Forum menu
the planning and decision making cycle that leads to weapons release
I like that. "Weapons release" sounds so much nicer than bombing.
Might not be a bomb, hence umbrella term.
[quote=bencooper said]dragon, you mean the bit where it says "The use of high precision Paveway bombs, rather than the Brimstone missile, suggests they were hitting static rather than moving targets."
Oil refineries aren't known for being fast-moving, yes. Do the Paveway 500lb high explosive bombs wait for anything that can move to get out of the way before they explode?
Or do they just blow up, incinerating anyone who happens to be in the large blast radius?
Oil refineries don't tend to be in densely populated urban areas and are quite large I believe.
dragon, you mean the bit where it says "The use of high precision Paveway bombs, rather than the Brimstone missile, suggests they were hitting static rather than moving targets."
Oil refineries aren't known for being fast-moving, yes. Do the Paveway 500lb high explosive bombs wait for anything that can move to get out of the way before they explode?
Or do they just blow up, incinerating anyone who happens to be in the large blast radius?
Ben, like they said, Brimstone can track a moving target, and Paveway has a bigger payload, yes. Weapons are chosen as a best fit for the target. No, the bomb doesn't discriminate, but the operator does.
Sorry to talk about RoE and targeting again, but words like carpet bombing in this thread show a lot of ignorance of same. Lots of posters should consider whether their picture of how the planning and decision making cycle that leads to weapons release is the product of actual knowledge or their own biases and preconceptions.
That's a fair point and I agree. But you should also apply the same rules when trying to present the killing of civilians as such a civilised, sanitised and good minded process.
The statistics suggest it's a bloody mess:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff
Might not be a bomb, hence umbrella term.
OK, "weapons release" sounds nicer than airstrikes.
I reckon that if the House of Commons had voted on "weapons release over Syria" they might have got one or two extra votes in favour.
Oil refineries don't tend to be in densely populated urban areas and are quite large I believe.
Also have quite a lot of non-combatants working at them. Refinery accidents are often pretty serious, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to blow one up without killing or injuring quite a few people. Especially using 500lb bombs.
If the government just had the guts to say "we're going after infrastructure targets, which may well do more harm than good to the Syrian population, but it might stop ISIS attacking the UK" then I'd respect that position a bit more.
That's the real reason we're bombing ISIS and not Assad, even though Assad has killed many more people than ISIS and it's Assad that most Syrian refugees are fleeing.
Also have quite a lot of non-combatants working at them. Refinery accidents are often pretty serious, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to blow one up without killing or injuring quite a few people. Especially using 500lb bombs
Not if you blow up the electricity substation that feeds it.
So do these 500lb 'Smart' bombs conduct a quick survey of the potential victims attitude to Islam, to ascertain whether they think it is:
a) A religion of Peace
or
b) DIE INFIDEL PIG!!
before detonating then? Or is that just the Sooper Doooper missiles we've got?
No, we just avoid targetting football stadiums and death metal concerts.
So do these 500lb 'Smart' bombs conduct a quick survey of the potential victims attitude to Islam, to ascertain whether they think it is:
a) A religion of Peace
or
b) DIE INFIDEL PIG!!
before detonating then? Or is that just the Sooper Doooper missiles we've got?
No.
Not if you blow up the electricity substation that feeds it.
It's probably safer to do it after it's been destroyed by the Russians
It might upset the Turkish government though.
How many people here reckon they could just truck up to an oil refinery and make the place work? The skills to keep those places running is beyond the warlords and the ihadists. They are kept going by a captured forced workforce terrified and just trying, hoping to make it out the other side.
But hey they won't have anything to fear once they are dead, and we c an easily label them terrorists and sympathisers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Much easier than doing something about the money trail, that might lead to western oil companies and pretend allies, don't want to annoy them when they are so generous at election time.
They are kept going by a captured forced workforce terrified and just trying, hoping to make it out the other side.
Considering how much success ISIS has enjoyed in the last year or so it surprises me how many people still seem to struggle with the concept that quite a few people in the occupied territories might be supportive, sympathetic, or even tolerant, of ISIS.
It is perfectly feasible that many people willingly collaborate with ISIS, and some even join them.
