ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[Chris Wilson]

So I decide to put on a suicide vest and surround myself with some pals carrying kids. Are people suggesting I am allowed to wander freely about a European city until such a time I feel it appropriate to detonate it with maximum damage, as taking me out in a quiet location would result in the kids also dying? Or I decide to form a military training camp and to do it in the basement of a school or hospital. Do I then become untouchable? This is war, many would consider it terrible, but that's what wars are. Did we or the Germans stop bombing because kids might be killed in two world wars? That's not how wars work, or can be won, if they did no one would be morally justified in defending themselves against the first bandits with kids about them who decided they weren't worried about other people's kids being blown up. There's no such thing as perfect warfare with no collateral damage and I cannot possibly foresee it ever being so. The option to do nothing based on the fear of collateral damage is called accepting defeat. I fail to see what the Liberals who cry that we might be causing collateral damage suggest we actually do then? No sane person wants kids to die, but no sane regime would use them as shields either.

 

[Sliver]

Yet the ministry of defense has been asked to provide evidence for this extraordinary claim and it's gone awfully quite !

And yes we do have independent figures of innocent civilian deaths in Syria and both have the figures at approx 2,000 dead. Admittedly that isn't from uk bombings but to think that the u.k is somewhat perfect and won't be adding to that horrific figure is ridiculous

Never said the UK is perfect. Never mentioned what other countries stats were regarding civilian casualties.

I'm just stating what the R.A.F. reported to the BBC on last nights news. If the M.O.D. refute this in the future then so be it but till then I'll happily accept the R.A.F.'s claim.

 

[Mynight]

Bit of a moot point as if you were in Europe you'd have some form of special forces crawling up your backside rather quickly.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Silly analogy

I think UK citizens had a slightly higher probability than 1 in 15 MILLION of being killed in the world wars!!

 

[Tefal]

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?

.

they wouldnt necessarily be the isis members children.

child soldiers forced to fight are hardly a new thing.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Kyle is talking sense as usual:

 

[Mynight]

Never understood the need to watch someone else's opinion on what's been said.

 

[Gilly]

...we do have independent figures of innocent civilian deaths in Syria and both have the figures at approx 2,000 dead. Admittedly that isn't from uk bombings...

What relevance does it have in this particular bit of discussion then?

Bit of a moot point as if you were in Europe you'd have some form of special forces crawling up your backside rather quickly.

Change the word Europe to any other populated place in the world; the principle is the same and it's a reasonably simple one.

Silly analogy

Is it? It takes your problem with the discussion and puts it into a different circumstance, seems a decent use of an analogy to me. What is your answer? Should he be allowed to walk around until he decides to detonate on the basis that anything else might harm kids?

they wouldnt necessarily be the isis members children.

child soldiers forced to fight are hardly a new thing.

That's true, and nor should a soldier hesitate to kill one if it's the child soldier or his fellow soldier.

This whole thing reeks of 'WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!'

It isn't like we are targeting nurseries

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Never understood the need to watch someone else's opinion on what's been said.

Quicker/easier (I'm lazy) and also some people are simply better at getting the point across

 

[Rroff]

Kyle is talking sense as usual:

What a douche... they can be innocent civilians and at the same time we could be defending ourselves - sometimes even the innocent force hard choices due to force of circumstances.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

What relevance does it have in this particular bit of discussion then?

Because contrary to popular belief the U.K armed forces aren't some SUPER PERFECT force that isn't going to repeat mistakes that the other western forces have made in Syria, if you honestly believe no innocent civilians are going to be killed by U.K bombs then I'm sorry but you're being very naive and gullible !! (Actually U.K bombs have almost certainly already killed innocent civilians in Syria, just because we sold them and didn't drop them doesn't make it a great deal better imho)

What a douche...

Yeah.... What a 'douche' not wanting innocent people to die

 

[Mynight]

Change the word Europe to any other populated place in the world; the principle is the same and it's a reasonably simple one.

Well it would appear Syrian special forces aren't getting involved much.

I would prefer a more surgical strike but a ground game is always going to be more risky and expensive. The added stress from being on the ground probably would also contribute to a higher innocent death toll.

I still believe it's an unwinable affair. Whatever we do or don't do has consequences.

 

[Gilly]

Because contrary to popular belief the U.K armed forces aren't some SUPER PERFECT force that isn't going to repeat mistakes that the other western forces have made in Syria, if you honestly believe no innocent civilians are going to be killed by U.K bombs then I'm sorry but you're being very naive and gullible !! (Actually U.K bombs have almost certainly already killed innocent civilians in Syria, just because we sold them and didn't drop them doesn't make it a great deal better imho)

Nowhere have I said that our armed forces are perfect and would never make a mistake and would always get who they were after and only those; so you don't need to point out they are not that. I know that, that's plainly obvious.

That said, just because inferior (in terms of training, capabilities, tools) forces make mistakes doesn't necessarily mean that UK armed forces definitely will. There is a risk to non-combatants but that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage.

Well it would appear Syrian special forces aren't getting involved much.

Special Forces has nothing to do with it, you were the only one that mentioned them and that doesn't answer the question posed.

 

[Mynight]

Special Forces has nothing to do with it, you were the only one that mentioned them and that doesn't answer the question posed.

I think I may have missed your previous point going by your reply .

 

[John40]

Amazing that the Corbyn supporters outside Parliament screaming about the millions of innocent little children that we're going to deliberately try and obliterate are fine with issuing death threats to labour mp's.

I suppose like a lot on the left any death of a foreigner always trumps one of a Brit.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Amazing that the Corbyn supporters outside Parliament screaming about the millions of innocent little children that we're going to deliberately try and obliterate are fine with issuing death threats to labour mp's.

I suppose like a lot on the left any death of a foreigner always trumps one of a Brit.

What a load of dribble
Perhaps some of us more rational people don't think it's fair or reasonable to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent foreign lives because a few nut case's have killed about 50 Brits in the last decade or so! The ratio of Brit deaths to foreign deaths is skewed in a horrific direction (for every 1 innocent UK killed roughly 10,000 foreign innocents have been killed!), the FACTS and figures clearly show this.

 

[Gilly]

I think I may have missed your previous point going by your reply .

It wasn't my question, it was Chris Wilson's. He asked:

So I decide to put on a suicide vest and surround myself with some pals carrying kids. Are people suggesting I am allowed to wander freely about a European city until such a time I feel it appropriate to detonate it with maximum damage, as taking me out in a quiet location would result in the kids also dying? Or I decide to form a military training camp and to do it in the basement of a school or hospital. Do I then become untouchable?

You responded with:

Bit of a moot point as if you were in Europe you'd have some form of special forces crawling up your backside rather quickly.

I said change Europe for anywhere else in the world, it's not the location that matters it's the scenario. Should there being kids around change what must be done?

 

[Bluntwrapped]

Christ this thread is a snapshot of how tragic our political system is.

Rather than focusing on making a point and sticking with it the norm is to wait until something is said then find every way and anyway possible to twist someone's words/statement into suiting your own personal opinion and view. A process which relies on straw clutching rather than speaking with confidence and delivering a decent argument with facts to back it up. This wouldn't stand at University level, so why is this ridiculous debating system allowed time of day. If you're quoting the BBC and standing by this information as factual you honestly need your head examined..

 

[dowie]

What a load of dribble
Perhaps some of us more rational people don't think it's fair or reasonable to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent foreign lives because a few nut case's have killed about 50 Brits in the last decade or so! The ratio of Brit deaths to foreign deaths is skewed in a horrific direction, the FACTS and figures clearly show this.

what about the thousands of Syrian and Iraqi lives that have been taken by ISIS? We can't try to stop the ongoing killing of tens of thousands because we might risk the lives of a few in the process?

 

[Gilly]

Christ this thread is a snapshot of how tragic our political system is.

Rather than focusing on making a point and sticking with it the norm is to wait until something is said then find every way and anyway possible to twist someone's words/statement into suiting your own personal opinion and view. A process which relies on straw clutching rather than speaking with confidence and delivering a decent argument with facts to back it up. This wouldn't stand at University level, so why is this ridiculous debating system allowed time of day.

Agreed

If you're quoting the BBC and standing by this information as factual you honestly need your head examined..

Erm, what?

Are you talking about the lack of civilian casualties in Iraq? It wasn't the BBC saying it, they simply carried the message from the Captain in question.