Forum menu
No you only target the bad people.
The Russians are targeting good people???!!!
Bastards.
Its pretty obvious that any bombing campaign will involve "collateral" damage and will lead to innocent lives [being lost]
But so will not bombing.
You don't just fit a new weapon to a plane by strapping it to the outside, it will need integrating with the avionics, testing etc. etc.
I am of course aware of that - our American friends don't just lease us nuclear warheads (which I would class as Very special bombs), we get the whole kit including servicing and a technical inquires contract.
Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.
But so will not bombing.
Why haven't the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?
Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.
Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.
If everyone had special bombs, there would be no reason for us to join in on a jolly rollicking war, what!!
Keeps the shareholders happy too, doncha know
Why haven't the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.
What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?
I say we do both.
The Russians are targeting good people???!!!
Bastards.
No, the Russians are bombing targets requested by assads forces who we know not causing collateral damage to and killing the civilian population is high on their priority list, not.
Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.
What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?
Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can't recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS's supply chain...
and they are infallible dont forget that bit
and they are infallible dont forget that bit
No they are not, but they are not going in gung Ho randomly dropping as many bombs as possible for the sake of dropping bombs.
In Iraq it is not uncommon for our bombers to come back complete with all there bombs due to no legitimate targets.
Were determined.
ah its skill that means they dont kill any civilians yes that will be it skill and self restraint 😕
I dont know why you are posting this shite tbh and whilst I can accept they try not to any bombing campaign will have collateral damage, its not even debatable, and to argue otherwise is foolish as you so persistently demonstrate.
That said your [blind]faith in their brilliance is touching.
Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.
Not according to the French.
According to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.
[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1588894/russia-and-france-to-join-forces-against-is ]Russia And France To Join Forces Against IS[/url]
[i]Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to set up a joint military operation with France to combat Islamic State.[/i]
[url= http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-russia-exchange-intelligence-syria-bombing-campaigns-n470116 ]France's Hollande, Russia's Putin Agree to Closer Anti-ISIS Collaboration[/url]
[i]French President Francois Hollande and Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS, raising hope for closer ties between Moscow and the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition following the Paris terror attacks[/i]
you really are a bit special.:D
Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they've voted against it.
Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can't recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS's supply chain...
Perhaps that's because it doesn't require a parliamentary vote? (Well, technically neither do airstrikes, although it has become an accepted convention)
You appear to have fallen into the logical fallacy that a lack of debate or media coverage means we're not doing it - sometimes these things take place in the shadows, things that the politicians and media don't (or can't) discuss for very good reasons (shock, horror)
Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they've voted against it.
What is their reasoning behind that decision?
you tube links and the queen told them to do this 😉
I was thinking more along the lines of increasing radicalization through collateral damage, escalation of engagement and exacerbating the refugee crisis...
Could they be likely factors?
They concluded...
We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise. There was consensus among our witnesses that the UK should use its diplomatic weight to exert pressure on the parties in the conflict, and their international sponsors. We note that many more of our witnesses called on the UK to lead a renewed diplomatic initiative rather than conduct airstrikes. Several considered that the Russian intervention had opened up a new opportunity to bring parties to the negotiating table. This appears to be happening now, and we note talks in Vienna on 30 October 2015 which now include Iran.The Foreign Secretary told us that to relent in its pressure on Assad would act as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIL. We are not persuaded that talks involving all parties would be any more of an incentive for people to join ISIL than allowing the continuation of the chaos and conflict.
And that...
we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent.
What is their reasoning behind that decision?
It was on the news just now, there was a soundbite, not sure if much will be online yet, I think the gist of the soundbite was along the lines of they don't agree with the reasons put forward by Cameron. Possible signs of intelligence in government, who'd have thunk it?!
^ ah there you go
chip - Memberyou really are a bit special.:D
So [i]"French President Francois Hollande and Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS",[/i] according to NBC News, contradicting your claim that the French are using their own intelligence and selecting their own targets, and that makes me "a bit special"?
Excellent.
For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)
according to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.
It does not say that, it says they have had a conversation agreeing to a joint military operation with France, Which would make sense to share Intel, does not mean the french will start bombing on assads say so or the Russians will stop.
For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)
Surely you mean "why we should bomb [i]bad[/i] people?"
We would only bomb bad people.
Apparently.
chip - Member
you really are a bit special.:D
I was referring to junkyard rudeness and way he talks to people who do not share his opinion.
