out?
Or do we just leave them to it because we might be target of a retaliatory attack?
We have the ability, along with others, to stem the flow of ISIS pretty effectively and with minimal risk via our air forces. Creating breathing space for world leaders to hash out more of a long term plan with those very countries that need help in the Middle East.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Don't resist then yea? just let them do what they want despite having the means to kill them. Capitulation in other words.
And that's the thing isn't it. Who is going to run things once IS have gone? Assad - a brutal dictator or the rebels - who swap & change sides, are busy fighting amongst themselves & are pretty nasty themselves. None of this seems to have been considered or if it has it seems to have gone no deeper than 'The Sun' newspaper level reasoning.
Let's slow down shall we? Getting rid of ISIS will take a while, and is the priority.
According to most of the nay sayers in here, a brutal dictatorship will be welcomed because "that's all them Arabs know, rule with an iron fist". Just look at the comments about Saddam and the opposition to bombing Iraq.
Like I said, I believe many people don't care one iota for the welfare of these people they so claim to protest for. They are more concerned with the opportunity to simply protest and nothing more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,931
- Location
- Oxon
Saddam was actually quite moderate in many ways compared to a lot of the current regimes in the Middle East. Probably why we got on so well with him before the first Gulf War.
Can you point out where that has been said please?
Is that saying that me pointing out your straw man is also a straw man? Didn't you have a real response?
I said the 'children' training in camps would not be toddlers but teenagers. I reckon that's probably right, unless the ISIS fighters want their young children killed why would they take them there?
...and if they were to create human shields what then?
Why is it 'crap' that balky would dissociate himself from his family if they became radicalised? Are you stating here that you would not?
Should we just leave everything be then, and continue allowing Daesh to grow in strength and number, forcing more people into the slavery you outline? Becoming stronger, better equipped and more capable of fighting on various fronts?
You're building an argument against statements that haven't been made, and are not adding anything to provoke reasonable discussion as to what we might do instead of the action that has been democratically decided upon.
No, it's not going to happen in a neatly defined timeline is it. I want ISIS gone as much as anyone else, but while they are getting weaker(fingers crossed) other groups of questionable morals will be getting stronger. it won't be a case of ISIS are sorted onto the next problem.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,931
- Location
- Oxon
Of course it won't. The military industrial complex requires a constant enemy. After the cold war there was no real threat. People hoped that China would replace the USSR, but they've done wonders for us instead. Terrorist groups, whether created by us through our actions, or created as a result of our support of certain regimes, are a stop gap until the next great threat.
What would Western governments do otherwise? Spend responsibly for the welfare of their citizens like the enlightened Scandinavians?