PDA

View Full Version : Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.


Pages : [1] 2

Hangarshuffle
29th Nov 2015, 18:46
No.
1 - nil.
Respectfully, keep going below if you want to.
Parliament is voting soon, I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote, compared to the opposite (our UK politicians of all parties).
Free vote, no whip. UK nationals only.

Kitbag
29th Nov 2015, 18:51
Yes, if ground forces from the region are in place to exploit the effect, if not then really the only thing available is a few thermonuclear weapons to eradicate the infection (the equivalent of radical amputation in cases of sepsis).

1-1

smujsmith
29th Nov 2015, 18:52
No, concentrate on the jihadist trash in Iraq. Russia and the French can deal with Syria. Anyone else think that suggestions from the politicians that only by bombing Syria can we play our part ? What a bloody insult to the lads doing the job over Iraq at present.

Smudge

Bob Viking
29th Nov 2015, 19:00
I believe we will.

I also believe we should. Why let a border stop our forces from prosecuting a target?

BV

Pontius Navigator
29th Nov 2015, 19:05
Reluctantly I follow BV. Both or neither, bit like ROE that doesn't allow you to shoot a baddie in the back - now you can, now you can't.

PierreM
29th Nov 2015, 19:07
No.
We (coalition forces AND the UN) need to have a viable plan for troops on the ground and a viable plan on what to do when we think we have 'won'. No repeats of Iraq and Libya, please.

Kitbag
29th Nov 2015, 19:12
3-3 so far and I suspect, in the main, for the same reason.

Not sure if Pierre is allowed given the OP rules?

Burritto
29th Nov 2015, 19:12
Yes.

But I do wish everyone would stop saying we are going to be 'Bombing Syria'. We need to be bombing 'ISIS' (which I understand is now the plan), not 'Syria'. The more we propagate 'Lets Bomb (or Not Bomb) Syria', the more the anti-war lobby use past errors to delay any action at all and allow for ISIS to prosper. The longer term strategy for Syria (and the region) is a different issue that I don't think our politicians are close to getting to grips with sadly.

Flugplatz
29th Nov 2015, 19:29
Yes. But only to add a bit more to the general effort against IS. I have no illusions that we would even make a decisive contribution to ending the Syrian civil war, or should even be thinking about 'reconstruction'. We will likely kill a few scumbags when and if our crazy ROE allow.

Flug

Chugalug2
29th Nov 2015, 19:43
No, if for no other reason that we will be joining in the bombing of Syria, Burrito, and for no useful purpose. Call Me Dave's 70,000 ground troops are even more bogus than Bliar's 45 mins WoMD.

StickMonkey3
29th Nov 2015, 19:58
Let's have a big NO to "Recreational Bombing"

Change the RoE, then I'll agree to committing Armed Forces.

I want a clear plan to Destroy IS, not "Interdict", "Contain", "Degrade" or any of the other rubbish I have heard from politicians since this whole sad affair started. I don't think that can be done without a radically-changed attitude to the RoE.

Lima Juliet
29th Nov 2015, 20:02
Yes, it is our best effort for assymetric warfare in our favour... 💣💣💣

Easy Street
29th Nov 2015, 20:06
A reluctant 'yes', on the basis that:

1) Defeating ISIL in Iraq, where the ground they vacate will be controlled by the Iraqi government or the Kurds, will be made easier if we can also attack ISIL in its logistic hinterland of eastern Syria. On this point, if ISIL try to make a big issue of a British vote to extend operations into Syria, we have an immediate strategic communications coup. ISIL claims to have established a Caliphate and does not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, so according to their own narrative, the UK is already bombing them. As such, a vote in favour of action should be irrelevant. If they claim it changes things, it means they actually recognise there is a border, which undermines their claim to power.

2) I am not convinced that we need a credible follow-on plan in place for Eastern Syria. Nothing could be worse than what already exists there. So the lack of a plan is not a reason to deny ourselves the potential benefits of my point 1).

3) Our military commanders have enough sense about them to keep our aircraft away from potential conflicts between Russia and Turkey near the Turkish border.

4) I am not too worried about mission creep. Everyone knows that Western troops would be entering an IED- and ambush-filled bloodbath, would struggle to gain local acceptance and would almost immediately have to go into self-protection mode to assuage public anxiety at home. This would render them militarily ineffective, as seen in our last two big Middle Eastern ground wars. I think the military leadership is sensible enough to see this now (finally) and will keep its ambitions strictly limited.

But I am under no illusion that extending our mission into Syria will either be decisive militarily, or contribute to ending the long-term conflict. Doing that requires us to look again at our relationships with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc for reasons that I have bored on about elsewhere, not just for the good of the region, but for the future of open western societies as well.

5-7.

iRaven
29th Nov 2015, 20:06
Yes, give them no quarter. They are worse than feral dogs and we are better off without them. I will shed no tear for any of them regardless who bore them, raised them and still sees them as their offspring. They are beyond rehabilitation and so the only suitable place for them is to be taken from the planet that we have tried to share with them.

The B Word
29th Nov 2015, 20:13
Yes.

At least if we're forced to fight with one arm tied behind our backs by bleeding heart liberals and leftist loonies, then they have nothing tangeable to touch our aircraft with whilst we procrastinate during targetting boards.

I, like Iraven, do not wish to share the planet with these scum anymore...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/assets_c/2014/11/Screen%20Shot%202014-11-16%20at%2011.02.59%20AM-thumb-560x315-4546.png

The B Word

Corporal Clott
29th Nov 2015, 20:16
Yes.

I make that 10 votes 'yes' and 5 votes 'no'. A favourable majority so far.

CPL Clott

Thelma Viaduct
29th Nov 2015, 20:31
No, we can't even look after our own.

Shack37
29th Nov 2015, 20:36
YES, for all the above reasons. If these scumbags had the capability to attack us in the same way this question wouldn´t even be asked.


They have no RoE, why should we?

Simplythebeast
29th Nov 2015, 20:49
Yes,
There is no place in this life for them, we should facilitate their transition to the next.

The B Word
29th Nov 2015, 21:04
All those that say 'no' should be invited to go and meet some Jihadis for a discussion/peace talks.

Ah, I thought not. For pity's sake wake up - these are not people that we can reason with.

Also, also this garbage about 'recreational bombing' - FFS, we hardly do this for fun! There is a careful target development process to check that the target is valid and where the weapons effect will be examined, is carefully employed and ensures that no innocent parties are killed where at all possible. :mad:

I always thought that pacifists and conscientious objectors should be put in front of any assault to give the enemy one last chance - who knows they might even get the enemy forces to expend a few munitions first and do something useful!

The B Word

Kitbag
29th Nov 2015, 21:11
13-6 so far I think in favour. TBH this is probably not the best place to ask whether it's a good thing or not.

Anyone checked out MumsNet? (http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2192867-To-think-we-should-not-get-involving-in-bombing-Syria-Iraq?pg=5)
It's old but still has relevant comment

Courtney Mil
29th Nov 2015, 21:19
My instinct says yes. My heart says yes. My head says I wish I knew more hard facts. The days of having access to hard facts offered a much easier choice. Basing the decision of going to war again on Daily Mail reports seems a tad factious.

I would go with air strikes, but with a fulsome follow-up plan.

barnstormer1968
29th Nov 2015, 21:26
The question is perhaps a bit out of date.
'We' are already bombing Isis in the form of the RAF bombing them in Iraq.
'We' are already bombing them in Syria in the form the of the French Air Force conducting missions in Syria.

Hopefully it hasn't passed un noticed, but young kids from the UK have already been leaving in large numbers for Syria. They have come from all over Europe to join ISIS and fight 'us' in the form of western people in Europe and 'bad muslims' in the Middle East.
If someone is naive enough to believe that Isis wouldn't target the mainland uk (again) as the RAF aren't flying over Syria then I may have a bridge in London for sale that's going cheap :)

Thrust Augmentation
29th Nov 2015, 21:35
No.


Completely ineffective. Conventional methods in an unconventional fight simply do not work & will eventually be counter productive.

Al-bert
29th Nov 2015, 21:40
No - doesn't work - look at any of the countries we recently bombed for peace and retribution - a bigger mess than ever, all of them.

barnstormer1968
29th Nov 2015, 22:17
I will add that I also think we should try negotiating with Isis first as that crosses a tick off the list for some people. The problem isn't that Isis would kill the negotiators as they have and do grant gauranteed safe passage for some people.
The problem would be choosing what the questions from the UK would be.

The B Word
29th Nov 2015, 22:30
Albert

Define 'bigger mess' - there are an awful lot of women in Afghanistan that would disagree! The take down of Taliban senior leadership by kinetic strikes has proven very effective in shaping the environment for allowing education, amongst other things, to flourish. Yes, it's not an instant solution, but taking bad people away for good can have a significant effect and help those struggling to hold, or get, power to get a grip.

"Between 2001 and 2010, primary school enrolment rose from around 1 million to nearly 7 million (a sevenfold increase in eight years) and the proportion of girls from virtually zero to 37%. It was reported in May 2013 that there were 16,000 schools across Afghanistan, with 10.5 million students. Education Minister Wardak stated that 3 million children remained deprived of education and requested $3 billion to construct 8,000 additional schools over next two years."

al_renko
29th Nov 2015, 22:37
Da, pozhaluysta!

smujsmith
29th Nov 2015, 22:44
My no vote was based on my total inability to believe a word that the Bacon stabber says. How long before we get some "target drift" to Assad assets ? Of course, who cares, but then the pig headed fornicator is delivering his desires of two years ago, that was rejected by our parliament. Like Blair before him, his double dealing leads many to disbelieve any honesty he proclaims. I stand by NO !

Smudge

dagenham
29th Nov 2015, 22:56
I am a fence sitter on this

The yes side of me for all the reasons cited before.

The no because..

1. The region will only get some sense of stability with all the local states working to together

2. Desert storm proved the template for this and to some extent was effective at uniting international will

3. There needs to be an after action plan or at least intent. I do see the opportunity with this to right some of the wrong with Iraq and Libya by getting points 1 and 2 right. Syria, Egypt and Iraq did have a functioning management class that can turn this around with the right plan and support. Let's not go through the de bathing again.. One reason Germany turned around was recognition that some people became nazis through little choice and keeping them in post kept the country running... Iraq de bathing everything was not a smart move.

4 I don't believe any of this can work without boots on the ground as per 1,2 and 3 above and this needs a mainly Muslim force to do so, otherwise it just fuels not only Isis but the bad feeling at home as well.

Hope the above makes sense, it is past bed time and nurse has given me some port.

Just for the record I am in the uk now sitting on the south coast enjoying retirement

Lima Juliet
29th Nov 2015, 23:12
Smudger

That argument sounds like a personal political statement/disagreement rather than a judgement on the actual matter. 3 years ago the plan was to bomb Assad - the MPs rejected that on behalf of the people as most believed that regime change was not our business. However, we are voting on surgically targetting IS - not Assad - that is more and more becoming our business! So your argument and personal attacks would seem to have clouded your reasoning.

LJ

PierreM
29th Nov 2015, 23:22
Hi there Kitbag
Your comment at #7 shows the danger of accepting everything at face value - UK national enough to have served in the Royal Air Force for 16 years (including with the Blue Steel-armed Victor) and now the owner of a bus pass!
Come to think of it - never accept at face value what a politician says, either.
Bon soir.

Melchett01
29th Nov 2015, 23:38
I think I'm with Courtney on this one. Having been a LO out in the region for a large part of 14-15, and having had to see things I will never forget and would never want anybody else to have to see, I would instinctively say yes, but with caveats

D'aesh (the Arabic acronym for ISIL which they hate) are wholly unreconcilable. If we could talk to them, I'd say give it a go, but you can't. They understand one thing and one thing only. Given their love for death and their burning desire to meet their God, taking everyone else with them in the process I am only too happy for us to arrange the meeting. But, and it's a big but. Whilst my head is telling my heart that taking the gloves off will feel good, it is saying 'but what will it achieve?' In voting yes, I would like to see the following:

An unrestricted campaign with a political end state and a left/right of arc, and after that no political interference. Political meddling (damn democracy!) has left us in this strategically incoherent position of insisting on recognising a line on the map that our enemy doesn't. We can't fight with ur hands tied behind our backs if the politicians really want to achieve something; they have to trust us to meet their intent in the best and most humane way possible.