You mean I'm not a bit special after all ?
and he does not find you rude so crack on 😀
Chip any bombing campaign will include collateral damage. This is not an opinion its just a fact. Its not rude to point this out is just sense.
I dont mind different opinions I just object to ones that are obviously factually incorrect like yours.
PS it was very charming insult you used that gave another lovely insight into the kind of person you are.
Will you call me a mong for this reply?
You mean I'm not a bit special after all ?
Sorry to break it to like this, but I think it's better you know.
I was in Cromwells bedroom at the house that hosts my cross race today. Now considering he had a fairly large part in how our current parliament works, it was gloomy to learn that his family motto is 'Peace is sought through war'.
Why was my response to junkyards insulting post pulled.
When Yunki told someone to get into the sea and called them a turd or insulted my long suffering mum that never got pulled
I would not call you a Mong no.
I explained my self once only to have it pulled so it would be pointless do it again.
Read my post how has it insulted you?
It has simply said you were factually wrong to claim there is no collateral damage from bombs from the French air bombing campaign;it will include collateral damage as they are blunt instruments.
Wowsers...
Is this true? Stay classy Dave, you stay classy.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Explains some of the STW right wing nutjobs' opinions here though.
PS it was very charming insult you used that gave another lovely insight into the kind of person you are.
Will you call me a mong for this reply
Hmm, is observing a silence in honour of eight terrorists who were caught in the act whilst trying to blow up a police station not an expression of 'sympathy' then?
Like I said, it does explain a lot of stuff. Thanks for helping further.
1. I think you have confused derision with insulting.
2. As it was a reply to you having called me special I dont think you can play the "offended by insulting " card as it was pretty tame compared to your post.
Anyway clearly I have upset so I will withdraw but the point remains the French bombing will have collateral damage its inevitable and this is a bit sad.
.
Yes but if you walk away ISIS are going to kill innocents anyways and as for collateral damage this was reported in the Guardian
“The number of civilian casualties from Russian bombardment is far higher than the number caused by American and French airstrikes,” said Wael Aleji, spokesman for the Syrian Network for Human Rights.
Even the Guardian note that air strikes have been effective in pushing back ISIS and limiting ISIS effectiveness.
Darcy removed his nutjob comment. 😀
Don't worry Darcy I would not accuse you of possibly calling me a Mong based on that.
If you had read my post that was pulled you would have read my explanation for calling you special.
Hmm, is observing a silence in honour of eight terrorists who were caught in the act whilst trying to blow up a police station not an expression of 'sympathy' then?
Idk it might be. Which police station are we talking about?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-many-moderate-ground-troops-are-there-in-syria-and-are-they-strong-enough-to-defeat-isis-a6756226.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-many-moderate-ground-troops-are-there-in-syria-and-are-they-strong-enough-to-defeat-isis-a6756226.html[/url]
Interesting piece in the Independent regarding 70,000 local ground troops.
I cannot see what difference we can make to mobilizing these 70,000 to fight as a coherent army against ISIS considering:-
1) We don't really know who they are.
2) We are not in dialogue with them.
3) They are so spread out.
4) They are as engaged in a struggle against Assad as ISIS
5) Having coherent strategy with them will surely cause friction with Russia.
6) They have little or no training
I don't know how we can consider this with out any of the problems above being dealt with.
Coalition seems to HOPE that ISIS can be bombed into a weak position and then apparently good guys will step in to finish them off and fill the void.
Effectively an American drive to create a coherent local ground force resulted in 4 recruits!
Remember how Western allies were covertly aiding moderate Syrian Rebels to topple Assad a few years back, before ISIS was ever mentioned...
@Konabunny, he's referring to the Loughall Ambush. And, being Ninfan, is ignoring that the silence referred to was for the [i]9[/i] men killed by the SAS- yes, 8 IRA members, and also an innocent bystander who they shot 15 times, without warning. (and his brother, who was shot 14 times but survived- though never received so much as an apology). A fine example of the clear black-and-white, goodies-and-baddies nature of terrorism and the cautious restraint of our armed forces while dealing with terrorists
(This throws back slightly to the "shoot to kill" thing of a couple of weeks back- the story of Loughall, the ambush, and the subsequent investigation is pretty fascinating. Be interesting what the new inquest comes up with)
Ah, so Jezza was honouring a minutes silence for the innocent bloke (who unfortunately turned up at the same time as the ASU) was he?
Darcy you used the term "right wing nutjobs" which does not offend me, but you or someone chose to remove it.
If you say otherwise, I know you are a liar.