Forum menu
where next? Blackburn, Bradford, Slough?
Not the first time this has been suggested.......
Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
[i]Sir John Betjeman - 1937[/i]
'I'll tell you now and I'll tell you firmly.
I don't never want to go to Burnley.
What they do there don't concern me.'
John Cooper Clarke.
Belgium has nothing we need.
We can retro engineer Leffe and overly complicated chocolate.
If you like racing road bikes through freezing mud and cowshit, they do that round here too.
And what exactly is the point of Luxembourg?
Pete,
Burnley.
Seemed to do the trick with Jihadi John and those two other British fellas.
😆
True.
The issue though is what they leave behind. Does their death from above deter or attract fighters to an ideology that welcomes martyrdom?
Was that a Vulcan bomber that just flew overhead, or is the deafening whining noise just lefties that still don't understand that democracy means you don't always get your own way?
Were you stood in your Union Jack boxer shorts, saluting a portrait of Winston Churchill, singing God Save the Queen while typing that?
Bloody Commie bastards eh?
😆
Not only are we terrorist sympathisers we're standing in the way of commerce, not letting our arms industry demonstrate it's latest smart bombs with the lowest percent collateral damage feature ever used in modern warfare, guaranteed to almost not kill every civilian they come into contact with.
The [b]pro-bombing people like binary, black and white choices[/b]. Either you bomb, or you do nothing. Either you're on our side, or you're on the side of the terrorists. They don't do nuance, they don't like complex situations.
My observation is that this is true of both "sides".
I'm on the fence - I need a bit more of a justification than "well, we've let the Syrian situation go on since April 2011 and create the associated power vacuum ISIS grew into, but now that Paris has been attacked we must do something". But at the same time we know that these campaigns can have some useful effect.
Belgium has nothing we need.
apart from world-class cyclocross
fear of the [b]boggy[/b] man
which clearly some people are terrified of
I edited my previous post to include weirdos like you before you posted.
😀
2 Toyota Hi-Luxs will be destroyed every day until victory is assured.
So when bombing doesn't work we're going to force them to watch back to back reruns of top gear
Wouldn't it make more sense to start by bombing the mosques in the UK first, that's seems to be where most of our Muslim terrorist problems have stemmed from in the last 10 years?
Note: add 🙂 face
I would view myself probably a little to the right of the political spectrum but I really cant see what bombing Syria or Iraq any further would achieve, eventually you are going to have to put soldiers on the ground, and good luck with that during a civil war where all parties are potentially hostile (even the Kurds).
stewartc - Member
Wouldn't it make more sense to start by bombing the mosques in the UK first, that's seems to be where most of our Muslim terrorist problems have stemmed from in the last 10 years?
The fair thing would be to eradicate all places of worship until we start removing 'religion' there will never be an end to religious wars.
Belgium has nothing we need.
Chimay, Leffe, Tom Boonen, Greg Van Avaerment, Spring Classics...
Eddy Merckx
dragon - MemberThey were attacked by a bunch of Belgians.
Trained in Syria. Go read this Guardian Syria
I'd guess you'll still be in the No camp after reading it, but at least you'll be better informed.
Trained in Syria, but not in easy to bomb isolated training camp in the desert, but among the civilian populations of the urban areas which they occupy, with tunnels to hide in.
The issue though is what they leave behind.
[img] 
[/img]
Bomb the chuffin' bank that is laundering the oil money, the proceeds of sales of looting and where the bullets and RPGs come from.
Follow the money, follow it hard and wherever it comes from and expose the folk along the path it takes. Do not be afraid of losing supposed allies, expose their deeds to the whole world.
And then he can tell us what his plan is to eradicate IS on the ground and leave Syria safe and stable, as bombing won't do either of those things.
This is why it gets a no from me. We have done great work over the past few years destabilising a region and allowing extremism to flourish in the power vacuum we have helped create. If we seek to eradicate one bunch of terrorists without fixing the underlying security issue another lot will turn up, so long as someone is prepared to finance and arm them (and that's not the arms fairy is it?). Do we seriously want to continue throwing billions at this sort of issue in perpetuity? If not we have to go after those who are pulling the strings.
He's lost the argument if he has to resort to calling people terrorist sympathisers. Completely childish, but plays to the gallery (eg the Telegraph etc).
The pro-bombing people like binary, black and white choices. Either you bomb, or you do nothing. Either you're on our side, or you're on the side of the terrorists. They don't do nuance, they don't like complex situations.
I don't think that's true at all, if you listen to Cameron's speech from last week, he was adamant it wasn't a silver bullet, here is snippet of what he actaully said:
[b]“Airstrikes can degrade Isil and arrest its advance, but they alone cannot defeat Isil. We need partners on the ground to do that and we need a political solution to the Syria conflict,” the prime minister says in the memorandum.[/b]
footflaps - Member
He's lost the argument if he has to resort to calling people terrorist sympathisers. Completely childish, but plays to the gallery (eg the Telegraph etc).