Targets must be significant, worthwhile and designed to cause maximum damage. Without second guessing planners and targeteers, dropping the odd PW on a machine guns post or the occasional technical or vehicle park is frankly about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Targets must be chosen with the strategic plan in mind, not just to generate headlines and stats for the BBC and RAF News. If that means flying Psy Ops / IO missions to clear an are in advance - as the US did last week when a flight of A -10s I believe, made short work of a huge number of fuel tankers after dropping leaflets warning drivers to clear the area. - so be it. Minimise casualties, but don't shirk the difficult choices.

Whilst the air campaign must be unrestricted, the overall scope of the West's involvement must be restricted. Air alone will not solve this and ground forces are required; but they must be regional ground forces using western air assets to give the asymmetrical advantage.

Finally, this must be part of a bigger strategy. There will need to be measures in place at home to prevent a repeat of the Paris attacks, and there must be long term strategic thought from the outset. Like it or not, bombing Da'esh now will not win the war of ideas; that is a generational thing., but generational struggles don't generate good copy or win elections. At best, it will buy the moderate world time to work out what to do, but it won't solve the problem. There must must must be a credible follow up plan. And part of this follow up plan must be what to do with al Qaeda who will end up as the strongest party on the Syrian battlefield once D'aesh are defeated. Yes, that's my prediction. I'll say again, based on regional experience, we must be prepared for AQ to be the dominant player in Syria once D'aesh is defeated - how do we deal with that?

In case anybody thinks I've gone totally wibble, here's my thinking. D'aesh and AQ are both Sunni extremists but of different hues. D'aesh's philosophy is to seize territory and then beat and bully people into submission before proudly claiming to have so many millions of supporters though out a caliphate. On the other hand, AQ take the long game. They recognise that it takes time and you have to bring people with you if you are to have a sustainable form of domination that doesn't burn hot, bright and short. Only once you've got the peoples' hearts and minds do you declare the caliphate.

Whilst D'aesh in Syria are obvious, AQ are not so. Instead they are represented in Syria by Jabhat al Nusra who have proven themselves very capable on the battlefield, often working along side the moderate opposition. However, rather than beheading and crucifying people, throwing them off buildings, chopping limbs off, they are playing the long game, building a support base amongst the populace, fighting the Regime on the one hand whilst providing support and social services on the other hand, all the while practising a moderate extremism. However, they will eventually have to show their hand and I fear that when they do, when D'aesh has been defeated, it will be too late and they - and therefor AQ - will have an entrenched position in Syria and Syria 2016 becomes a re-run of the Taleban hosting AQ in 2001.

That's my thinking on all this, a qualified yes. If our leaders can think long term, past the headlines and understandable desire to lash out and actually come up with a plan that achieves something rather than a plan that gives the impression of doing something, then yes, take the gloves off and let's get on with it. Whether we are capable of getting on with a Syria surge, well that's another matter entirely.

jolihokistix
30th Nov 2015, 00:05
No, unless we have been invited/allowed by the government of Syria to hammer one particular lot of baddies.


Iraq has lost much of the north to the black tide, but the government in Baghdad are still the legitimate authority and we have a mandate there, supported by the UN and the world community.


British credibility in the ME could be better bolstered by a clear philosophy, rather than by traditional banditry.

NutLoose
30th Nov 2015, 00:13
One is starting to see some of Blair in Cameroon.

Difficult to say action wise, but if you are bombing them in Iraq how on earth is bombing them in Syria going to make us a greater target as some of the opposition says, that logic seems lost on me.

Wensleydale
30th Nov 2015, 08:11
Use the Military - all of it and don't go off half cocked. I have added a quote from Winston Churchill's "History of the Second World War" Vol 1 where he is explaining the British Government's part in events leading up to the War. Written in 1948, perhaps it still rings true today?




“We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct of not only the British National and mainly Conservative Government, but of the Labour Socialist and Liberal parties, both in and out of office, during this fateful period. Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to accept unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr Lloyd-George, the erstwhile great war leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness and evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in Human existence.”

Tourist
30th Nov 2015, 08:19
No.

Our bombing will have no effect except cost us money. Our only effect would be political.

If the question was "do you think we should have a proper total war gloves off, troops on the ground against them?" then yes.

StickMonkey3
30th Nov 2015, 08:41
If our leaders can think long term, past the headlines and understandable desire to lash out and actually come up with a plan that achieves something rather than a plan that gives the impression of doing something, then yes, take the gloves off and let's get on with it.

Good summary Melchie, and the same reason I said No. None of your conditions are being met currently, and the last 12 years shows us they will never be met once Forces are committed. Victory as the Objective, a strategic Plan, and 'harder' RoE first; then commit the Forces.

Not_a_boffin
30th Nov 2015, 08:42
Yes. On largely the same rationale as Melchett.

The other driver is that the longer we leave them in place without at least hindering their ops, the more entrenched Daesh will be and the worse the refugee crisis will become.

None of it is perfect, but to be frank - as long as you have one axis supporting a Sunni side and another diametrically opposed one supporting the Shia side, it ain't going to get solved. The best that can be hoped for is that some form of federation may evolve.

incubus
30th Nov 2015, 09:09
Yes.

We are already bombing IS - all this will do is let us bomb IS is a slightly wider radius. It is not a significant shift in the operations that have been ongoing in Iraq for some time now.

I also don't think it is the only response that we or other nations need to be undertaking but those will need a clearer plan and significant commitment.

Cows getting bigger
30th Nov 2015, 09:32
These people have the same philosophy as Star Trek's Borg. There is only one way to deal with such people.

Tankertrashnav
30th Nov 2015, 09:34
But I do wish everyone would stop saying we are going to be 'Bombing Syria'.

The trouble is, that's what Joe Public sees on TV all the time. Shot of Backfire bombers releasing great sticks of unguided "iron" bombs, reminiscent of B52s carpet bombing North Vietnam - then cut to shots of Aleppo, or wherever, in ruins, and you are obviously going to get a negative response. Pose the question - "do you wish RAF aircrews to engage carefully selected IS targets with highly accurate weapons in Syria, as they are currently doing in Iraq?" and you would probably get a very different response. I would hazard a guess that in Corbyn's letter to Labour party members to sound opinion on the matter his question was not posed as I suggested.

AR1
30th Nov 2015, 09:39
No.
At least not until we know what we want from it. I agree there is no negotiating table. At least that's the way they've played it so far. However the people at the top often persuade those down the chain to live a life they don't necessarily lead themselves.

Pontius Navigator
30th Nov 2015, 09:45
Victory as the Objective, a strategic Plan, and 'harder' RoE first

That objective is almost impossible to define. Peace, no slaughter, no sectarian strife?

A strategic plan might be easier to create: proper blockade and sealing borders, stopping movement of people, freeze assets as such, stop all trade especially weapons resupply.

Harder RoE such as free-fire zones and at night outside settlements - if it moves ********

MPN11
30th Nov 2015, 10:15
YES

The objective is, I believe, to destroy/degrade D'aesh, as there is no realistic prospect of negotiating with them.

Their awful regime takes no account of the borders drawn 100 years ago, and D'aesh have claimed one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. "This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders ...". Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi expressed the same view in 2014. *

It seems to me that on that basis, anywhere they operate makes them a viable target, whether in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else their vile presence can be found. Lines on maps are of little relevance.

* from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement)

Out Of Trim
30th Nov 2015, 10:28
Yes

I concur with incubus above.

BATCO
30th Nov 2015, 10:58
Yes, bomb ISIS in Syria and northern Iraq. Hunt them and interdict wherever we can, and 'put up the barricades' or at least control access to our land.
Do that, as a measure to contain and 'attrit' them, (recognising that they're probably beyond deterring) until the 'nation building' lot get up their part of the plan.

Batco

SASless
30th Nov 2015, 11:16
This assumes the RAF can find Syria.

The Nip
30th Nov 2015, 11:24
A big vote for yes if there is a end.

But, as I have asked before what is the ultimate endgame?

Can we (coalition) really get rid of Isis? Will another radical group just sprout up and be worse?

Are we joining a war where there is no end and we are burdening our children with a war that IMHO we cannot win unless there is some unplatable changes to how we fight and who we live our lives amongst.

langleybaston
30th Nov 2015, 11:29
YES

Unenthusiastic, but
1. we need to demonstrate solidarity with those already engaged
2. we are a target already and there is a need to not be supine.

In terms of effort/return it will probably be a low score on both sides.

My big reservation is the safety of our aircrew, for whom I pray.

glad rag
30th Nov 2015, 11:42
I was a YES, but having seen the carnage that the Russian efforts are inflicting on the civilians in the NON ISIS held areas I have deep concerns that despite the heroic efforts by our aircrews [and I am being 100% serious here] to purely target ISIS, we will end up being tarred with the same brush as the area/barrel bombers with subsequent disastrous consequences for the UK and her intrests.

UNDECIDED

gr.

Melchett01
30th Nov 2015, 12:01
glad rag,

Whilst the Russians are 'carpet bombing' and the Regime are barrel bombing, the 'moderate' opposition aren't entirely in the clear thanks to their use of their improvised howitzer, Jahannam or Hell Cannon, that due to their lack of precision targeting capability means they just launch into areas of towns and cities.

I sort of see why they do this, its a rag tag Dad's Army affair, but it's still not the discriminate bombing we would practice. The bottom line is that this is a very messy affair where there is no black and white only very grubby shades of grey, and the line between what we in the west might view as acceptable and unacceptable is dotted and shifts frequently. If the politicians are expecting a clean and clinical war, I'm afraid they need to brace themselves for an alternate reality.

PeterGee
30th Nov 2015, 12:09
Surely the question is should we be bombing ISIS at all? Which country they are in doesn't make any difference to me.
I think questions about where does it lead to and the need for a foundation for a lasting settlement make entire sense. But not doing anything seems a far worse option. We can of course just leave it to others, but that does not seem right to me. So:
A) just bomb in Iraq? How can that make sense?
B) Stop the bombing, allow ISIS to establish itself. Not a good thing
C) Sit back and watch?
D) Bomb in Syria and work toward a lasting settlement ( support ground troops, better deal for Sunni's in Iraq and Syria, containment of Saudi .........)

So a yes for me

Rudyard K
30th Nov 2015, 12:22
Just generally bombing ISIL targets in Syria with the small number of forces at the UK's disposal will only make a marginal military difference. However, if a specific group who pose a direct threat to the UK could be taken out, then security would be improved. I refer to the British passport holders who have chosen to desert their own country and who will potentially to take up arms against it when they return. If some of these scum can be taken out, I will totally support the PM.

glad rag
30th Nov 2015, 12:39
glad rag,

Whilst the Russians are 'carpet bombing' and the Regime are barrel bombing, the 'moderate' opposition aren't entirely in the clear thanks to their use of their improvised howitzer, Jahannam or Hell Cannon, that due to their lack of precision targeting capability means they just launch into areas of towns and cities.

I sort of see why they do this, its a rag tag Dad's Army affair, but it's still not the discriminate bombing we would practice. The bottom line is that this is a very messy affair where there is no black and white only very grubby shades of grey, and the line between what we in the west might view as acceptable and unacceptable is dotted and shifts frequently. If the politicians are expecting a clean and clinical war, I'm afraid they need to brace themselves for an alternate reality.

Indeed M.

You have to balance ^^those^^ thoughts with the sheer barbarity of IS, something which, once the initial shock and horror wore off, has become almost mainstream news now.

IS need exterminating.

However how do you do that without generating even more jihads ?? Any action in Syria needs a out plan that leaves the country stable and secular.

Guess who that leaves in charge??

:hmm:

Burnt Fishtrousers
30th Nov 2015, 12:39
I'd rather they nailed the 700 known sympathisers who are back in the UK, but we are too fluffy and politically correct to do so.

We will have to wait until civilians are killed before our police kick doors in and ask them to go stand in the corner whilst some rapacious human rights lawyer goes to work.

Boy_From_Brazil
30th Nov 2015, 13:00
YES.

My heart says yes, my brain still has some reservations.

We should participate in the attacks on ISIS in Syria to ensure that all these scum are wiped out. However, I am not too sure of the effectiveness of a bombing campaign without any assurance that the area bombed will not fall back into ISIS hands due to lack of reliable Allied boots on the ground

I assume that the Allied SAR units are in place and are coordinated to some extent? The thought of RAF aircrew being captured are at the top of my concerns.

Will this all be academic if Corbyn insists his MP's toe the line and vote NO?

Rosevidney1
30th Nov 2015, 13:08
Yes, bomb them and choke all their means of financing their evil and primitive war.

AR1
30th Nov 2015, 13:25
...with the sheer barbarity of IS

Absolutely, and thankfully, we're not like that..

IS need exterminating


Oh... Maybe we are.

langleybaston
30th Nov 2015, 13:42
Please How is the score going [I have no responsibility as "I didn't start it!"]

Heathrow Harry
30th Nov 2015, 14:06
NO

we can't add very much to the efforts

we have no idea who we want to run the place - we're just getting into the messiest civil war for a long time

downsizer
30th Nov 2015, 14:38
Melchett

If you think that working with JaN/AQ is sustainable you need to do some research on JaN atrocities in this conflict.

They too behead regime soldiers/militia and slaughter Alawites. Yes they've worked with "moderates", but these "moderates" are still Islamists. They've also brokered deals with secular opposition groups, invited them into their HQ, then executed them.

Not an organisation we should be working with.

Cheeks
30th Nov 2015, 14:58
I assume that the Allied SAR units are in place and are coordinated to some extent? The thought of RAF aircrew being captured are at the top of my concerns.I'd assume the opposite.

I suspect there's no such formal contingency. I imagine that, should the capability be needed, it will be scraped together late in the game and involve a (relatively) unwitting ground invasion of Syria. Not sure that all the consequences have been thought through. :sad:

Bigpants
30th Nov 2015, 15:03
Economic sanctions to starve IS of money, guns, ammo and fuel more effective than a few bombs dropped for political effect.

President Edorgan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others guilty as charged.

Pontius Navigator
30th Nov 2015, 15:28
Interesting to see a series of letters in today's Torygraph mirroring this thread even down to objective, ROE etc.

BEagle
30th Nov 2015, 15:29
'Bombing' is rather an all-encompassing description.

In fact, surgical use of Brimstone would bring a dimension which no other air force or navy can currently offer. Hellfire is crude in comparison and is far more likely to cause collateral damage than Brimstone.

ShotOne
30th Nov 2015, 15:49
"not an organisation we should be working with..." That applies to pretty much every player, downsizer

langleybaston
30th Nov 2015, 15:53
Looks like Jezza is going to give his lot a freebie. Very interesting. They usually only get a freebie if it doesn't matter much.

Genstabler
30th Nov 2015, 15:57
I'm with BEagle. We will not be bombing Syria. We will be contributing a unique capability to a fight we are already part of but which is currently constrained by a meaningless line on a map. Yes.

PlasticCabDriver
30th Nov 2015, 16:12
Bomb "Syria": no,

Bomb ISIS in Syria (or Iraq or wherever else they present an inviting target): yes.

ISIS will not stop. They cannot stop. A Caliphate has been declared.

Al-Baghdadi is the Caliph, it's not just that he may not want to stop, he is not allowed to.

A Caliph/Caliphate cannot respect borders, a Caliphate covers the whole world. If he does, he is in error and may be deposed. He cannot decide that "that's enough, let's stop here", he is not allowed to. A Caliph is required to make conquest until the whole world is conquered.

This article has its flaws, but does explain neatly why ISIS and Al-Baghdadi will not stop:

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)

To be Caliph, he must have "authority", which is usually held to mean territory. Without authority, there is no Caliphate. Drive Al-Baghdadi off his territory, and there can be no Caliphate.

Wipe them out.

Just This Once...
30th Nov 2015, 16:14
Before we try to give IS a kicking….

Jeremy Corbyn will grant Labour MPs a free vote on UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria.

Mr Corbyn's spokesman said the shadow cabinet had "accepted his recommendation" of a free vote.

He has also requested a two-day debate in the House of Commons beforehand.

BBC chief political correspondent Vicki Young said Mr Corbyn had wanted Labour to adopt a policy of opposition to air strikes, but was forced to back down by his shadow cabinet.

The leader was given a "thorough kicking" in the meeting, she was told.

Labour MPs to get free vote on Syria - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024)

SkyHawk-N
30th Nov 2015, 16:14
I might be wrong but haven't we been bombing ISIS in Iraq, for what seems to be a lifetime, and they are still there. Everyone has seen videos and heard stories of our jets returning with their loads and also the stories of expensively transporting very expensive guided weapons and dropping them on insignificant targets

In fact the 'allied' forces which had been bombing ISIS in Syria for a year inexplicably missed the mile long lines of ISIS oil tankers sitting in the desert which were providing ISIS with the funds to continue their operations. It took the Russian's can-do attitude to actually start taking them out, I'm convinced if it weren't for them the tankers would still be carrying on undeterred.

If the conflict was not so contrived and if there was no doubt that bombing would not creep into a regime changing job I would be more enthusiastic. I still remember what happened in Libya, and the crock of s##t that ended up creating. We did such a bad job no-one dares mention it anymore!

As you can tell, I'm not that hopeful that if we join in it will all end well in a short time.

TEEEJ
30th Nov 2015, 16:21
I agree with BEagle and Genstabler. In addition to Brimstone there is also the RAPTOR capability. Yes.

Hangarshuffle
30th Nov 2015, 16:24
I think that's 14 "no" to bombing and 24 "yes" at 18.22 30/11/2015 my local time. But the yes camp clearly ahead.. I think 3 or 4 undecided as yet...Very interesting, wonder if parliament will be closer? I'll try and count it up around when the H of P HOC vote goes down.

SkyHawk-N
30th Nov 2015, 16:27
A question to all the 'Yes' people here.

Who are the feet on the ground in Syria?

KPax
30th Nov 2015, 16:30
Yes, I am not a politician just my opinion.

sharpend
30th Nov 2015, 16:30
NO.

As an ex Strike/Attack pilot with at least one tour in the Middle East under my belt + time with the MNPKF Lebanon in 1984 I understand a little about the area. Why have I said no?

1. Bombing will not solve this problem.
2. There are sufficient air assets already in the area.
3. To identify targets and be successful in this task we need effective intelligence and post attack info. At present, with no professional forces in that area we don't have that vital data.
4. The BBC today interviewed civilians in the towns and were told that much collateral damage was taking place.
5. I accept that the so-called Islamic State does pose a significant threat to the UK, but there are better ways to protect our island.
6. We do need ground forces in the area, but I cannot envisage the UK, France or the US committing to that.
7. The threat is not solely in Syria, but world wide.

I'm sure that you can think of many more reason why the UK should not bomb in Syria.

downsizer
30th Nov 2015, 16:36
"not an organisation we should be working with..." That applies to pretty much every player, downsizer

100% agree, no-one involved has clean hands.

I like watching shia terrorist organisation killing sunni terrorist organistation, hence why I think we should leave the mess alone.

Royalistflyer
30th Nov 2015, 16:49
No - I think we should leave Syria to the Russians and French and we should concentrate on working with the Iraqis and clean out ISIS in Iraq.

NRU74
30th Nov 2015, 17:14
No
If we did join in the bombing, whose side are we on ?
Anti Assad..... er No Wasn't that a No decision a couple of months ago
With the Russians and Iranians ? Could be.
70 odd thousand Free Syrian Army ? They could be Cameron's future WMD millstone.
Trouble with Corbyn is that I'm afraid he's right on this one !
Mark me as a No

Melchett01
30th Nov 2015, 17:32
If you think that working with JaN/AQ is sustainable you need to do some research on JaN atrocities in this conflict.

They too behead regime soldiers/militia and slaughter Alawites. Yes they've worked with "moderates", but these "moderates" are still Islamists. They've also brokered deals with secular opposition groups, invited them into their HQ, then executed them.

Not an organisation we should be working with.

downsizer,

You should re-read my post as I never said we should work with JaN/AQ, I'm afraid that is your misreading of my post.

What I said was that the AQ philosophy in Syria was for sustainable domination through a slowly slowly catch your monkey approach vice D'aesh's torture, rape and pillage approach. I know full what JaN are capable of and they by and large toned things down (it's all relative in this utter basket case of a civil war) after most Syrians rightly gave them a stiff ignoring when they first appeared on the scene and tried to enforce their will. If you go back you will see that what I said is we need to be prepared for the fallout of them being the last man standing once D'aesh has gone. Nowhere does that imply working with them.

AR1
30th Nov 2015, 17:36
My local MP has spoken. He uses the no word too. - I dont know if your local is making his/her stance public. - Mods feel free to deal with if it contravenes any of the Pruners charter! Vote on the RAF taking part in air strikes against ISIS in Syria - John Mann (http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/vote_on_the_raf_taking_part_in_air_strikes_against_isis_in_s yria)

Royalistflyer
30th Nov 2015, 17:45
It may all be getting academic - Turkey appears to have blockaded the Dardanelles to all Russian ships, maybe all shipping. You can watch it here: Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:28/centery:41/zoom:9)

Cows getting bigger
30th Nov 2015, 18:04
Err, a oupke of thoughts.

I'm not sure many people, including Assad, are overly bothered about a line on the map.

I'm absolutely sure that ISIS don't recognise an arbitrary line on the ground.

huge72
30th Nov 2015, 18:07
Sadly we are in the situation a present which mirrors Northern Ireland. The IRA could and did wave/shoot at us from the other side of the imperceptible border that divides the two countries knowing there was nothing that we could do but just turn away. We have to be able to follow up and hit ISIS on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border or there is little point in staying.

just another jocky
30th Nov 2015, 18:12
NO.

As an ex Strike/Attack pilot with at least one tour in the Middle East under my belt + time with the MNPKF Lebanon in 1984 I understand a little about the area. Why have I said no?

1. Bombing will not solve this problem.
2. There are sufficient air assets already in the area.
3. To identify targets and be successful in this task we need effective intelligence and post attack info. At present, with no professional forces in that area we don't have that vital data.
4. The BBC today interviewed civilians in the towns and were told that much collateral damage was taking place.
5. I accept that the so-called Islamic State does pose a significant threat to the UK, but there are better ways to protect our island.
6. We do need ground forces in the area, but I cannot envisage the UK, France or the US committing to that.
7. The threat is not solely in Syria, but world wide.

I'm sure that you can think of many more reason why the UK should not bomb in Syria.

As a serving military officer, I am not going to vote and I hope no-one assumes I have a particular stance on this subject based on what I write below but in the interest of a balanced debate and the fact you have conveniently listed your objections, I just thought I'd add to your posts:

1. Bombing will not solve this problem. No-one has said it would, but it will surely degrade ISIS/Daesh.

2. There are sufficient air assets already in the area. How do you know this? Is that just your opinion or that of someone with more intimate knowledge?

3. To identify targets and be successful in this task we need effective intelligence and post attack info. At present, with no professional forces in that area we don't have that vital data. Again, how do you know there isn't sufficient intelligence? Tornado with RAPTOR could increase whatever the current level of intelligence is.

4. The BBC today interviewed civilians in the towns and were told that much collateral damage was taking place. So surely what is needed is more precision weapons, like those used by Tornado?

5. I accept that the so-called Islamic State does pose a significant threat to the UK, but there are better ways to protect our island. And they should and are being done. Don't all these sit alongside each other?

6. We do need ground forces in the area, but I cannot envisage the UK, France or the US committing to that. Perhaps not, but why should that stop the UK from extending the current offensive into Syria?

7. The threat is not solely in Syria, but world wide. Again, why should that stop the UK from extending the current offensive into Syria?

Just a few thoughts around your post.

Definitely in the 'no opinion' camp though!

downsizer
30th Nov 2015, 18:28
Melch

Fair enough, I obviously misinterpreted your post.

My point is there is no one we can work with. These so called moderates simply don't exist.

John Farley
30th Nov 2015, 19:00
Interesting so many are voting NO on a board like this.

I see our paticipation or not as a totally political issue. Not a military one.

Yes Brimstone does bring somthing to the military case but in my view it would not be a game changer. I think it is mainly a name for the YES polititions to bandy about to try and get us in..

However politics do matter so YES (but only just)

ShotOne
30th Nov 2015, 19:14
That's a reasoned post, jockey but surely what's needed more than more bombs, is a plan? Nobody on this thread, and more worryingly, parliament, has laid down anything resembling one. IS aren't marching around in the open waving black flags and the idea that the Free Syrian Army are capable of defeating them is, if not delusional, optimistic in the extreme...and even if they did, then what? Do we even know what "victory" would consist of?

Corporal Clott
30th Nov 2015, 19:38
JAJ

Go easy on Sharpend, he has not flown a strike attack aircraft on real ops in a very long time - must be in the region of 30-35 years. The latter half of his career was in one of those well known strike attack aircraft - the VC10!!! :eek:

He has no relevant modern knowledge of time sensitive targetting, precision low-colateral weapons and modern real-time intel feeds to back up his reasons for saying no - but he can bore for NATO about the SA Bulldog! :ok:

CPL Clott

BEagle
30th Nov 2015, 19:46
Corporal Clott, you (or rather, a mallard duck) can take the man out of the fighter, but never the fighter out of the man.

You might not agree with sharpend's comments, but please play the ball - not the man!

jindabyne
30th Nov 2015, 20:26
Calmly said John

Corporal Clott
30th Nov 2015, 20:31
Beagle

I would agree with you if the post had not tried to give an impression of "I'm a strike attack pilot so I know what I'm talking about" - it certainly gave that impression to me. So I thought that this miss-impression should be put into context. Had it not tried to give that 'air of authority' then I would would not have bothered, but his personal opinion is just that, regardless of his Service flying time some 30 years ago. Things have moved on a bit and I refer you to the question in post #1 in this thread:

I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote

No offence intended to you Vickers Funbus types! :ok:

Quack, quack...

AtomKraft
30th Nov 2015, 20:55
No.
Might make us feel good because we are 'doing something', but ultimately it's a fight we don't have the bottle for.
If we want to WIN, it will take more than bombing- it will take balls.

If we want to ponce about like pansies, and aren't really interested in WINNING, and more interested in posing about- then by all means, drop a few aircraft bombs. We can then come over all righteous, having 'done something'.

We should either go 'all in', or stay out completely.

If I'm wrong, and we really do feel like taking these nutcases on, then fine.

Not putting the kettle on though......:rolleyes:

Royalistflyer
30th Nov 2015, 20:56
I thought both Sharpend and JAJ were reasonable. I suspect Beagle and Sharpend and I haven't been involved for aeons and probably don't know all the details of 2005-2015 weapons. Nevertheless we do know some things and believe it or not, no matter how one updates weaponry, the basics of warfare don't change that much. The effect of air attacks is limited. Without air superiority, land forces have enormous problems. Without land forces, air forces cannot win. That hasn't changed. The weapons available on Tornado are the kind that are needed in this situation - agreed. However I see no reason for us to extend into Syria which seems to be being nicely looked after by the Russians and French. If Britain and USA handled Syria, then I think it would work out. There's a huge amount of ISIS territory in Iraq - quite enough to keep our aircraft busy.

Pontius Navigator
30th Nov 2015, 20:56
That's a reasoned post, jockey but surely what's needed more than more bombs, is a plan? Nobody on this thread, and more worryingly, parliament, has laid down anything resembling one. IS aren't marching around in the open waving black flags and the idea that the Free Syrian Army are capable of defeating them is, if not delusional, optimistic in the extreme...and even if they did, then what? Do we even know what "victory" would consist of?
I don't know about Parliament but both here and in the papers is a viable plan - Blockade, close borders, seize financial assets, stop export of oil, if it moves shoot it.

Then there is a point about bombing. They have talked about precision weapons but often equated bombing with WW 2, etc, but I suggest modern bombing is more akin to snipping or machine gun with a low probability of collateral damage.

Corporal Clott
30th Nov 2015, 21:10
Royalist

"Quite enough to keep our aircraft busy"

You see that's the problem. Time sensitive targetting, cued by real-time intelligence with low-yield precision weapons against high value individuals in the IS leadership is exactly the effect that aircraft like the GR4 or MQ-9 Reaper can deliver. You don't need 'boots on the ground' and it has an assymetrically demoralising effect on insurgent forces like IS. They don't respect borders, just like the Taliban didn't on the PAK/AFG border. Being able to strike them over a wider area will improve the chances of getting these people that lead IS.

As I have hinted at before - bombing is not really bombing any more. It is more like sniping from block 2 for maximum effect against the brains of the threat.

CPL Clott

PS. Looks like PN beat me too it on my last point.

Kitbag
30th Nov 2015, 21:12
Debate and vote on Wed 2 Dec. Media say Cameron has a secure majority for it to be approved.

RAFpilot23
30th Nov 2015, 21:24
It will be happening within the week. The Tornados are already bombing within Iraq to switch to targets in Syria ain't rocket science.

Linedog
30th Nov 2015, 21:27
Debate and vote on Wed 2 Dec. Media say Cameron has a secure majority for it to be approved.

I think I'll ask DC to pick my lottery numbers this week. :p

Phil_R
30th Nov 2015, 23:24
Civvy perspective, to be overlooked at will, all comment gratefully received.

Good god no.

Politicians seem to want a nice clean nintendo war. It is simply unlikely to work. Force has always been the last resort, but it should not be the inevitable resort, once we've accepted we don't have anything else that works. It is necessary to accept that we may not have anything at all that works, including force.

Tend toward the point of view that this sort of enemy is unlikely to accept it's been beaten until it's been subjected to a level of brutality that current western governments are unwilling and now ill-equipped to display. Talking-up of Brimstone on Tornado (despite its cleverness) is obviously for political ends, but I suspect that this sort of precision restraint is likely to be seen as weakness rather than excellence.

Fixing an entire country might be possible given an imperial-style, multi-decade occupation and gradual construction of a functioning society. It would take a generation and I'm not that convinced it would work even then. Even if it's anyone's place but the UN's to do that.

P

StickMonkey3
1st Dec 2015, 00:11
Debate and vote on Wed 2 Dec. Media say Cameron has a secure majority for it to be approved.

..and, against Jezza's pleadings, just in time for the Voters of Oldham West to see the mess the Labour Party is in. :E

jolihokistix
1st Dec 2015, 00:59
Bombing did not stop the Viet Cong, partly because they dug a lattice of tunnels. This lesson has been learned by everyone and his cousin since, and The Black Daesh are naturally doing the same thing to escape these sore fires from heaven. They choose a nice house in the suburbs, and dig down. See the tunnels on YouTube under their areas of occupation in Sinjar, the suburbs of Damascus etc. As someone pointed out earlier, the bombs continue to smash infrastructure on the surface. Will what we do be more than symbolic?

Load Toad
1st Dec 2015, 01:18
No.
Won't help Syria, won't stop the refugee problem, won't stop ISIS; won't keep UK secure. Won't improve the situation in the M.East.

Will kill a lot of people, many innocent, will cost a lot of money.

The Baron
1st Dec 2015, 01:52
Yes.
Fight them in their territory or fight them in your own. It's that simple, they won't stop.

just another jocky
1st Dec 2015, 05:12
Will kill a lot of people, many innocent,.....

You're not suggesting that the inclusion of Tornados & expansion of Reaper attacks in Syria would kill innocents are you?

And surely the aim is to kill a lot of people (ISIS)?

zac21
1st Dec 2015, 06:27
First the tough French Foreign Legion —Now the fearsome Russian Spetsnetz.... (special forces)..!! BIG **** coming —for the ISIS..!

RUSSIAN SPECIAL FORCES: HAS ISIS MET ITS FEAR MERCHANT MATCH?

by JAMES ZUMWALT Oct 2015649

ISIS is a fear merchant. It depends heavily upon using fear to intimidate those opposed to it.

In its high-publicized videos, legions of soulless bodies fill its ranks, regularly demonstrating limitless savagery in executing their enemies. Be-headings, burning prisoners alive, attaching bombs to babies to show new recruits how explosives rip a human body apart, running tanks over prisoners, etc.— no means of execution is beyond the pale as they market fear.

But fear can be a double-edged sword. A force capable of demonstrating this has just entered the fray in Syria. Having used fear previously very effectively against Muslim extremists, this force looks to do so again—only this time its blade will come down on ISIS.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently dispatched a military group in which he has great pride and confidence—his special forces—to Syria. The group has been honed into a uniquely skilled counter-terrorism killing machine, known in Russia for getting the job done.

Russia’s special forces originated out of a terrorist act perpetrated more than four decades ago by another violent Muslim group.

In Munich, Germany, Palestinian terrorists of Black September kidnapped and killed eleven Israeli athletes and a German police officer during the 1972 Summer Olympics. The attack prompted the head of the KGB (the Soviet secret police), Yuri Andropov, to order the creation of a special military force trained in counter-terrorism.

With its establishment two years later, the force initially was used for domestic security. But once deployed outside the homeland, it quickly established a bloody reputation for itself.

Comparable to our own elite fighters of US Delta Force, Russian special forces have an operational edge ours do not. While battlefield actions by U.S. forces will, appropriately, always be defined by the laws of land warfare, Russian special forces historically have tossed their moral compass aside. By doing so, they convey a clear message—in blood—to adversaries.

After Moscow invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, Russian special forces were tasked to implement “regime change.” Wearing Afghan uniforms, they quickly secured strategic government buildings in Kabul. Storming the presidential palace, they followed through on orders to kill every Afghan in the building. Not only was Afghan President Hafizullah Amin killed along with his mistress and young son, but so too were all witnesses.

Russian special forces played a significant role in Afghanistan throughout the ten year war. But their reputation for taking whatever action necessary to complete its mission was cemented in Lebanon.

In October 1985, a radical Muslim Brotherhood splinter group kidnapped four Soviet diplomats in Beirut. By the time Russian special forces reached the city, one of the diplomats had already been executed.

As Moscow’s policy was never to negotiate with terrorists, no effort was made to do so. Using a network of informants, the Russians identified the militant group responsible and the kidnappers involved.

With the kidnappers’ names in hand, the Russians immediately rounded up their family members, taking them hostage. They then cut off hostages’ body parts, delivering them to the militants along with the threat to continue making deliveries.

The militants got the message. The surviving Russian diplomats were immediately released. For two decades thereafter, Russian diplomats operated safely abroad without fear of becoming targets of Muslim terrorists.

But in 2006, Putin had to call upon his special forces again after four Russian officials in Iraq were abducted and murdered. He gave the order those responsible were to be “destroyed.” Each of the militants involved was hunted down and killed.

Russian naval special forces also have not shied away from playing the fear card. In 2010, the forces confronted Somali pirates.

Operating from their mother ship, the Somalis pirated a Russian oil tanker. Russian naval special forces boarded the tanker, easily routing the pirates, taking them captive and putting them back on board their mother ship. There, the pirates were securely tied up and the mother ship fitted with explosives. Once back on their own ship, the Russians detonated the explosives.

No Russian ship since then has been pirated.

Russian special forces have demonstrated they can rise to the same level of violence as ISIS.

As they hit the ground running in Syria, the Russians will set out—aided by their Iranian and Syrian friends—to establish informant networks to identify, locate and kill ISIS leaders. Where possible to do so, they will ensure they die a violent death in a way that conveys the message they seek to send.

If there is an Arabic word for “karma,” ISIS will soon be muttering it.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields,” “Living the Juche Lie: North Korea’s Kim Dynasty” and “Doomsday: Iran–The Clock is Ticking.” He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.

dctyke
1st Dec 2015, 07:09
When Germany invaded Europe all the male refugees that made it to England wanted to do was to train to be a force to take their country's back. Given that 80% of Syrian refugees were men of fighting age it's interesting that none of them seem to want to train as a force to get their country back. If they aren't why the hell should any other armed force lay their lives on the line. Leave it to Assad and his Russian friends who are based in the sovereign country, we already have our hands full in other missions in the area.

BEagle
1st Dec 2015, 07:20
zac21, whether it was the Spetsnaz or KGB which was actually responsible for snipping the dangly bits off the nephew of a hostage taker, then returning them with a list of other family members, was immaterial. It made the point and no other Russian was kidnapped.

Not very nicely, I agree. No doubt Comrade Corbychev would be horrified to learn that his fellow-travellers behaved in such a decisive manner.