Was it an oil refinery? The quote I saw from Michael Fallon was that they hit the Omar oilfield and wellheads, which is very different and almost certainly just a load of stuff in the desert.
It is perfectly feasible that many people willingly collaborate with ISIS, and some even join them.
Yes 'willing collaboration' may also be a bit of an interesting nomenclature when the alternatives presented are so creatively invented
ernie_lynchConsidering how much success ISIS has enjoyed in the last year or so it surprises me how many people still seem to struggle with the concept that quite a few people in the occupied territories might be supportive, sympathetic, or even tolerant, of ISIS.
It is perfectly feasible that many people willingly collaborate with ISIS, and some even join them.
I can only speculate, but I imagine when you're living somewhere that is basically a perpetual warzone any group that looks like "winning" and establishing some kind of stability would be preferable to open warfare. They're not monsters or demons, just men. Some of whom do monstrous things.
I think that was much, if not the overwhelming, appeal of the Taliban in Afghanistan jimjam.
For a war-weary people sick of decades of fighting and killing the Taliban brought a harsh life but one relatively free of constant fighting.
A world where you shoot a school girl in the head for going to school.
Harsh?
The Afghan Mujahideen which we supported, financed, armed, and trained, had exactly the same attitude to female education.
Use whatever adjective you wish to describe that world.
[i]A world where you shoot a school girl in the head for going to school.
Harsh? [/i]
It's old news, but relevant...
chip - MemberA world where you shoot a school girl in the head for going to school.
Harsh?
Well, that was ****stan, relatively stable by comparison. It's not harsh, it's abhorrent and the school of thought that rationalises it has to be destroyed. Unfortunately you can bomb and machine gun all the illiterate goat herders and disenfranchised I.T consultants you want and it'll just keep coming back as long as billionaire Saudi princes spread it, and British Prime Ministers ignore it because they are our number one arms customer.
And to be fair, that's how an awful lot of Cameron's 70,000 that are galloping in after [s]ISIS[/s] Colin are done away with, think as well
Public opinion was for bombing according to YouGov - caveat all polls but certainly more representative than this thread.
48% of the UK public was for bombing, according to your own source.
48% of the UK public was for bombing, according to your own source.
As opposed to what percentage that was opposed konabunny?
[img] 
[/img]
Ah, see - following that trend, another two weeks and there would have been clear opposition to bombing amongst the public!
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
So Corbyn was right ....... Cameron couldn't afford to wait any longer for the vote on air strikes as public opinion was clearly turning against it.
Haha - I got it in first, with Ernie usefully confirming my prediction of the leftie response 😆
Before our aircrew conducted their attacks, as is normal they used the aircraft’s advanced sensors to confirm that no civilians were in the proximity of the targets, who might be placed at risk. Our initial analysis of the operation indicates that the strikes were successful.
The above is the last para of the MOD statement on the first strikes.
We have sensors that can tell who is a civilian and who is not?
This seems somewhat unlikely
Haha - I got it in first
Well you really didn't have much choice ninfan......allthepies graph makes it crystal clear that public opinion was turning against air strikes.
The best you could attempt was a ridiculous and embarrassing claim that only "lefties" could interpret it as public opinion was turning against air strikes.
Anyone who isn't a "leftie" wouldn't have noticed the pattern, according to your bizarre logic.
What is a civilian sensor? Or did they ensure there was nobody there, civilian or otherwise, with an IR camera?
What is a civilian sensor? Or did they ensure there was nobody there with an IR camer?
I imagine the latter but I frankly have no idea - just thought I would post it as it seemed relevant - [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-in-iraq ]link here[/url]
Been away for a few days and have missed about 15 pages of posts. Had a quick flick through and don't think the % for / against has changed much since the early posts.
On here, at my place of work (construction involving people from labourers to managing directors)and amongst my friends, the feeling is pretty much the same - an over riding no to bombing.
2:1 in the commons though. Cant really get my head around it. I know there will be glib remarks that say that's what politicians do but i'd like to know what they know that we dont. Maybe we are just standing form with our allies. As has been said, any one of the existing coalition forces could have bombed an oil refinery. Nothing specialist about that.
What is a civilian sensor?
It's that thing which the Yanks switch off when they're attacking hospitals run by Medecins Sans Frontieres.