True, he'll still get a majority though and lots of lucrative post war contracts to rebuild syria to his mates, thanks also to folk like Hillary Benn who should cross the bloody house. what would his father think of him bet he's spinning in his grave.
So wouldn't it be better to look at how and why a bunch of Belgians decided to go to Syria to train for this?
No it wouldn't be better, it's not an alternative. You have to do both things.
There have been some very interesting points made about radical Belgians in the French media. One of the key ones is lack of integration as whilst most speak French very few if any learn to speak Flemish and as such are outside the core of Belgian society. Points have also been made that the Belgian authorities do not have the rescources to monitor extremism and other issues including the lack of an effective government for some considerable period has contributed. It's a little cliched but what we see in Belgium and elsewhere is second generation immigrants who don't fully understand the poverty and lack of opportunity their parents left behind and perceive their lack of success in the country in which they where born to be "someone else's fault"
No but it'll end very well for the tory party's rich cronies and donors, Theresa May's husband will likely do very well out of it too, even now his company just won a £100million contract in Iraq. War provides these people a huge income for years and years.
Apologies I believe I have been led astray by a bullshit yes post on facebook, appears Theresa May's husband is not actually anything to do with G4S. Still don't mean it's right though!
Seems daft to me bombing in Iraq and not in Syria.
In Iraq our support was requested by the democratically elected government, with troops from the Iraqi army and the Peshmerga doing the necessary ground work.
[quote=the bbc]Leader of the House Baroness Stowell of Beeston sets out the government's case for air strikes on Syria.
Do we go after these terrorists in their heartland, where they are plotting to kill British people, or do we sit back and wait for them for attack us?
How f-ing stupid are these politicians??
Well she has a point - if they haven't got somewhere to plot terrorist attacks how are they going to go about plotting?
I say bomb their plotting places !
jambalaya - MemberThere have been some very interesting points made about radical Belgians in the French media. One of the key ones is lack of integration as whilst most speak French very few if any learn to speak Flemish and as such are outside the core of Belgian society. Points have also been made that the Belgian authorities do not have the rescources to monitor extremism and other issues including the lack of an effective government for some considerable period has contributed. It's a little cliched but what we see in Belgium and elsewhere is second generation immigrants who don't fully understand the poverty and lack of opportunity their parents left behind and perceive their lack of success in the country in which they where born to be "someone else's fault"
Whilst some of Jambalaya's posts are way out there I think this has a big dose of reality.
votchy - Member
if we vote no to bombing in Syria according to the waste of skin that is Cameron. Every time he opens his mouth I despise him more and more, absolute c0ckwomble of the highest order
So we're all ISIL sympathisers...
The answer: Yes, if you vote against.
I say bomb their plotting places !
Plotting sheds?
Yup.
It's where they keep their weapons of grass destruction.
What this thread needs is pictures!!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Bandar Bin Sultan has known Prince Charles since the 1970s, when they were both at RAF Cranwell. He was one of the few foreign dignatories invited to Charles and Camilla's wedding.
[img] 
[/img]
His relationship with Charles dates back way before Tony Blair halted the Serious Fraud Office investigation into [url= http://www.theguardian.com/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html ]the Al Yamamah deal[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
Some videos...
And a couple of mainstream links:
[url= http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/us/zacarias-moussaoui-calls-saudi-princes-patrons-of-al-qaeda.html ]
Moussaoui Calls Saudi Princes Patrons of Al Qaeda[/url]
Both of the other Saudi Princes mentioned besides Bandar Bin Sultan also have close links to the British Monarchy.
[url= http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/the-case-that-the-saudis-did-9-11-explained-1683728623 ]
The case the Saudis did 9/11, explained[/url]
#terroristsympathisers everywhere
[img] 
[/img]
ernie_lynch - Member
Well she has a point - if they haven't got somewhere to plot terrorist attacks how are they going to go about plotting?I say bomb their plotting places !
You want to bomb Random Uk suburbs?
I seem to remember plenty of politcos sucking up to this "terrorist". Bloody sympathisers!In 1961, believing that non-violent measures would not be successful, Mandela and other ANC leaders formed Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), a militant wing of the ANC. Beginning on Dec. 16, 1961, MK, with Mandela as its commander in chief, launched bombing attacks on government targets and made plans for guerilla warfare.
[b]slowoldman[/b] I say bomb their plotting places !
[b]Rusty Spanner[/b] It's where they keep their weapons of grass destruction.
😀 Laughed so much a little bit of wee came out.