KiloB
1st Dec 2015, 07:55
Lots of "The sound of freedom" over Norfolk this morning. Seems things are starting to move.
KB

thunderbird7
1st Dec 2015, 08:06
No! Unless there is a coherent plan for what happens next.

Have we learnt NOTHING from the past 20 years?

papajuliet
1st Dec 2015, 08:24
No - it will kill a few ISIS but many innocents, stoke up more fury against the West, increase the risk in the UK and achieve nothing worthwhile.
I'm not against the principle of bombing your enemy but it has to be part of a wider effort involving ground forces.
Leave it to Russia to help Assad and sort it out.

Badass
1st Dec 2015, 10:46
How do you assess that many innocents will be killed? Are you assuming that the RAF will be deploying Lancasters and dumb 1000 pounders? Do you have evidence to suggest that targeting has resulted in civcas from any RAF attacks in recent history? Just curious...

Bladdered
1st Dec 2015, 11:01
Like you Badass, I am curious too, but would ask you the question what evidence do you have that target bombing is not having collateral damage on innocent civilians? Just asking....................

Badass
1st Dec 2015, 11:16
So guilty until proven innocent? It appears that there are some sweeping statements being made about civilian casualties that appear to only be based on opinion. Bombing cities is not a particularly smart (or cheap) way of combating an asymmetric enemy. Or perhaps the RAF are just a bunch of war-mongering nutters just desperate to unleash hell...

Wyler
1st Dec 2015, 11:51
NO.

An absolute disaster in the making. Iraq? Libya? Afghanistan? Leave these mad b*stards and their backers to fight/torture/mutilate each other until the last man stands.

Bombing (no matter how terribly clever) won't stop terrorism in this or any other western country because they are already here and have made up their minds. Seek and destroy in our own back yard. No mercy.

Cannot stand Corbyn or his politics but I am with him on this one.

Just This Once...
1st Dec 2015, 12:23
Civvy perspective, to be overlooked at will, all comment gratefully received.

Talking-up of Brimstone on Tornado (despite its cleverness) is obviously for political ends….

I guess I have a military perspective with knowledge of Brimstone and Tornado but I too feel a little surprised at the way this weapon is being pushed, including at the Select Committee today, as a reason to expand our role.

DMS Brimstone is a capable weapon but I doubt our coalition partners believe it is a 'must have' capability. It has been in production for quite a while now and used in 4 conflicts. If it was not for the recent purchase by Saudi the weapon would have failed to achieve a single external customer. I'm not sure the Saudis purchased it with low collateral damage in mind....

Is it wise to suggest to our allies that by not purchasing DMS Brimstone they have a poor attitude to collateral?

Above The Clouds
1st Dec 2015, 12:23
Yes with a caveat

ISIL strong holds, camps, leaders, followers were possible are identified correctly through ground intel and then destroyed.

The barricading and closure of the Turkish Syrian border by Russian Spetsnaz forces to stem the flow of migrant and oil/fuel traffic to Turkey is a good start in isolating IS, once they are identified by Spetsnaz don't hold back.

Capt Scribble
1st Dec 2015, 12:49
Certainly not. Nothing was ever won from the air. We have ample targets in the UK. Funny how Dave is happy to take them out in foreign countries but will not touch them when they check in at immigration.

AR1
1st Dec 2015, 15:02
With regards to the potential for non IS casualties, Micheal Fallon said on the Marr Show (Sunday) that there had been ZERO civilian casualties as a result of RAF actions thus far in the direct campaign.
I can't comment on that, but it is worth noting that we (RAF) have a habit of coming back with the armaments attached, and are clearly (from the loading footage) using small warheads to achieve the required result when dropped.

downsizer
1st Dec 2015, 15:18
I guess I have a military perspective with knowledge of Brimstone and Tornado but I too feel a little surprised at the way this weapon is being pushed, including at the Select Committee today, as a reason to expand our role.

DMS Brimstone is a capable weapon but I doubt our coalition partners believe it is a 'must have' capability. It has been in production for quite a while now and used in 4 conflicts. If it was not for the recent purchase by Saudi the weapon would have failed to achieve a single external customer. I'm not sure the Saudis purchased it with low collateral damage in mind....

Is it wise to suggest to our allies that by not purchasing DMS Brimstone they have a poor attitude to collateral?

Indeed, especially as we only use it from Tornado and are quite happy to use hellfire from Reaper!

Interested Passenger
1st Dec 2015, 15:37
If the question is 'should we bomb Syria?' then the answer surely is no.

if the question is 'should we accurately target locations in Syria, which we are confident are being used by terrorists, and cause as little collateral damage as possible?', then yes.

I guess on here, the latter question is the one being asked, but the politicians seem to be discussing the former.

taking out their supply lines, communications, funding, fuel convoys and internet access would be the best start.

Hangarshuffle
1st Dec 2015, 20:03
23 no, 28 yes or thereabouts at 21.32L here. Bit closer tonight I thought with some well reasoned arguments but the "yes" people are always ahead.
The newspapers seem to have it as a forgone conclusion for a yes and to be honest now sadly, so do I.
I pleaded with my MP to vote no (via official e-mail to the HOP), but she has totally ignored me and doesn't reply. Fair enough - they must get millions of pleas from beggars, nutters, and the likes of I.


The responsibility of being a British MP at times, in times such as these is massive. Incredibly so. We a nation of 60 million very differing souls with different aspirations, colours, creeds and backgrounds represented by just a few hundred.
I have read the background of my MP very carefully and we are a little similar but also very different in life's experiences.I know that for a fact, unlike me, she has never heard the crack of the rocket close or the boom of the air dropped bomb far -that was my choice. Or never seen the tears of the Arabs - the sad, career spin-off undignified spectacle you may come upon when working out your days for the Queen. When you see it , it never leaves you. Whatever happens, I hope they vote intelligently and considerately, and truly bin the red side against the blue side thing.
Goodnight.

tbwtg
1st Dec 2015, 20:39
I'm not military though have relatives who've served. No, bombing ISIL in Syria won't help us in the UK. You might have to think about bombing Dewsbury, Luton, Bradford etc. There are too many dim Muslims in this country who think that the rest of us are bent on attacking them, rather than recognising the problems that extremists in other countries, funded among others by wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc, are causing their own co-religionists.

We should leave the conflict to go on in the area, while sympathising with the French after those attacks and offering them all additional support short of offensive action on our part. Germany has come up with a more reasoned and measured approach this week, offering non-offensive military support and being publicly honest in talking about the likely length of this involvement (10 years was mentioned by one government minister). It may be that the US, trying to build a coalition of local states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar, might still be able to pull this off, or that Russia will somehow magically finish the job without the trouble they ran into in Chechnya or Afghanistan. But sorry guys, I really don't see any good that can come from British military intervention limited to RAF bombing.

Bigbux
1st Dec 2015, 20:58
Seems to me that there are 2 opposing viewpoints, voting on different issues. The "no" camp is sound-biting that we are going to "bomb Syria" and that this action will be the sum total of the UK's response. What better excuse to sit on your hands and hope the nasty men go away - with any luck someone else will deal with it.

A more informed "yes' vote opens the way to the full range of support that can be offered to friendly boots on the ground. And I'm pretty sure some of them would welcome the safety net of real-time intelligence and fast air.

Stick me down as a yes. You don't win wars by defending territory; you win wars by destroying the enemy's capability.

StickMonkey3
2nd Dec 2015, 01:21
The last Englishman to suggest bombing a British town was the then Poet Laureate

Slough

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!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead

And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.

Stitchbitch
2nd Dec 2015, 05:42
Fence sitting at the moment. I don't wish to see more death and destruction or one of my ex-aircrew mates being burnt in a cage. I do wish to see an end to conflict in the ME, it'll take a very long time to change attitudes and rebuild trust in the region but we have a great chance to change the area for the better. To do that would take a stable political hand, lots of compassion and a wise moral compass. Someone inspirational needs to step up to the plate and take charge, but I don't see a great outcome using 'Tornado diplomacy'. Good God, I'm starting to sound like HS!

dctyke
2nd Dec 2015, 06:23
Has Assad agreed to us bombing in Syria, if not surely we need that agreement for the safety of our aircrew. What ever you think of him it is a sovereign nation after all?

essdee
2nd Dec 2015, 07:37
Cameron is wrong to accuse those MPs thinking of voting 'No' as being 'terrorist sympathisers'. He is also wrong to ignore the figures in the latest YouGov poll showing that there is a clear majority opposed to extending our bombing campaign against IS.
Put me down as a 'NO'.

thunderbird7
2nd Dec 2015, 07:51
Cameron's latest comments are spin soundbites that appeal to Mail and Sun readers....

Danny42C
2nd Dec 2015, 07:54
I am a simple soul. To me it seems that:

A rational case can be made for bombing ISIL in Irak and Syria.

A rational case can be made for not bombing ISIL in Irak or Syria.

There is no case to be made for bombing ISIL in Irak but not in Syria.

D.

Cows getting bigger
2nd Dec 2015, 08:54
If Corbyn wants a negotiated solution, would it be possible for him to volunteer to be the UK's Peace Envoy? Taking it a step further, perhaps he should put the idea to the public for a vote?

thunderbird7
2nd Dec 2015, 09:00
Danny 42C, that is very true but the whole issue still boils down to.... what happens next?

Once 'peace' breaks out, do we bomb Assad? Is he our friend now or next week? Who are the Turks really fighting for? How do we 'avenge' the thousands killed by Assad? What about a Kurdish homeland?

Or de we just want stability ie; 'our kind of dictator' in charge?

Is the desire to bomb more of a political response to 'look strong' rather than a credible solution to the problem?

I have to say, I won't feel any safer in the UK for a bombing campaign against this type of enemy....

Pontius Navigator
2nd Dec 2015, 09:22
Danny, with age and wisdom has distilled the argument into 3 succinct sentences.

And the question of numbers Tornados is a red herring. Militarily this is a low intensity operation that could last a decade. Politically Cameron needs to get stuck in so that he can say to other countries "Follow me".

Tornados are the visible photogenic front of that political will whereas Reaper is probably cheaper, more economical, and from a psychological perspective a better weapon.

It can sit over a target like a Damoclean sword, visible or not as needed.

Just This Once...
2nd Dec 2015, 09:23
If Corbyn wants a negotiated solution, would it be possible for him to volunteer to be the UK's Peace Envoy?

Has Corbyn actually stated who he would negotiate with?

It is a line he has used frequently but has yet to clarify how he has come to a rather unusual and almost unique view that there is a controlling authority who is prepared to trade their aims and objectives with any state.

Meanwhile he has shifted his attack to the professionalism and lawful conduct of the RAF aircrew operating in a threat environment:

We're going to kill people in their homes by our bombs.

Really, is that what he thinks we have been doing over the last year or so. Does he have any evidence to support his outrageous and libellous claims?

He may be the leader of the Labour Party, but I am beginning to doubt that he is fit and proper to hold the title of Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, or the fat government salary that goes with it. I fear he has forgotten that he is no longer leading a student rally or a fringe area of politics. He is a paid government servant and should guard against accusing his own armed forces of unlawful conduct.

lindholme
2nd Dec 2015, 09:40
No. I'm concerned by:

* lack of an overall, post -bombing, strategy a la Iraq & Libya

* committing our scarce resources, which were run by a government which now wants to send them & their kit to war

* the seeming failure to tackle strategic issues such as daesh oil sales, funding & arms / ammunition supply

Pontius Navigator
2nd Dec 2015, 09:51
Given the Nuremburg defence, what would happen if a crew declined to drop its bombs?

Would Cornyn nominate them for OBE?

WE Branch Fanatic
2nd Dec 2015, 11:18
King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Telegraph - We are all fighting Isil - the outlaws of Islam (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12027918/We-are-all-fighting-the-outlaws-of-Islam.html)

Events taking place in the Middle East today will shape the security and stability of Europe and the world for decades to come. This is why I call the war on terrorism a Third World War, by other means. It is also why it is imperative for all of us to be united in this existential war. This is not a war that should divide us, but a war that should unite us in shared interests, common principles and fundamental human values.

I have said before that we are fighting a war within Islam against the outlaws of Islam, the Khawarej. Yet, as we have painfully seen, these terrorists and outlaws threaten the entire world.

They target all of us, innocent men and women regardless of race or faith. It is a war we all have to fight, and win, as a united global community. It is a war that knows no boundaries, no geography or demography.

