ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Gilly said:
Can you provide anything to the contrary? I haven't taken anything for granted but with no information at all whatsoever to the contrary find myself able to question what is said, but unable to brand the military, the minister for the defence and the BBC liars for no reason at all.



Certainly. Do you have some case studies? How are they able to differentiate from UK to other strikes?



I'm afraid not, no. The only person I've heard from that was in Iraq was the commander of the force in question, who gave us the statistic we are discussing. Do you have anything that is more relevant than the word of the commander in question? Bear in mind that he would likely be dismissed with disgrace if he was being disingenuous.

I am fully aware of that. I have given it far more respect than it was worth in lieu of you bringing any further information to light.
Click to expand...

This is completely pointless. You keep asking me to present information you know fine well I do not have. Even if I did have eyewitness accounts, it wouldn't be enough. You've decided to take the word of the military, nothing is going to change your mind now.

"I have given it far more respect than it was worth in lieu of you bringing any further information to light"

Here you have resorted to using a patronising statement in attempt to end things in your favour. To me this and the above says you're not really interested and would rather just argue for the sake of it. Maybe I've struck a nerve.
 
Bluntwrapped said:
This is completely pointless. You keep asking me to present information you know fine well I do not have.
Click to expand...

Given you have no evidence then, which you admit, why are you dismissing the R.A.F.'s official line and slating the BBC for reporting it? What are you basing this on if not evidence? Is it a gut feeling you have? Or do you have some other agenda which you haven't mentioned yet?
 
Sliver said:
Given you have no evidence then, which you admit, why are you dismissing the R.A.F.'s official line and slating the BBC for reporting it? What are you basing this on if not evidence? Is it a gut feeling you have? Or do you have some other agenda which you haven't mentioned yet?
Click to expand...

Am I dismissing it or am I just questioning it?
 
Bluntwrapped said:
Am I dismissing it or am I just questioning it?
Click to expand...

From your responses in this thread I would say both. I'm a sceptic so I understand the argument from authority fallacy, however I don't see how myself, Gilly or anyone else here has fallen into that trap. The R.A.F. has the information as they are out there doing the job. The BBC has access to journalists on the ground out there, and still no reports of civilian casualties in Iraq from R.A.F. bombings, so it's only reasonable to accept the official line. What is unreasonable is to dismiss this account based on nothing more than a gut feeling, which is exactly what you are doing.
 
Dis86 said:
The one that you've neglected to answer and instead attempted a mis-direction by asking another question.
Click to expand...

I haven't intentionally misdirected anything, so that's wrong. If you can fill me in I will be happy to answer.

Edit: Time to head home from work. Just before someone attempts to take satisfaction from a long delayed reply.

In fact, now what I think about it I really have better things do with my Friday evening than sit here waiting to make a point.
 
Last edited:
Bluntwrapped said:
I haven't intentionally misdirected anything, so that's wrong. If you can fill me in I will be happy to answer.
Click to expand...

Sliver said:
From your responses in this thread I would say both. I'm a sceptic so I understand the argument from authority fallacy, however I don't see how myself, Gilly or anyone else here has fallen into that trap. The R.A.F. has the information as they are out there doing the job. The BBC has access to journalists on the ground out there, and still no reports of civilian casualties in Iraq from R.A.F. bombings, so it's only reasonable to accept the official line. What is unreasonable is to dismiss this account based on nothing more than a gut feeling, which is exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...
 
Time for one last quick reply..

"What is unreasonable is to dismiss this account based on nothing more than a gut feeling, which is exactly what you are doing."

Isn't that a bit of an assumption?

Did I not ask before - am I dismissing the account or questioning it?
 
Take the discussion away from 'you can't trust the RAF or BBC, they might be lying to you' for a moment and consider it from the other perspective.

There are PLENTY of people in the region who would get absolutely monumental mileage out of being able to show the UK were blowing up innocent civilians in Iraq. Plenty. If the statistics were really that debatable, those groups would have been shouting from the rooftops about any and every death they could pin on our forces.

The fact that just doesn't seem to be out there, in my view only serves to reinforce the idea that the RAF statistics are probably correct.

Let's be clear here, this is not carpet bombing entire cities, it's carrying out specific precision strikes against intelligence led targets. Risk to civilians is about as minimal as you'll ever get in a theatre of conflict.

As for 'the BBC wouldn't tell you', given people in this thread were posting links last night to our media doing just that, in a misguided attempt to prove the stat wrong by looking at foot soldiers in Afghanistan. The stories do get out there when our military screw up, it's hard to keep secrets these days.
 
Kenai said:
Take the discussion away from 'you can't trust the RAF or BBC, they might be lying to you' for a moment and consider it from the other perspective.

There are PLENTY of people in the region who would get absolutely monumental mileage out of being able to show the UK were blowing up innocent civilians in Iraq. Plenty. If the statistics were really that debatable, those groups would have been shouting from the rooftops about any and every death they could pin on our forces.

The fact that just doesn't seem to be out there, in my view only serves to reinforce the idea that the RAF statistics are probably correct.

Let's be clear here, this is not carpet bombing entire cities, it's carrying out specific precision strikes against intelligence led targets. Risk to civilians is about as minimal as you'll ever get in a theatre of conflict.

As for 'the BBC wouldn't tell you', given people in this thread were posting links last night to our media doing just that, in a misguided attempt to prove the stat wrong by looking at foot soldiers in Afghanistan. The stories do get out there when our military screw up, it's hard to keep secrets these days.
Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable position to me,

Some of the people against bombing, seem to endlessly make the case that each time the planes take off, they empty a B52 Stratofortress full of cluster bombs onto a hospital..

Bearing in mind, with the sort of targeting pods that modern aircraft carry - they can see pretty much anything, in any weather condition from any height, I doubt an RAF pilot would release a weapon unless he was sure it was going to be a clean and safe kill, on a target that had been scouted and verified.
 
Without trawling through all the pages in this thread I think it's disgusting that Cameron decides to launch an attack on Syria with missiles on fighter jets costing £100,000 a pop.

Then he has the brass neck to stand and say how we need to reduce the deficit and get more people into work whilst cutting benefits left right and centre for those who actually need them.

I've had a few beers here so be gentle but I can't be the only one to think this? Yes what happened in France was terrible and the UK should stand up against it, but now we hear talk of another 'prolonged' campaign.

Bit of a joke when reliance on food banks in this country is higher than ever...

Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom