ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Angilion said:
Once again, you are helpfully explicitly stating that you believe that a person's sex is what they are, that it wholly defines them.

I certainly do have an issue with that.

If you don't think that being male is better than being female, why are you proud of being male? Being proud of something that you don't see as being better than the alternative(s) doesn't make any sense. So I have an issue with that, too.

You ignored my first reason completely and gave no counter-argument to my second reason. I have an issue with that, too.

So yes, I do have issues. With your posts. Of course, since you think that a person's sex is the be all and end all, you assume that means that I have issues with your sex.
Click to expand...

I can't even be bothered with this tit for tat, you're making assumptions and putting the words you want in my mouth (where on earth did I say sex was the be all and end all or that one is better than the other? You're talking nonsense). I simply couldn't care any less for more discussion on the matter. Needless to say, we're so far removed from the topic of conversation I'll catalogue this ramble along with the rest of the pedantic and absurd BS in here.
 
kitch9 said:
You mean the ones with huge stockpiles or rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons and ruthless law enforcement?

Can't think why.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like that is a widespread problem? As if immigrants are facing swathes of brutal police, beating them down with weapons and it's the wild West in what should be a pretty benign and liberal EU.
 
sven256 said:
But you are still making the assumption that Russia did it. And as i said earlier, from what I have read these facilities were not clearly labelled as hospitals.

Straight from the horses mouth

http://www.********.com/view?i=396_1455615002

If effect they do not have a clue as some people reported air strikes some people reported shelling.
Click to expand...

Rockets, from the Ss26 based at bassel airfield.
 
Indeed. It's just a meaningless article, reposted because it fits sensationalist rhetoric about the government lying to us all or whatever.

If we actually read the stats, they're from a very small time line, not from when SHADER began anyway. Anyhow, we're not using numbers of casualties as a guage anyway since the mission statement isn't "kill every single ISIL member". Therfore the article is meaningless.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Source for number being wrong?
Click to expand...

I was speaking in the same context as you Dj Jestar. The context being that the UK have gone to war on lies and misconceptions. Given how long ago we started SHADER, then the EF death count is much higher than 7. Source for that? Me. However, I then bothered to read into the article and realised it's over a tiny time frame with which the article has taken that data and completely ran a none story with it.

As I've already alluded, all of this is meaningless anyway, even if talking about pre-shader plans, there was no claim that we'd kill all ISIL members anyway. So your intent to use numbers of fatalities as some sort of measure is completely moot. No one has lied to anyone about anything.

The actual mission statement was to disrupt, degrade and destroy ISIL. Consider the progress made: SDF inbound on Shaddadi forcing ISIL out and now bearing down towards raqqah. PESH liberating swathes of areas in the north of Iraq. ISF pushing and reclaiming ramadi. ISIL funding sources drastically reduced, (they've even had to slash all their wages in half). Then we have much of their leadership hot tailing it to Libya. By those counts I'd argue these are better guages of how the situation is materialising and that we have indeed disrupted and degraded ISIL and we're well on our way to destroying it.

Needless to say, I suspect anything I post will be ignored/misinterpreted/fall on your deaf ears. I suspect that to avoid that I should post and run meaningless articles that subscribe to your rhetoric instead.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The "tiny time frame" is that of which we officially went to war in Syria following the (as the article puts it) controversial vote, whereby the pro-fighting side argued that our munitions were highly sought after. So sought after, that we (again, as the article puts it..) haven't really used them in the fight.

If they were so sought after, why have they not been used? They made out we would be using them every single day to destroy strongholds, strategic positions, vehicles, everything... 7 deaths is a mighty small number if that were the case.

Spin all you want about "rhetoric" - I don't have one.
Click to expand...


Again, you're using numbers of deaths as a measure. I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I don't think you do either.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
An indicative measure, yes. If our forces were striking as many targets as was made out we would be by the pro-fight MPs and camp those numbers would be a lot higher, but they aren't.
Click to expand...

I knew what I'd posted earlier would just be ignored... and around we go. At least it's not a waste of time, other people read things and ingest information.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
No it's not been ignored. There's a difference between being ignored and argued against. If we were to "disrupt, degrade, and destroy" - and YOU need to not ignore this bit - by employing our munitions, because again that is what we were told is the reason why we joined the fight not because of our excellent skills at politically degrading from a distance or having wicked insults to upset them, but because our munitions are better than anyone else's at striking targets, would be put to immediate and constant use to achieve that goal. To have only killed 7 people in that process is a laughably low number which demonstrates we are not doing what we were told we would be. So why have we joined the fight, if not for that reason? And why were we lied to?
Click to expand...