One that is not limited to Syria and Iraq, but extends to Africa, Asia, with its flames reaching Europe and the rest of the world.

Jordan considers the United Kingdom a close and historic friend, and a key ally. The United Kingdom certainly appreciates that these criminals are as much a threat to its own population as they are to us and the rest of the world.

We have witnessed with shock and sadness the brutal murder of British hostages. We have seen many failed plots against the UK, and the campaign to lure youngsters from Britain and across Europe to commit the most atrocious crimes, everywhere.

And you have seen how they have also brutally murdered Muslims in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. The horrific images of the burning of our brave young pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, remain forever in the collective conscience of the civilised world today.

Both our countries are working side by side in fighting the Khawarej in Iraq, and we see the capabilities of your Royal Air Force and its determined pilots. But again, while we respect borders, terrorists do not recognise them. Therefore, we need to look at the bigger picture. It is not enough to focus just on Iraq because they also control large areas in Syria and are establishing footholds in other areas in Asia and Africa.

I do not believe our countries, or our world, can afford to wait much longer. While we pursue the political solution in Syria, we must work together on fighting them in that country, and everywhere. And this is what we have been doing.

We need to work with Syrian opposition forces, who are on the ground in Syria, to defeat the Khawarej, while working with equal determination on advancing the political process. The Syrian opposition, especially in the south, is both capable and willing to fight and they deserve our support.

Of course, military action is only part of the answer in delivering a secure future for all of us. We need to coordinate our efforts on a strategy that includes humanitarian support, as well as diplomatic and political progress.

Your Prime Minister, David Cameron, visited Jordan in September and saw the huge burden we are bearing, with a fifth of our population now Syrian refugees. We remain grateful for British aid in helping those refugees and the Jordanian communities that host them.

I draw hope from the ongoing talks in Vienna. A real opportunity now presents itself to bring together the global coalition that is required today on both the political and military levels.

It is up to all of us to face this moment of truth with determination. All of us in the fight against Daesh [known in Britain as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isil] need to decide where we stand. On behalf of the international community Jordan has made its decision and taken on a burden far beyond its size.

We believe this is the right thing to do, to stand up for our values and do everything we can to protect our religion, our people, and our nation.

As you go through your internal debate on this major global threat, it is important to understand that your country’s contribution to this undertaking, by carrying out air strikes against Daesh in Syria, can be crucial.

We ask you, our friends in the United Kingdom, Europe and the World, to stand together with us in meeting the challenge and eliminating this global threat.

glad rag
2nd Dec 2015, 12:31
... now debating on how to call isis the "correct" name.

What a :mad: farce compared to the words of wisdom ^^^^^^^above^^^^^^^

Badass
2nd Dec 2015, 13:21
At the end of the day, we're already in this. The debate now is about broadening the scope to include legitimate targets within Syria. This is not about bombing cities, pursuing targets without regard for civilians or anything of that ilk. The RAF are professional, clinical, lawful and are highly trained for this scenario; its an extention of a role in which the Tornado Force (in particular) has been involved for the last 2 decades. And its not just about 'bombing'.

sharpend
2nd Dec 2015, 13:22
Interesting debate in the House/

Comments from well briefed MPs

1. We ignore the lessons of Libya at our peril. Shambles prevails.
2. In Syria, the are far too many aircraft chasing far too few targets.

Given that co-ordination in that area is non-existent, I still think the UK should stay out of it. What will we achieve?

Finally, in the Suez crisis, CDS stated. "Yes Prime Minister, we can take Cairo, but then what?'. He got no answer. Given that in Syria there are countless rebel groups, what will they do if Assad is deposed and ISIL vanquished?

pr00ne
2nd Dec 2015, 14:23
glad rag,

Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!

As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...

Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!

glad rag
2nd Dec 2015, 14:32
glad rag,

Get over your self! It was one intervention and an agreement, barely interrupted the flow of the debate!

As to it being a farce compared to the "words of wisdom above"...

Those words were spoken by a Monarch who retains full executive and legislative powers and doesn't have to strive to win a debate in his 'Parliament' because he personally appoints 75 of the MP's, the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet!

Exactly that! no posturing for public consumption on their one moment of glory
I'd rather you took on board what he said than the drivel the majority those self grooming peacocks spout!

pr00ne
2nd Dec 2015, 14:36
Glad rag,

Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.

glad rag
2nd Dec 2015, 14:45
[QUOTE=pr00ne;9198460]Glad rag,

Afraid I rather prefer a democracy to a Monarchical dictatorship, and I don't see any self grooming peacocks spouting anything, I see a well informed sensible debate about an amazingly complex situation that is a credit to our democracy.[/QUOTE ]

Democracy? Now you are having a laugh.

Go introduce proportional representation and come back to me and we'll talk about democratic representation...

pr00ne
2nd Dec 2015, 14:52
glad rag.

No thanks. Happy with first past the post.

And perfectly happy with our democracy, try spending some time in the middle east if you think it so bad here.

Chris Scott
2nd Dec 2015, 14:54
Quote:
" ... now debating on how to call isis the "correct" name.
What a farce compared to the words of wisdom ^^^^^^^above^^^^^^^ "

I sympathise, but disagree. The term ISIL unnecessarily dignifies these genocidal barbarians that usurp an Abrahamic religion by styling themselves "Islamic State". Even more unfortunate is that the BBC has constantly parroted the latter unqualified, despite the wishes of our sovereign parliament.

Although "Daesh" is an Arabic abbreviation for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", as is ISIL (see the words of HM King Abdullah II in the Daily Telegraph piece quoted by WE Branch Fanatic, above), as an acronym it is said to have pejorative connotations to Arabic speakers that make it an anathema to its leaders.

For an explanation, see here (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-isis-hate-being-called-daesh-whats-correct-name-worlds-most-dangerous-terrorists-1531506).

sharpend
2nd Dec 2015, 16:55
A fascinating debate in the House today. Jeremy Corbin was rubbish and read totally from notes, possibly prepared for him. Evette Cooper was absolutely brilliant, and totally unscripted. Caroline Lucas appeared very passionate, but had little idea. The Chair of the Commons Defence Committee (a Tory) was against bombing, staying it would do little good. Most ex senior heads of our armed forces agree that air strikes would have little effect, but boots on the ground were essential. However, they had no idea where they would come from. So I expect a yes vote tonight, but I'll watch this space in the next few months.

racedo
2nd Dec 2015, 17:11
No.

There seems to be no plan just lets bomb IS.

No attempt to deal with the Nation states who are funders and suppliers of weapons to ISIL.

It appears to be a half backed populist campaign with little else from Dave.

Easy Street
2nd Dec 2015, 17:52
While on balance I support air strikes, I feel the biggest weakness in our strategy is our refusal to confront properly the connection between ISIL's ideology and the state-sponsored Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, one of our principal 'allies' in the region. The honourable member for Henley raised this in Parliament during Monday night's debate on Britain's role in the Middle East (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151130/debtext/151130-0003.htm):

To suggest that the existence of Israel is at the root of the entire middle east’s turbulence today is to overlook the sectarian divisions in the region that have existed for centuries. It also ignores the large part played by certain countries, most notably Saudi Arabia, that have spent billions to fund the toxic and destructive spread of Wahabist ideology across Muslim communities worldwide. It is imperative that Britain and the whole civilised world does whatever is necessary to combat that ideology and stop its spread. We need to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop exporting its radical ideology worldwide, despite our geopolitical alliances. I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me in reply to the question of what steps the Government will take to ensure that the Wahabist ideology does not spread further across the middle east.

Sadly his comments have not been picked up upon in any significant fashion, and I suspect that the Minister's letter will tell him to STFU lest we lose any juicy arms contracts. I fear that using the term "Da'esh" just serves further to obscure the linkage between ISIL and the religious doctrine being spread around the world with Saudi funding. This is the core issue which will have to be confronted eventually in order to stabilise and secure Western societies, and we will need the public's full understanding as we pay the economic price for doing so. Saying ISIL in Arabic doesn't remove any reference to Islam or statehood - it just tries to hide it from us, as if we are children being shielded from the truth about Santa Claus. I was very disappointed to hear the PM and successive MPs lining up to subscribe to this intellectually-bankrupt practice during this afternoon's debate. Sam Leith (http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/while-daesh-prepare-to-fight-mps-debate-how-to-hurt-their-feelings/), and more brutally Rod Liddle (http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/anybody-who-uses-the-phrase-daesh-is-terminally-deluded/) have it about right in the Spectator blogs tonight.

clareprop
2nd Dec 2015, 18:14
Go ahead, bomb Daesh in Syria if it at least to only to get rid of a few more of the murdering b******s. However, what's the plan to neutralise the sympathisers and activists in Leeds, Luton, Birmingham and a dozen other cities in the UK who will no doubt rise up to avenge their 'brothers'?

Chris Scott
2nd Dec 2015, 18:43
Easy Street,

Are we more likely to win the hearts and minds of practising or secular Muslims in this country by constantly linking the name of their ancient religion and culture with a barbarian death-cult, whose followers allegedly threaten to cut out our tongues if we refer to them as Da'esh?

GlobalNav
2nd Dec 2015, 18:50
What could a western country do to effectively "combat the Wahabist ideology" of Saudi Arabia? Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of the Saudi's? Is this the choice - fight ISIL or fight some ideology?

Even if it could be done, and I don't think it really can over the long run, it is not a choice taken instead of attacking ISIL in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, but in addition to it. They wantonly kill civilians, practically without regard to their religious beliefs, - they are thugs, bullies, enemies of justice and freedom wherever it is found. They should be destroyed if possible, but fought even if they can't. It is simple self-defense - whether their atrocities are carried out in Paris, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or anywhere else.

May the good guys win.

Hangarshuffle
2nd Dec 2015, 19:25
If they vote "yes" in an hours time or so, then we lose control of our own self made situation. We will be relying on others to win this war-hundreds of warring disparate groups who are fighting ISIS and fighting the Syrian Government in Syria and in Iraq: who incidentally all collectively and actually hate us anyway.
1.Bombing wont make the UK safer - the opposite will occur for the ordinary people in our streets.
2.Limited bombing campaign from the RAF with < 20 aircraft/drones wont defeat the many and opposing groups.
3.We haven't got a partner fighting with us on the ground. (The 70k worth of undercover anti-whoever paramilitaries -not true)
4.We will hopefully never commit the limited UK troops we still have to a ground war. Public will never agree to it. It would be an autocratic decision to do so and the end of true democracy here, I deeply fear this. And yet the failure of the air war may force this action.
5. Russia and her own agenda.
6. If France suffers another ISIL atrocity their Government may fall. May withdraw from the air campaign. Not impossible to vision.
7. Highly likely we will suffer viscous reprisals from terrorist groups already here - they wont necessarily use firearms to achieve an attack. Our civilian defences, our civilian police and other agencies can not cope with the threat. This attack will put a tremendous strain on the UK Govt. which ISL can exploit for the cost of a few martyrs, not millions of pounds worth of Ł weaponry.

Stopping there. It makes no sense to gamble and enter a war for such a limited return. Gamblers are often well meaning mugs, but generally, on average they lose.


But I deeply resent the way Cameron, our own PM, describe anyone who may vote against or speak against this war as a terrorist sympathiser. Who, moi?
I'd quote the very evil Nazi Goering and what can bring a nation, any nation into a war but I cant be ******.
I rarely pray, but I am tonight.


Sorry racedo I lost count of the score, but I think we lost.

racedo
2nd Dec 2015, 19:40
What could a western country do to effectively "combat the Wahabist ideology" of Saudi Arabia? Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of the Saudi's? Is this the choice - fight ISIL or fight some ideology?

May the good guys win.

Start banning the Saudi Princes and their entourages from visiting Western Cities where they engage in what can be described as "Non Muslim Activities" and start providing all the evidence online of their activties over the years.

Not like the Intel services don't have it all, they keep and use as required.

racedo
2nd Dec 2015, 19:42
Sorry racedo I lost count of the score, but I think we lost.

Nope

You only lose when All Good Men allow evil to prosper.

George Orwell's 1984 has always been a good read, never more so than now.