I seem to remember plenty of politcos sucking up to this "terrorist". Bloody sympathisers!
That's the problem isn't it. Everyone sympathises with those terrorists whose cause they sympathise with sufficiently. SOE; Lethal Auxiliary Units. I'd be amazed if *anyone* didn't sympathise with a terrorist of some kind from some point in history.
Get them at their plotting places ernie.
West Bromwich it seems.
Based on that we need to bomb them to get rid of their ideas, does that mean that during the NI Troubles we should've just taken the same approach?
Based on that we need to bomb them to get rid of their ideas, does that mean that during the NI Troubles we should've just taken the same approach?
Imagine how quickly the troubles would have been over if the IRA had pick up trucks we could bomb from the air.
Ok, so this will probably get me flamed (and maybe rightly so)… but I can’t help winding this back a bit.
Why exactly is there NOW an imperative to take action? When there wasn’t, say 6 months ago?
Is it because ‘They’ have become more evil? (I don’t think they have). Is it because ‘They’ are on the cusp of suddenly acquiring massively greater killing power (the cynic in me can’t help thinking that someone in the “Bomb them” camp might have mentioned it)? Or is it because They have recently butchered a lot of Westerners in what everyone agrees was a most appalling and utterly incomprehensible atrocity?
Clearly it’s not about the killings of humans per se, as otherwise we’d be going after arms dealers and those with appalling human rights records. Anyone care to Google the number of people killed for socio-political reasons in China, Saudi, etc. vs those killed by ISIS?
So ok, lets assume it’s because 'They' have killed a lot of ‘Our people’ just lately, and are looking to kill a lot more. So how do we save the most people we possibly can? (Sorry, this is beginning to sound like Philosophy 101). And remember the UK is pretty much broke as a country. So given a set amount of money, do we:
A. Bomb the crap out of those targets we’ve identified, wherever there may be a training camp, or an unimportant but high media profile sicko like Jihadi John;
B. Target the recruitment of disaffected British youth by the power hungry sickos who are grooming a conveyor belt of young, manipulate-able 2nd gen British Muslims to die for their faith;
Or C. Spend the money on recruiting more doctors and nurses for the NHS so fewer people are dying on stretchers in hospital corridors? Or I don't know, targeting drunk drivers, domestic abusers, or another other group that are killing more of 'Us' than 'They' are?
For me, A is not the answer. For every legitimate ‘target’ you kill, you’ll probably drive at least one more to take their place. Surely this is basic human nature?
Abhorrent though it sounds, I think maybe people ought to try to put themselves in the shoes of the kind of person who could potentially be manipulated into becoming a future suicide bomber/shooter. Just think about their view of the west, and what might drive them to do this....
Sorry, this is fairly incoherent. It’s late, I’m tired (and the vote has probably happened in the time that it’s taken me to type this anyway).
Just needed to put this out there… If you look back through history, “more bombs” is rarely the answer, whatever the question.
Or is it because They have recently butchered a lot of Westerners in what everyone agrees was a most appalling and utterly incomprehensible atrocity?
You sound surprised that a Westerner's life should be regarded more important than the life of someone living in a godforsaken arab country.
What are you.......some kind of tree-hugging liberal?
If you look back through history, “more bombs” is rarely the answer, whatever the question.
I'm glad you've looked back through history and come to that conclusion, for the right wing nut jobs here, they don't look back at all and bombing is their only answer.
quite.
ETA: Aimed at Ernie... but equally applicable
Why are we using conventional methods to fight an unconventional war?
We have to think outside the box to beat these guys. What do you need to fight a war? Money!!! Money is like water to a plant, take the water away and the plant dies, take the money away and the ability for these guys to fight is gone.
Go after the money men, who is buying the oil, who is doing the banking? Get all Mossad on these people, take them out. Immoral and illegal but when has a government ever shied away from that. That would send one hell of a message.
What we do about Saudi Arabia I haven't a clue, as has been said to many rich powerful people making way to much money out of this conflict.
We have to think outside the box to beat these guys. What do you need to fight a war? Money!!! Money is like water to a plant, take the water away and the plant dies, take the money away and the ability for these guys to fight is gone.
I think you're right and I think they are:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34906011 ]US destroys lots of IS oil trucks[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032 ]RAF target oil well heads[/url]
Why exactly is there NOW an imperative to take action? When there wasn’t, say 6 months ago?
Because our neighbour was hit by them and has asked for help (is the best argument so far).
How would Brits feel if London had been hit like Paris and the French refused to help - is about the most valid argument I've heard.
DaRC_L - Member
Because our neighbour was hit by them and has asked for help (is the best argument so far).
Technically that alone triggers our duty as a member of NATO. Though just means we are obliged to defend other NATO members.