Comment deleted by Site Moderator

And let the UK arms industry lose orders to the French?

Yep, Cameron will certainly go for that!

The war on terror has been an absolute catastrophic disaster since it was pronounced.
-----------------------

This presupposes that there is in fact, a 'war on terror'. There isn't, and never has been, since it was first declared by, I think, Reagan in '81.

There is a war *of terror, largely lead by the US and its lieutenant, the UK, guided and motivated by geo-strategy, geo-politics and economics.

All violent states throughout history have claimed some noble, humanitarian cause as the basis for their policy, and all fall apart upon the most basic scrutiny. The US, UK et al are not different.

Terrorism is winning - *our* terrorism. You are showing the classic signs of someone firmly in the 'we are the good guys,

................

I sincerely hope I do.

I really would not want to display the classic signs of supporting terrorism.

I am quite shocked at how many of you there are on this site to be honest.

You guys realise our bombs helped create this in the first place right?

I would leave well enough alone personally. Let the ME sort itself out

comment by Juan Kerr (U1841)
posted 55 seconds ago
And let the UK arms industry lose orders to the French?

Yep, Cameron will certainly go for that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm
It is big business for sure

comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Daniel F. (U20547)
posted 32 minutes ago
ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria is the target.

Vast bombardments, using B52s, would inevitably mean civilian casualties.

They call it collateral damage and although it will be biblical and it will be a success.

However the media will report it as murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it is murder.

Where in that tiny head of yours do you think that who ever survives the families that are murdered in your war, won't grab an AK47 and attack the London Tube next in retribution?

Or do you expect a human being to watch his/her entire family wiped out with one bomb and then carry on with life as normal, unaffected?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the families of the Tunisian massacre victims?
Is it okay for them to grab an AK47 to target other innocent Muslims? Because that is what you response above is suggesting.

comment by Red_Warrior (U18607)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 52 seconds ago
I would be interested to hear what peoples opinions are as to how we combat terrorism/ war crime, if not by going to war with them?

And I don't mean attacks on only the west, I mean the civil war going on in Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We could start by not arming so called rebel groups against leaders and governments we don't approve of

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then what?

Let IS grow into the next Nazí's? Going around killing all who oppose their religion?

That seems to be where it's heading.

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 23 seconds ago
Bombing from the air won't defeat IS.There is little or no appetite from the West to put boots on the ground though.
===========
You say that - but wiping out Raqqa would cut off their head. They would become broke and hungry fast. There would be a couple of really horrible Terror Ops and then they will die.

Yes yes there will be civilian casualties in Raqqa but the decision will inevitably be made.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Red_Warrior (U18607)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 52 seconds ago
I would be interested to hear what peoples opinions are as to how we combat terrorism/ war crime, if not by going to war with them?

And I don't mean attacks on only the west, I mean the civil war going on in Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We could start by not arming so called rebel groups against leaders and governments we don't approve of

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then what?

Let IS grow into the next Nazí's? Going around killing all who oppose their religion?

That seems to be where it's heading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No chance, when they become a problem, Israel, Turkey and Iran will destroy them.

No need for us to get involved

ISIS are bad.

comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Daniel F. (U20547)
posted 32 minutes ago
ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria is the target.

Vast bombardments, using B52s, would inevitably mean civilian casualties.

They call it collateral damage and although it will be biblical and it will be a success.

However the media will report it as murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it is murder.

Where in that tiny head of yours do you think that who ever survives the families that are murdered in your war, won't grab an AK47 and attack the London Tube next in retribution?

Or do you expect a human being to watch his/her entire family wiped out with one bomb and then carry on with life as normal, unaffected?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the families of the Tunisian massacre victims?
Is it okay for them to grab an AK47 to target other innocent Muslims? Because that is what you response above is suggesting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good question. I do wonder who people on this site would sympathise with a family member of those who died going into an Islamic church with a gun and letting loose.

Of course they would have to sympathise?

We are already active in Iraq, why not Syria?


"Lord Dannatt, the former chief of the defence staff, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Islamic State fighters "have no respect for the borders that currently exist".

"Iraq is Iraq and Syria is Syria to us, but not to them," he added."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

If they start bombing Raqqa do you think IS will just stay there being bombed?
--------------
Most of them are not even there.

But their brains are.

People need to ask themselves the following questions

1) Where are they getting ammo for the weapons they are using
2) Where is the money coming from
3) Who gains from another conflict in the ME?

Think about it

ISIS executes kids just for eating during Ramaddan. Throws ga ys out of tall buildings. Sell Yazidi/Christian girls as se x slaves.
And people are talking about civilian casualties? Are these victims not civilian casualties already?
In every war, there are casualties. Not desirable but it is a reality. If carpet bombing Raqqa would degrade ISIS, then I would go for it. Anyone living in Raqqa now is an assumed supporter of ISIS.

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 22 seconds ago
People need to ask themselves the following questions

1) Where are they getting ammo for the weapons they are using
2) Where is the money coming from
3) Who gains from another conflict in the ME?

Think about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia.

comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 7 seconds ago
ISIS executes kids just for eating during Ramaddan. Throws ga ys out of tall buildings. Sell Yazidi/Christian girls as se x slaves.
And people are talking about civilian casualties? Are these victims not civilian casualties already?
In every war, there are casualties. Not desirable but it is a reality. If carpet bombing Raqqa would degrade ISIS, then I would go for it. Anyone living in Raqqa now is an assumed supporter of ISIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem. It's an imbalanced war as we observe the "rules" of war, which they know and exploit.

comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Red_Warrior (U18607)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 52 seconds ago
I would be interested to hear what peoples opinions are as to how we combat terrorism/ war crime, if not by going to war with them?

And I don't mean attacks on only the west, I mean the civil war going on in Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We could start by not arming so called rebel groups against leaders and governments we don't approve of

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then what?

Let IS grow into the next Nazí's? Going around killing all who oppose their religion?

That seems to be where it's heading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation has gone too extreme now I admit but I only suggested a start
The rebels should never have been armed

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 29 seconds ago
People need to ask themselves the following questions

1) Where are they getting ammo for the weapons they are using
2) Where is the money coming from
3) Who gains from another conflict in the ME?

Think about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) They are now getting ammo from their rich friends in Saudi and co who share their form of Islam.
2) As above I'd imagine
3) In Syria? Certainly not us.

comment by Robben #20 (U1145)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 22 seconds ago
People need to ask themselves the following questions

1) Where are they getting ammo for the weapons they are using
2) Where is the money coming from
3) Who gains from another conflict in the ME?

Think about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, they are supporting Assad along with China and warned us not to get involved. Then we started giving the rebels weapons to fight Assad.

comment by Red_Warrior (U18607)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Red_Warrior (U18607)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 52 seconds ago
I would be interested to hear what peoples opinions are as to how we combat terrorism/ war crime, if not by going to war with them?

And I don't mean attacks on only the west, I mean the civil war going on in Syria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We could start by not arming so called rebel groups against leaders and governments we don't approve of

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then what?

Let IS grow into the next Nazí's? Going around killing all who oppose their religion?

That seems to be where it's heading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation has gone too extreme now I admit but I only suggested a start
The rebels should never have been armed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree there.

comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 29 seconds ago
People need to ask themselves the following questions

1) Where are they getting ammo for the weapons they are using
2) Where is the money coming from
3) Who gains from another conflict in the ME?

Think about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) They are now getting ammo from their rich friends in Saudi and co who share their form of Islam.
2) As above I'd imagine
3) In Syria? Certainly not us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, who should our efforts target then? The rent for war mercenaries ISIS or their sponsors?