Again, I haven't a clue what you're rambling on about. You don't know what you're talking about, you're making things up, this is evident because you think it's laughable that we only struck 7 people because you believe a number of deaths is a measure. It's already been pointed out to you the context of that report...

gettothechopper said:
It was from a parliamentary question

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...46_RAF_airstrikes_against_Daesh_in_Syria-.pdf

It was 7 daesh kills in Syria recorded between 2nd Dec and 29 Jan
None were brimstone because tornado is being used in Iraq and reapers in Syria (reaper doesnt use brimstone, only tornado does)
Click to expand...

..and what do you know of those 7 EF? For all you know, they could have been 7 of the most senior ISIL members available to strike. You just don't know, so stop going on pretending that you do. The matter is, we can strike many ISIL members daily. We see them all the time, on check points, carrying weapons, doing general dogs body work - the grunts if you wish. We could easily make the number of deaths in their hundreds, and then we could attain this magic number that you seem to deem a good measure of our effectiveness (out of interest what is this number? is it 8? is it 80? is it 1000? What's 'not laughable'?). What's the point in trying to wipe every person out though? We didn't defeat Nazi germany by killing every Nazi did we? I've already offered to you what are good measures of our ability to achieve our actual goals (the ones presented to everyone before the campaign begun), and you have chosen to ignore them. So yes, post another link to another meaningless article and please share more of your guff so we can counter those points so those people with open minds can have something to read and consider.
 
What have we apparently been lied to about?

We were in the fight well before brimstones were.

Your initial post that spurned this discussion was about the numbers, you repeatedly brought up the numbers, you discounted the numbers as laughable, now you don't care about the numbers.... OK.

Again, you seem to feel qualified to deem 7 too low, when you don't know anything about the targets struck.
 
Ah I see, because it's something YOU didn't expect something must be afoot, right. I don't need to address anything nor am I skirting around anything. I'm addressing your initial post about numbers and why it's all meaningless BS in the context you thought you were making a point about. Now we're digging down into the matter it is indeed you who is skirting around the issue.

End of conversation though, I'm not interested in discussing the matter further, I think I've covered the points I needed and you're just going to chunter on regardless. So save tapping out a reply, this becomes boring very fast.
 
This is the problem when people post crap articles along with just a guff comment "OH LOOK, LIES AND CONSPIRACY!!1" then run. Rather than posting concise and constructive input on what they really think. Then nobody really takes any of their posts seriously and any following retort is just side stepping and trying to one-up. Perhaps he hasn't any concise and constructive input though?

What's more infuriating than a troll though is someone who posts like they're an authority on a subject when quite clearly, to everyone else, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

Now answer this and don't skirt around it again.... Lols
 
gettothechopper said:
You have made several mistakes in your post, I will highlight them so that you can see where you went wrong:


1) David Cameron's reason for joining was: “The longer Isil is allowed to grow in Syria, the greater the threat it will pose. It is wrong for the United Kingdom to subcontract its security to other countries, and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks of striking Isil in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain.” It was not as you seem to think only because we alone have Brimstone.

2) The Brimstone was mentioned during the Syria debate as a direct answer to a question of how we might minimise civilian deaths or collateral damage. It was not as you seem to think the reason that we joined the coalition. But a tool that could be used if any when needed. It might be that a situation has not yet occurred where it is needed over another weapon and so it simply hasn't suited the RAF to use one yet.

3) It doesn't matter how accurate a weapon is - you need qualified targets to shoot them at. No targets may have presented themselves that required it.
It seems that the plan currently has Tornados (with the brimstones) being used in Iraq and Reapers and Typhoons being used in Syria (Reaper uses Hellfire which is similar to brimstone in some ways, Typhoon has Paveway)
It could be for many reasons that things are being used this way round - plane fuel use, endurance, time on target etc etc etc or perhaps its been decided that after the Turkey / Russia shootdown incident that the Typhoons are better equipped for contested airspace (and the Reapers are expendable)

4) The statistic from the article / Parliamentary question only targets a specific date range, Syria, and ISIS "kills" It doesn't include hits after those dates, in Iraq or strikes against non human targets.
This question shows that they have been used in Syria, upto 18th Jan, 5 had been used in Syria (I am assuming from the answer to the other question that they must not have resulted in kills)

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ts/written-question/Commons/2016-01-12/903067

5) The idea that you are OK with us hitting ISIS in Syria as long as we use Brimstone - but feel disgusted, outraged and lied too because we are using other weapons is hilarious

6) Calling it an "illegal coalition" is the derpiest thing I have read on here in weeks (and I have been reading the trump thread :p) so congratulations for that.
Click to expand...

Good points (wasted on the person you intended it for, but that is of no surprise).

Reapers are used in both countries.
 
The map illustrates geographical land mass and not numbers of losses so it's pretty much an invalid point. Ramadi and Mosul have a high concentration of ISIL fighters so number of losses would be highly concentrated there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom