daz2202 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Just seen on the news. I know if you are a spy for your countries intelligence then you would know the risks. But. This just ain't cricket. Where do we go from here. Do we keep bombing, keep fighting, nuke the whole of the Middle East or we do just shut down our borders and get our guys out of there and just let them get on with there own lives and hope they don't bother us any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Just seen on the news. I know if you are a spy for your countries intelligence then you would know the risks. But. This just ain't cricket. Where do we go from here. Do we keep bombing, keep fighting, nuke the whole of the Middle East or we do just shut down our borders and get our guys out of there and just let them get on with there own lives and hope they don't bother us any more. Gets my vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Option number two is the answer. It might not be what i would choose, but it is what will happen. Perpetual war, is very lucrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 British spies or someone spying for the british? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samboy Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Nuke them. It stopped Japan. While we pussy foot around with them we are getting nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 This will cause a conundrum for some. Five men of middle eastern appearance ? thought we didn't want them here ? I doubt they were British spies. Providing info maybe but ISIL are hardly the bastion of truth. Who ever the were RIP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Nuke who ? Japan was a far easier target - it was one country and one easily identified target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) Nuke them. It stopped Japan. While we pussy foot around with them we are getting nowhere. Nukes are indiscriminate, they really are a last resort and not even defence as such because once one gets thrown up it won't end there because they will unleash hell as well. Pakistan and India have nukes, if they see the West using them against others in their continent they will know for sure that they will also eventually use them against them and will react in kind. I have no doubt every country has such final solution contingency plans. Also worth remembering is that the fallout form nukes will damage many countries and continents, China and Russia may well not keep quiet. Edited January 3, 2016 by Hamster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 The 'answer' has to be a mixture of diplomacy, tolerance, compromise and force and hope that we can do something that gives us a reasonable period of calm and stability. Neither sticking our head in the sand and hoping it goes away or continuing to rain blows without a strategic plan will achieve any sort of lasting solution, to my way of thinking at least. As for a suggestion of using nukes, if you agree with that then please don't ever vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz2202 Posted January 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 This will cause a conundrum for some. Five men of middle eastern appearance ? thought we didn't want them here ? I doubt they were British spies. Providing info maybe but ISIL are hardly the bastion of truth. Who ever the were RIP. I see what your saying. But we must have intelligence on the ground somewhere otherwise we wouldn't be bombing the correct places. There would be no point in sending IC1 male spies into afghan etc. They may stick out some what. Imagine Ginger Chris Evans trying to look inconspicuous. (Actually lets send him) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 (Actually lets send him) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 According to the news ****esis have killed 5 localish men, whether they were spies or not is impossible to know but I know I wouldn't believe a word of what these animals say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 "Now I am become death, the destroyer of world's". I don't think we should use nukes. There are better ways. They may be a necessary deterrent of mtutally assured destruction, but that's where they belong. If war is needed, then I am afraid conventional and covert methods should be the order of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterford103 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 They were probably nothing of the sort , my guess is they were deserters from isis who had had enough and were trying to leave , they would be tortured to say anythingon video and we happened to be top of isis hate list that day , move on - nothing to see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 They were (according to ISIS) spies working on behalf of British intelligence - so local people or ISIS fighters being run as agents. These arent, by far, the first alleged "spies" ISIS has executed as they become more and more paranoid about infiltration. No doubt they intend it to be a show of strength but it arguably shows that cracks are starting to show. Here's hoping so, as internal division will fix them a lot quicker than military intervention, as happened to them once before in western Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 They were (according to ISIS) spies working on behalf of British intelligence - so local people or ISIS fighters being run as agents. These arent, by far, the first alleged "spies" ISIS has executed as they become more and more paranoid about infiltration. No doubt they intend it to be a show of strength but it arguably shows that cracks are starting to show. Here's hoping so, as internal division will fix them a lot quicker than military intervention, as happened to them once before in western Iraq. PRESS RELEASE As MI6 we have about 5-6000 spies working for us who are active members of ISIS. America has about the same. We send people over every few weeks.... some even make the news to add to the cover.... Drs, whole families who have answered the call these are all Spies - the aim is that in every ISIS unit you are never sleeping more than 3 people away from a Western Spy ready to call in an Airstrike or feed back all your information and we are not far off this now The only solution is to kill everyone in your ISIS unit incase they get you first - But maybe it is you who is the Western Spy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 PRESS RELEASE As MI6 we have about 5-6000 spies working for us who are active members of ISIS. America has about the same. We send people over every few weeks.... some even make the news to add to the cover.... Drs, whole families who have answered the call these are all Spies - the aim is that in every ISIS unit you are never sleeping more than 3 people away from a Western Spy ready to call in an Airstrike or feed back all your information and we are not far off this now The only solution is to kill everyone in your ISIS unit incase they get you first - But maybe it is you who is the Western Spy? Sorry but that sounds insane but I like it. That is actually insanely clever let the ******* think they're all sharing dens with spies so they kill one another in reprisal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 The 'answer' has to be a mixture of diplomacy, tolerance, compromise and force and hope that we can do something that gives us a reasonable period of calm and stability. Neither sticking our head in the sand and hoping it goes away or continuing to rain blows without a strategic plan will achieve any sort of lasting solution, to my way of thinking at least. As for a suggestion of using nukes, if you agree with that then please don't ever vote. All of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 I wish people on here would stop going on about ' nuking ' the 'whole ' of the middle east. It doesnt look good on a public forum,and makes us look like knuckle draggers. Detonating even a small nuke anywhere,causes radioactive pollution for the whole of the world. Collateral damage to infrastructure and civilians,and more refugees coming our way. If the western powers,and Russia cant contain IS with airstrikes and logistical containment,then Im afraid then its a pretty poor show,or there are agendas we can only guess at. Burning an oil producing region with nukes is like using a JCB to squash an ant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Maybe the airstrikes should be aimed at the countries buying ISIS controlled oil? Those who allegedly support ISIS financially? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Maybe the airstrikes should be aimed at the countries buying ISIS controlled oil? Those who allegedly support ISIS financially? Now we're warming up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Maybe the airstrikes should be aimed at the countries buying ISIS controlled oil? Those who allegedly support ISIS financially? You mean those 'allies' of ours ? Thats what I meant by logistical containment . And I dont think there is much 'allegedly' about it, they do support IS directly or indirectly with money,weapons and intel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 I think we should send Blair in to sort it all out, after all he was the middle east peace convoy wasn't he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 I think we should send Blair in to sort it all out, after all he was the middle east peace convoy wasn't he If we had a whip round I'm sure him and Cherie would go; they'd do owt for money. I'd gladly chip in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 If we had a whip round I'm sure him and Cherie would go; they'd do owt for money. I'd gladly chip in. No need for a whip round, just say there is a business deal in there somewhere ....... Job Jobbed. WMD, Max Distrust I think it meant....but lost on what the "W" stood for...... Westerner maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.