Jump to content

Air Strikes in Syria


ph5172
 Share

Air Strikes in Syria  

189 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we commence Air Strikes Inside Syria?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If our learned Politicians wish to protect their people then we must have strong border controls and a strong deportation process. I would suggest Cameron desists from sticking his incompetent nose into Syria and concentrates on securing our own borders, we will only add confusion especially when his targets may well not be ISIS. There are more than enough people bombing Syria causing an exodus of terrorists into Europe where amazingly despite the Paris attacks borders are still wide open. The current state of affairs shows the mind boggling incompetence of Western Politicians en masse. America is still arming terrorists even after Paris, the Anti Aircraft missile used to shoot the Russian Helicopter was supplied by the US after Paris, the EU trying to fast track Turkeys membership giving free movement to 75 million Muslims you couldn't begin to make it up. How long before major civil disorder across Europe.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1597629/syria-airstrikes-debate-exposes-campaigns-flaw

Edited by JRDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our learned Politicians wish to protect their people then we must have strong border controls and a strong deportation process. I would suggest Cameron desists from sticking his incompetent nose into Syria and concentrates on securing our own borders, we will only add confusion especially when his targets may well not be ISIS. There are more than enough people bombing Syria causing an exodus of terrorists into Europe where amazingly despite the Paris attacks borders are still wide open. The current state of affairs shows the mind boggling incompetence of Western Politicians en masse. America is still arming terrorists even after Paris, the Anti Aircraft missile used to shoot the Russian Helicopter was supplied by the US after Paris, the EU trying to fast track Turkeys membership giving free movement to 75 million Muslims you couldn't begin to make it up. How long before major civil disorder across Europe.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1597629/syria-airstrikes-debate-exposes-campaigns-flaw

This thread is about people's views on the air strikes within Syria - there have been quite a few threads on the internal threat and immigration lately so please lets stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are at war with isis...............its the only way we can put pressure on them and weaken them.........whatever we do in uk or europe ...it will usually be wrong and subject to "human rights"....and lawyers saying ..."you cant do this....cant do that....."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians and now the French are at war with them, the Russians are flying hundreds of sorties a day and the other week the yanks were averaging 7 a day probably bombing empty desert. I believe the US and probably the UK are just going through the motions of being seen to be doing something, the US and probably Britain are still arming ISIS even if through indirect means. The Russians have done more in a few weeks than Western powers in the whole fight against them which given the US military budget speaks volumes. Look at the graph and see who has actually been trying.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing operations in Syria will have no other target but Syrian Army positions. I think there is an awful lot of hypocrisy in the 'war on IS' as it has been noted. The geopolitical games in the region are so complicated and tangled up, with so many conflicting interests, it is ridiculous. One of the biggest problems in the region is the intentions of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and a couple more of Syria's neighbours, and the complicated relationships these countries have with 'Murika and other western countries. Add to the mix Russia, Iran and you have a very very sticky situation.

 

As someone wrote earlier, bombing did not work in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I would argue it had devastated effects in the stability of the region, killed unimaginable numbers of civilians in these countries (and still does, by the way), wasted an awful lot of European money, led to the inevitable presence of European troops there and the subsequent loss of life, and gave the lunatics of IS and Al Quada ground to continue their rhetoric about crusades etc.

 

Adding to this the distinct possibility that Britain, who is not exactly these maniacs' favourite country anyway, will once again come to the forefront and make us all targets.

 

So no, do not bomb Syria. If you want to do something and really influence things, make sure your 'allies' Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the rest of 'democratic friends' in the region stop profiteering from this so called 'war on IS' (it is known Turkey is buying the IS oil) and attack the ethnic and religious minorities they do not like (Yazidi, Kurds, Christians etc).

 

As someone put it nicely when bliar and dubya conned us into bombing Iraq a while ago, 'Bombing for peace is like ******* for virginity'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are at war with isis...............its the only way we can put pressure on them and weaken them.........whatever we do in uk or europe ...it will usually be wrong and subject to "human rights"....and lawyers saying ..."you cant do this....cant do that....."

Not Isis. We are at war with the people that REALLY run the plannet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too feel that further bombing without planning for the hoped outcome will only increase the chances that the UK will be targeted.

 

Time to bring our military back to within our borders and defend them strongly.

 

Since the 2nd WW all the relatively small actions that the UK has been involved in and the bigger conflicts that the USA has undertaken have faild with the exception of the Falklands war.

Absolutely IMHO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rewulf i posted this picture in an earlier thread but the opinion was that the place was left alone so the west would have somewhere to listen in on !

 

Ha! its more likely American and Israeli intelligence have an office there.