Chugalug2
2nd Dec 2015, 19:53
You only lose if you say yes or no, racedo. So a nope keeps you in with a chance. You did so nope didn't you? Where's the bloody man with the gong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irg29je8G8k

Easy Street
2nd Dec 2015, 20:47
What could a western country do to effectively "combat the Wahabist ideology" of Saudi Arabia? Is it possible to win the hearts and minds of the Saudi's?

I think you misunderstand the problem. We can start by banning Islamist organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and clamping down severely on radical preachers, just as the majority of Muslim countries themselves do. We can follow up by blocking the funding which flows principally from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to promote Wahhabism, and expunge Wahhabist texts from British schools and mosques. In its distinct way, this ideology is as divisive and intolerant as Nazism, which we rightly abhor and legislate against. (By the way, all of this is in addition to military action against ISIL, not instead of it).

Are we more likely to win the hearts and minds of practising or secular Muslims in this country by constantly linking the name of their ancient religion and culture with a barbarian death-cult

Firstly, winning the hearts and minds of British Muslims is not the first step on the road to solving this problem. Getting the wider public to understand the source of the ideological problem is. That is the necessary prerequisite to some of the difficult diplomacy and domestic politics that would follow in the wake of the steps outlined above, due to the possible negative impact on gas and oil prices, expat jobs, arms contracts and employment in our defence industry, among other things. When all that is done, then it will be time to patch up British society, and hopefully facilitate the resurgence of the varied and colourful Islam that early generations of post-war immigrants practised before the faith's hijacking by the dark, austere, intolerant, divisive but heavily-promoted Arabian version.

Secondly, as I keep saying, saying "Da'esh" does NOT remove any references to Islam or statehood. It just obscures them in a foreign-language abbreviation, reducing the explanatory power needed for the purpose outlined above yet without losing any of their actual meaning. It treats us like fools who snigger at the thought of rude-sounding foreign words whilst paying no heed to their true meaning. As such it is the politics of the student union, or perhaps even the playground, when what is needed is bold and visionary leadership through a battle of ideas.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Dec 2015, 21:31
The ayes have it 397 noes 223

Strikes approved

sharpend
2nd Dec 2015, 21:43
Well the vote has been taken and let bombing commence. Mind you, a fat lot of good it will do, but I suppose it will be of more value to our boys than bombing Garve Island.

Some great speeches and one that really impressed me was the one from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn. Absolutely first class. I suppose it swayed my vote, but purely on political rather than military grounds.

Now we just have to find some chaps to fill those 'boots on the ground'.

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 21:54
More idiocy, as is becoming so popular these days, comes to pprune.

For the benefit of the hard of thinking, does anyone on here think that the views of posters on the "Military Aviation" pprune thread is actually a good mirror on the views of the population of the UK?
Oh Goodness! Do you remember them? The people of our Country (the UK) that you claim to be acting for.....

No, of course not.

Vote. (amongst your stupid selves)

Bomb. (while simultaneously getting upset when non-aircraft bombs go off, inconviently).

The population of the UK-whose views ARE MOST DEFINATELY NOT REFLECTED by postings on this thread do not want to get involved.

Get a Fukcing grip.

But hey, crack on!

:rolleyes:

Courtney Mil
2nd Dec 2015, 22:02
You are clearly an expert in UK public opinion, AtomKraft, so you must be right. Or did you just write that because it's how you would like it to be?

Lima Juliet
2nd Dec 2015, 22:06
^^^^^^^:D:D:D^^^^^^^

Well said, Courtney!

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 22:19
Courtney


As we used to say in my old unit, 'Dont be sorry, be correct'.

I'm ex-mil, and no fan of these idiots, but fighting them only encourages them.

If you like the idea of endless war, wade in......

Wade right in until we all get sucked down. Will you be happy then, that we done our duty?

But what do I know?

As an old Pongo, I know ****, when I see it.

Tankertrashnav
2nd Dec 2015, 22:20
Interesting vote on TV tonight among 16 people in Liverpool who had declared themselves undecided before the debate. At the end of their discussions they voted and guess what - 8 for and 8 against the government motion. Hardly what you claim to be the situation among the population Atomkraft

Dont be confused by TV pictures of large anti war demos. We dont do pro war demos in this country (smacks too much of Nurnberg), most people who are in favour of some sort of action tend to stay quietly at home.

Now the decision has been made I am just hoping that our aircrews stay safe - I wish them well.

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 22:33
I dont give a flying F for anyone elses opinion.
In MY opinion, we should keep right out of the ME. We've dabbled a-plenty over the years, and with both bad and worse than bad intentions.

NOTHING we can do in the short term-and BOY- thats all we're in it for!, can change it for the better in the long term.

But Hey!
Bomb.

Bomb

Bomb

Bomb

Bomb

Bomb.

Oh Goodness.

I feel better, knowing that we're going to bomb someone- and glad its not me, or my kids.

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 22:39
Tanker.
If youve allowed your opinion to be swayed by the opinions of 'the undecided' in Liverpool, the next time you want advice try pulling the petals off a flower and saying 'he loves me, he loves me not' until you get your answer...

NutLoose
2nd Dec 2015, 22:50
BBC news just reported the MOD reporting two Tornados have taken off from Cyprus on a mission..... Call me old fashioned but WTF are the MOD announcing missions while they are taking place and are in theater.

Lima Juliet
2nd Dec 2015, 22:57
You see what we do with air power like GR4, Reaper and to some extent Typhoon is so much more than just 'bomb'. Here is a quote from Lt Gen Dave Deptula from a presentation I attended a few years ago with my bold added:

Here’s a recent text message dialogue between two
insurgents in Afghanistan that was recently declassified.
I quote. “Tanks and armor are not a big deal. The planes
are the killers. I can handle everything but the jet
fighters.”
That wasn’t written by the Air Force
Association or the Air Force Public Affairs Office, it was
written by two Taliban insurgent commanders. That, ladies
and gentlemen, is what we’re all about. Exploiting
America’s asymmetric advantage, our air, space and cyber
power.

The full transcript is available on the Air Force Association website. He is right and so many on here are wrong. The systematic targetting of the insurgents training camps, logistics (including their revenue earning oil convoys), their middle and senior leadership plus limiting their ability to move freely really will degrade the capability of this lot. This is not a LINEBACKER type carpet bombing of Syria - it is high-grade intelligence driven time-sensitive targetting against key assets. That works and it is likely that if we give them the run-around and degrade the insurgents ability to train for, fund and direct their plans then the chances of an attack in Europe reduces and the ability to take back the land they have claimed will be easier. Why the yoghurt-knitting Guardianista seem to think that there will be so many civilian casualties is beyond me - they obviously still think we're using SNEB rocket packs, cluster weapons and iron bombs - idiots!

Anyway, vote is won very convincingly and I suspect that the vote in Oldham will lead more to the woes of the yoghurt-knitters and lentil-eating loons.

LJ

PS. I also believe there is a special gate for the 'no' voters in the Tower of London and it begins with a 'T'...

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 23:00
Oh Golly
Me and the other sheeples in PC UK are so grateful to the brave boys and girls in those two Tornadoes for droppin those bombs.

I hope they kill more people than they antagonise.

But lets not complain too much when their bombs (not dropped from a GR4) go pop.

Lima Juliet
2nd Dec 2015, 23:00
Nutty

Probably night flying currency rides. :ok:

LJ

Lima Juliet
2nd Dec 2015, 23:03
AtomKraft

Are you back on Planet Claire again - didn't anybody tell you that those things are bad for you...?

LJ :p

Courtney Mil
2nd Dec 2015, 23:03
Your anger is showing, AtomKraft. Anger, pure anger.

Here's a little thought that may make you feel a bit better.

RAF involvement in Syria will do little to increase the terrorist threat anywhere because they are already involved in bombing Daesh in Iraq. The small percentage of missions where the RAF crews have actually dropped on targets in Iraq is a good indicator of how carefully selective they are being to hit confirmed targets and avoid civilian casualties - that does not include recce missions.

The fact that you don't give a flying F for anyone elses [sic] opinion probably indicates that you haven't listened too much.

If you listened more you might understand that standing by now and doing nothing would not stop ISIS attacks in Western cities as they still have their grand plan to achieve - perhaps you would prefer that without giving a flying F

If you listened more you might understand that standing by and doing nothing would mean thousands more people murdered and brutalised and further expansion of these medieval murderers - perhaps you would prefer that without giving a flying F

I'm sure we're all pleased it's not you or your kids.

Linedog
2nd Dec 2015, 23:06
Nutty, been happening for many years.

The crews taking part in the Falklands bombing complained about the same thing.

PBJ99bIhAVk

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 23:15
Courtney
Well, at least we can agree on that last sentence.......

We should never have got involved in the ME, and although we did our best in the Great Game- we lost.

Its about time we admitted it, and FO'd.

Our whole gambit there was sluttish. We played, we lost, and we made a giant mess-viz Israel.

OK, according to you, lets have another go. Like our THREE attempts in Afghanistan? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHICH, got our arses handed to us?

****it.

Bomb away

No good will come of it.

Mark my words.:=

Thelma Viaduct
2nd Dec 2015, 23:22
Dropping bombs on the Middle East has been working wonders since 1991, suppose a few more years of kids getting blown to bits won't do much more harm.......

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 23:38
You ******* 'bombs away' pilots seem to have trouble distinguishing between tactics and strategy.

Was ever thus.

AtomKraft
2nd Dec 2015, 23:42
Aircraft with HE weapons are tactical.

The big question is: are IS tactical, or strategic.

glad rag
3rd Dec 2015, 02:20
Well the vote has been cast and the decision made.

Despite my previously stated misgivings, now is the time to fully support the boys and girls who, like it or not, are doing our bidding and their duty.

Toadstool
3rd Dec 2015, 03:55
First strikes carried out early this morning over Syria.

thunderbird7
3rd Dec 2015, 06:37
Why the yoghurt-knitting Guardianista seem to think that there will be so many civilian casualties is beyond me - they obviously still think we're using SNEB rocket packs, cluster weapons and iron bombs - idiots!


Trouble is Leon, as the old saying goes, bombs and bullets don't kill people; people kill people. And I'm sure the patients and staff of the MSF hospital in Kunduz didn't really care if it was a SNEB rocket or a Paveway but they would have cared that faulty intelligence led to them being bombed - human error.

There is ALWAYS collateral damage, a fact of war that should be taken into account. My concern that it will encourage the collateral to spread to the UK.

And just who do we want to win in the end? I know who I want but I'm not sure UK Gov has got the balls to agree...

Haart
3rd Dec 2015, 06:46
Well, given all the hype of recent days, people could be excused for thinking something important has happened. The I see it is: twice the area + more targets than Iraq + same number of aircraft = half the effect.

But to increase assets in Shader risks the Libyan trap of pushing everything forward for the 'big push' in the expectation of a short campaign only to find it isn't and sustainability becomes a huge problem.

I wonder if anyone at MoD is thinking that this could be a, say, 3 year campaign and to set the pace of ops, assets and resources accordingly for a long haul.

Training Risky
3rd Dec 2015, 07:04
Anyone remember Southern Watch? 10+ years of sniping at the edges of the Iraqi regime. Of course that was when we had more than 5 front line GR sqns!

Atomkraft - lay off the gluesniffing... The public voted in this government - it is therefore the people's will that we fight back against threats to our country

FantomZorbin
3rd Dec 2015, 07:08
Well, we are where we are ... I just hope that everyone flies safe and that there has been equally as much planning (if not more) for the retrieval of downed aircrew 'sausage side'.


NB. This is just a wish ... we don't need details here.

snchater
3rd Dec 2015, 07:50
"The public voted in this government - it is therefore the people's will that we fight back against threats to our country"

A common misconception : the present government was voted for by a minority of the electorate ( PR would address this).

Recent opinion polls show that the majority of the electorate do not support our involvement in Syria.

Never let the facts interfer with people's opinion.

Chugalug2
3rd Dec 2015, 07:52
LJ:-
PS. I also believe there is a special gate for the 'no' voters in the Tower of London and it begins with a 'T'... When you become the beloved leader, no doubt, Leon. Meanwhile God speed our aircrew, and indeed all members of the coalition, engaged upon their dangerous business.

AR1
3rd Dec 2015, 07:59
Atomkraft, if you'd have bothered reading through the thread, you would have found plenty of 'No' voters with reasoned arguments. The yes voters in the main also used reasoned arguments rather than the love of 'bombing' people.