T think the Gov source may be a wee biased on claims
I like the way they can confirm that no civilians were hurt but not all that certain they hit the thing with same sensors.
...allthepies graph makes it crystal clear that public opinion was turning against air strikes.
It's Comical Ernie - watch out for those tanks 😆
On the Independent website, almost 30000 votes have been cast with 79% voting no.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-vote-do-you-support-british-air-strikes-in-syria-vote-in-our-poll-a6758021.html ]Poll[/url]
Don't you know, those anti-bombing are the ones who shout about it. And those pro are just a bit embarrassed to admit it. Kinda like a lot of Tory voters.
I've just watched the fabled Hilary Benn speach online and to be fair to him he has flair and eloquence in his oratorial style along with composure under such circumstances but from a personal viewpoint i found myself taking an intense dislike to what i heard, it reeked of having been prepared by commitee and rehearsed time & time again till he had it pitch perfect, all far too slick for my liking and reminiscent of Blairs speech before the previous Iraq war.
The polling grapgh is classic 3:1 margin in favour until the vote approaches then a rapid shift to generate some headlines and get some more polls commissioned ?
The anti-war crowd will always be the most vocal, in fact increasingly aggressively so. Not so different from the posting behavioir on STW. Stop the War are really have a most unpleasant mob as part of their number. Today we have senior Labour figures like Andy Burnham and including Corbyn calling for the aggressive trolling and threats to end. Then we have Stop the War's responce.
[i]Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has called for a code of conduct to prevent bullying and intimidation of MPs.
He said social media was "in danger of poisoning our politics" and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had to take a "firm line" on it.
Mr Burnham, who voted against air strikes in Syria, said he was concerned about abuse and threats directed at colleagues who voted for action.
He said people sending such messages "need to have a look at themselves".
Labour MPs have complained about being sent pictures of dead babies by anti-war protesters and being subjected to abusive comments.
'Bad culture'
MPs have also been claimed they have been threatened with attempts to de-select them as Labour candidates by pro-Jeremy Corbyn campaign group Momentum.
Labour MP Ann Coffey said she was sent messages from an email account previously used by Momentum. before Wednesday's vote, branding her a "warmonger" and saying she would have "blood on her hands" if she supported bombing.
Mr Burnham said: "It makes me sad about the current state of the Labour Party that people think they can treat somebody of that long standing and experience in Parliament like Ann in that way."
He added: "There cannot be abuse by members of the Labour Party or supporters of the Labour Party, That isn't the kind of party I want to be in."
He said that he, like all MPs, expected to be held to account for decisions but "do it with respect": "There is a culture creeping in to our politics, social media is in danger of poisoning our politics and putting people off going into it at all, both MPs and at local level.
"I think it's because if you are just sitting with a keyboard you can be more offensive than if you are speaking to somebody face-to-face. It's a bad culture and we need to draw a line under it."
'Whining complaints'
He said talks were under way in the party to draw up a code of conduct to prevent bullying.
Labour MP Chris Bryant, the shadow Commons leader, said some of the abuse "has been beyond the pale" - and some MPs have had their homes surrounded and offices barricaded, and had pictures of severed heads posted through their front door.
MPs expect a "degree of hurly burly" in political life, he said, but "no MP should every be intimidated" and he called for a review of Commons security.[/i]
[b]But Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn, said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who apparently do not like being lobbied.[/b]
Targeting Electricity. You could do this but I suspect the coalition do not as they use mobile phone data to track Daesh, likewise general internet traffic.
Further information today from Hungary that IS attacker on the run had passed through Budapest train station as a refugee and did not want to be registered.
From what I have read there isnt a great electricity supply there anyway. Much of the power comes from generators which run off oil based fuel.
One of the quirks in Syria is that although many people dont like IS, they do rely on them for the oil supply.
So you're absolutely tumescent at our warplanes with all their civilian missing missiles, but you still want to whinge about refugees. Honestly, I know you once excused killing children as justifiable collateral damage, and I've yet to see you stoop so low, but our obligation to take refugees is now stronger than ever as we're adding to the firestorm around them.
(Funnily enough, you weren't as eager to agree to France's demands that we take more refugees as you are chuck some civilian sensing missiles in.)