 

I still struggle to comprehend how so few terrorists,rebels whatever they are,manage to control these cities.

If they are so bad to the populace,why dont the locals take them on?

Mosul, a city of some 2.5 million people of Kurd,Yazidi,Turkic and Arab ethnic groups and both main Islamic faiths completely controlled by daesh.

They cant all be IS sympathizers ,how many armed men to control even half of them ,20-30 000 at least,and dont forget the populace over there are frequently armed with military spec firearms.

 

The Iraqi army with supposed full western backing cant gain ground from them.

Something isnt right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The West created and armed ISIS and supports them in their proxy war against Assad / Iran, I don't believe for one minute Camerons intented targets are any other than Assads forces. He supports 75 more million Muslins having free movement in Europe, a move which could destroy our country. Cameron is a traitor, don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth.

well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure I know enough about the subject to comment, but bearing in mind how long the current five (?) nations have been bombing and what it has achieved, I'm not sure how another...us, will make any real difference.

It is claimed bombing will make the UK safer, but it didn't exactly pan out like that for the French. There again, what is the alternative? These scum need wiping out and if that is the ultimate objective then it's going to take ground troops I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this interview with John Pilger a couple of days ago. As journalists go he's well respected as a war correspondent having covered Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea amongst other conflicts in Asia and the Middle East. He's a bit of a ******* leftie, so not really my bag normally...but I think he sums up the situation pretty well in this instance (and it saves me having to type out a massively long post) :good:

 

Oh, and David Cameron is definitely a lying, deceitful, treacherous ****** :yes:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_XwwMokHg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure I know enough about the subject to comment, but bearing in mind how long the current five (?) nations have been bombing and what it has achieved, I'm not sure how another...us, will make any real difference.

It is claimed bombing will make the UK safer, but it didn't exactly pan out like that for the French. There again, what is the alternative? These scum need wiping out and if that is the ultimate objective then it's going to take ground troops I'm afraid.

Your post is similar to mine, I honestly don't expect UK involvement in a bombing campaign in Syria to make an appreciable difference on the ground, I now think it is much more of a political issue and also a statement to Daesh and their aspirant supporters.

 

The reason that we have not engaged in Syria is because the government was uncertain that they could secure a vote in support, this was something of a publicity boon to Daesh with an inference, albeit perhaps an inaccurate one, that the UK was giving a tacit approval to their (Daesh) holding territory in Syria because we were not bombing them.

 

Not so many years ago the UK was heavily criticised for their tolerance towards known terrorist sympathisers from the Middle East, Caucasus and the various 'Stans. London was mockingly called Londonistan in the international community.

 

Depressingly GB carries a heavy burden go self imposed guilt for her colonial past and, in our typical way, in order to avoid stirring up historical grievances and sensitivities we sit on the fence.

 

GB is a major part of NATO and despite the thoughts of many of the naysayers on here we are still a major global influence. Almost all of our significant allies have been engaged whilst we stand on the sidelines wringing our hands.

 

There does have to be a solution beyond an airborne military campaign and that has to become visible very soon and it has to be a multinational effort.

 

For those that believe that we now set ourselves up to be more of a target, we always were a target, we embody and epitomise everything that the savage and perverted idealism within Daesh hate, we are the global voice of liberty, justice, democracy and decency.

 

I do believe that we have made significant mistakes in that region, but we cannot allow ourselves to be rendered impotent because of guilt from the mistakes gone before. We absolutely must try to learn from those, but standing on the sidelines watching our key allies engage and somehow thinking that absolves us from making a choice or somehow being responsible is foolhardy and naive.

 

We either choose to stand against Daesh and show the world what that means by striking them, in addition to a parallel stream of economic and diplomatic activities, or we accept them and everything they stand for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this interview with John Pilger a couple of days ago. As journalists go he's well respected as a war correspondent having covered Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea amongst other conflicts in Asia and the Middle East. He's a bit of a ******* leftie, so not really my bag normally...but I think he sums up the situation pretty well in this instance (and it saves me having to type out a massively long post) :good:

 

Oh, and David Cameron is definitely a lying, deceitful, treacherous ****** :yes:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_XwwMokHg

 

Anything on "RT" has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt !!

 

I rate journalists lower than politicians they are all biased with their own agenda .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are we still going to bomb IS as well as try to take down Assad and fight Assad's Russian backed 'terrorists' and carry on supplying our own 'terrorists' (sorry, freedom fighters) who will then turn our weapons against us if history tells us anything?

And, of course, expect the thousands of Syrian civilians who are going to be killed in the process to say "Thank you GB"?

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1598113/assad-coalition-airstrikes-made-is-stronger

 

Gawd 'elp us is all I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...