Simple really.

3rd Dec 2015, 08:00
AtomKraft and other sceptics - google Hilary Benn's speech - listen to it and then say we are doing the wrong thing by taking the fight to the enemy!

Pontius Navigator
3rd Dec 2015, 08:17
"The public voted in this government - it is therefore the people's will that we fight back against threats to our country"

A common misconception : the present government was voted for by a minority of the electorate ( PR would address this).

Recent opinion polls show that the majority of the electorate do not support our involvement in Syria.

Never let the facts interfer with people's opinion.

The emboldened statement is correct.

Where you are incorrect is that 64% of our representatives voted for the resolution. If we subtract the SNP who were 100% against we find that 70% of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs of all parties voted for the resolution. That 7 Conservative MPs voted against is democracy.

The vote was a cross-party democratic one by our representatives.

If you voted then they represented your views, like it or not. If you did not vote . . .

Pontius Navigator
3rd Dec 2015, 08:21
Haart, your argument is valid if all weapons are expended on every sortie over Iraq. If weapons are not always expended then an increase in the number of potential targets of opportunity in Syria will not halve the effort.

I don't know, nor do I seek to find out, what proportion of sorties do not drop weapons.

kapton
3rd Dec 2015, 08:55
Whether it is right to bomb ISIS is not the point. Some western governments refuse to learn the lessons of the last 12 years. This present situation was caused by strategic and political blunders in invading Iraq in the first place. Then compounding the situation by getting rid of the Sunni elite from positions of power. Having said that, a homegrown Scottish war criminal was complicit in his sycophantic support of American foreign policy. We were chased out of Basra with our tails between our legs and ground down in Afghanistan. So what will now change? Does anyone really think that ISIS have not assessed Cameron and Obama? ISIS have nothing to fear from these 2. You can send all the bombers and high tech weapons you like, but when your politicians are weak opportunists you are going to lose eventually. All ISIS have to do is keep fighting an asymmetrical war against the west and they will win. Eventually we will sue for peace, or try to find a way out of this mess. History, time and again proves this. My view does not detract from the bravery of the professional airmen of The RAF and allied air forces. These men and women deserve better. I just hope they return to their families safe and well. Time and again over the last decade or so, dedicated, brave, men and women,have paid with their lives because of decisions made by pathetic specimens in Washington and London. Our armed forces deserve better.

Tankertrashnav
3rd Dec 2015, 08:57
P-N I heard a figure quoted on TV yesterday that weapons had been used on approximately a quarter of Tornado missions over Iraq in the last year (c 400 out of 1600) .

I have no idea of the source of this figure, or its accuracy, but it seems credible to me.

Pontius Navigator
3rd Dec 2015, 08:59
kapton, correct, it is a question of targets.

In Iraq our target was the leadership; their target was our public opinion. Now we have no viable leadership at which to aim; their target remains our public opinion.

3rd Dec 2015, 09:20
Eventually we will sue for peace, or try to find a way out of this mess You can't sue for peace with ISIS, they are not interested in it!

What we are trying to do now is find a way out of the mess and the bombing will be a very small (but necessary) part of it. If the bombing is simply a delaying tactic which just slows down the spread of ISIS, it will have served its purpose.

Whilst we try to contain them miitarily, other tactics can be deployed; economic, diplomatic, religious, cyber etc etc but anything that can be done NOW to degrade their capabilities must be done.

Pontius Navigator
3rd Dec 2015, 09:42
TTN, thank you. I believe the potential target area is double the size (a guess), so given your figure, the current number of weapons systems would seem adequate.

Prangster
3rd Dec 2015, 10:05
Surely ladies and gentlemen now that the go option has been democratically voted for, the only response on this forum should be the unequivocal support of our crews tasked with this thankless business.


To quote Dave Allen, 'may their god go with them' and for heavens sake lets hope all in Cyprus are more than alert to possible incursions

Cows getting bigger
3rd Dec 2015, 10:21
Votes - I cherish our democracy, despite some arguable weaknesses (PR etc). Yesterday's session was for the opposition to lose; they managed that in spades. The decision to bomb was not due to the strength of the Conservative Right, it was due to the complete ineffectiveness of Labour, et al. Ironically Corbyn, a Stop the War stalwart, has much to answer for here in his complete inability to motivate, lead, mobilise and unite.

Labour need to get rid of him fast and put someone in his place who can at least present an argument.

papajuliet
3rd Dec 2015, 10:28
See the Jet Blast forum - suddenly Benn looks like Labour's bright shining star.

AR1
3rd Dec 2015, 10:31
unequivocal support of our crews
Indeed.

complete ineffectiveness of Labour
The 'weak' opposition allowed a free vote - I don't see that as a weakness. Most of the time there is disagreement within a party, but party policy overrides that disagreement giving a united front. In instances such as this a free vote is the best way of achieving proper representation. Of course you could argue there would have been a revolt had he not offered a free vote... But that's for another day and time.

Anyhow, it's done. lets get on with it.

racedo
3rd Dec 2015, 10:32
PS. I also believe there is a special gate for the 'no' voters in the Tower of London and it begins with a 'T'...

WTF

I though that UK was a Democracy where people get to exercise Free Will.

Indicating that if you don't vote for a Government on its latest exercise overseas makes you a traitor then UK has a real problem.

Courtney Mil
3rd Dec 2015, 10:42
See the Jet Blast forum

I'd rather not. :ok:

I love the way that a free vote in the House of Commons and the expansion of a military air operation can so quickly turn into the UK's electoral voting system. Clearly someone's humin rites are being trampled on here. I'm only surprised we haven't heard about it being the immigrants' fault yet.

Democracy has now been served and it's down to the crews in theatre to their work in degrading a barbaric horde. Good hunting, good luck and come home safely.

Yes, 400 attacks out of 1,600 missions with no reported collateral is correct - only attacking valid, safe targets. Some were recce missions.

Just This Once...
3rd Dec 2015, 11:06
When you are one of the few nations that can conduct effective reconnaissance your task requests are biased towards this.

Whilst you may not expend weapons yourself your effectiveness is reflected in the ordinance expended by coalition partners that may only provide attack assets. In equal regard your efforts may prevent ordinance being dropped on the wrong people.

Counting bombs delivered as a measure of effect is a very poor metric.

:ok:

Wensleydale
3rd Dec 2015, 11:24
For those who did not hear it all last night.....


Hilary Benn speech in full: 'We must now confront this evil' ? video | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/dec/03/hilary-benn-airstrikes-vote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video)

Roadster280
3rd Dec 2015, 11:31
Prior to the Parliamentary vote, I expect it would have been difficult for the RAF to allow the use of Akrotiri for other nations to launch operations against Syria.

Now the vote has been taken and the RAF will have 16x FJ there, I wonder if other nations may request/be invited to use Akrotiri. It seems ideally situated, and more easily defended than bases in neighboring countries to Syria.

It's many years since I went to AKT, but from what I recall, it's on a bit of a peninsula and the actual airfield is miles past the gate.

Wycombe
3rd Dec 2015, 11:49
A few (too) many years since I was in AKT also, but it's a very large base (it was known within the service during it's heyday as "The Big A") and it's peninsula location does afford a certain covert concealment - at least by land.

Post the Paris attacks, it was offered to the French as a bolthole for their carrier-borne ops.

I see the Germans are also imminently voting whether or not to join the operation, with Tornado's (I suspect to do recon. rather than to bomb), so they made need somewhere to put them?

Training Risky
3rd Dec 2015, 12:35
A common misconception : the present government was voted for by a minority of the electorate ( PR would address this).

Election 2015 - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results)

Excluding the membership of the electorate who, for various reasons, could not be bothered to participate in our democracy (and therefore don't count), the May 2015 vote was slightly over 50% right of centre.

Meaning that although it is not perfect PR, we got what we voted for with FPTP: a sensible, generally right of centre government, compared to the lunacy of Milibland/Corbychev!

That's the system we have and it's the worst in the world...apart from all the others.

Cheeks
3rd Dec 2015, 13:21
BBC news just reported the MOD reporting two Tornados have taken off from Cyprus on a mission..... Call me old fashioned but WTF are the MOD announcing missions while they are taking place and are in theater.How else do you extract maximum PR value?

Remember that the primary objective is to stand 'side-by-side with our allies'.

Degrading ISIL is secondary to that.

Cheeks
3rd Dec 2015, 13:24
PS. I also believe there is a special gate for the 'no' voters in the Tower of London and it begins with a 'T'...That's, erm, an interesting take on the parliamentary process.

3rd Dec 2015, 13:48
A few (too) many years since I was in AKT also, but it's a very large base (it was known within the service during it's heyday as "The Big A") and it's peninsula location does afford a certain covert concealment - at least by land Err - I was orderly officer there in 1986 when a co-ordinated terrorist attack targeted the base in retaliation for assistance to the US F111 sorties. They drove up Ladies Mile to the fence and lobbed 3 RPGs onto the beach (crowded on a Sunday afternoon) and emptied a full mag of AK47 rounds into the car park. The other team had a mortar and walked several rounds across the airfield, fortunately missing anything important.

Amazingly there were only 2 very minor injuries.

More competent terrorists could have caused carnage but I am sure the Station is a bit more secure now.

ACW342
3rd Dec 2015, 14:24
IIRC AKT was HQ NEAF. Should be able to take a few more aircraft wouldn't you say? And yes to continuing to attack ISIS/ISIL/DAESH wherever required (Wasn't Tengah HQ FEAF?, all we have now is UKAF)

Wensleydale
3rd Dec 2015, 14:33
"BBC news just reported the MOD reporting two Tornados have taken off from Cyprus on a mission..... Call me old fashioned but WTF are the MOD announcing missions while they are taking place and are in theatre".


Back in the days of GW1, the NATO AWACS was patrolling the border of Turkey. Not being party to operations, they did not have an ATO, but never mind, as the BBC World Service would announce what was getting airborne and the tracks could be identified from there. However, this is not as bad as operations over Kosovo where Italian ATC would not allow allied aircraft to get airborne from the Italian bases without an ATC slot. Needless to say, all of the slots were then sent up the chain to Belgrade ATC iaw common peacetime procedure.

just another jocky
3rd Dec 2015, 15:50
Just for the record, for those looking at stats of bombing sorties/recce sorties etc, I'd like to point out that the GR4 carrying the RAPTOR reconnaissance pod can carry, at the same time, 2 x Paveway IV bombs and a loaded 27mm Mauser cannon.

Armed recce.....the way to go! :ok:

http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv360/SkidsVFR/31Sqn_2_zpswbzwe1hs.jpg

Wycombe
3rd Dec 2015, 16:21
I see some much-heralded Brimstone on the closest Tonka there aswell :-)

Err - I was orderly officer there in 1986 when a co-ordinated terrorist attack targeted the base in retaliation for assistance to the US F111 sorties. They drove up Ladies Mile to the fence and lobbed 3 RPGs onto the beach (crowded on a Sunday afternoon) and emptied a full mag of AK47 rounds into the car park. The other team had a mortar and walked several rounds across the airfield, fortunately missing anything important.

Amazingly there were only 2 very minor injuries.

Must admit I had forgotten that incident (it was a long time ago), which is remiss of me as I was there for a short visit not long after. I bet that was more exciting than supervising jankers for the 100 Sqn groundcrew that were p!ssed-up again!

pr00ne
3rd Dec 2015, 16:31
ACW342,
Episkopi was HQ NEAF, not Akrotiri. It was, and is, a huge airfield though, and had acres and acres of new ramp space laid for USAF KC-135's in GW1.

Changi was HQ FEAF, not Tengah.

Yep, all gone now. All those pesky foreigners wanting their own countries back eh?

Wrathmonk
3rd Dec 2015, 17:37
AtomKraft [...snip...] google Hilary Benn's speech

That will just incense him even more - he is a dyed in the wool SNP supporter.;)

JointShiteFighter
3rd Dec 2015, 18:07
I'm not interested in the political side of this debate, I'm just dropping by to wish the crews and the team of experts who support the flying and maintain the equipment, Godspeed and good luck for this extended campaign in Syria. I await your safe return home! I'm proud of you all.

The_1
3rd Dec 2015, 18:37
Serious bit 1st - Good result for the PM last night...

Put Britain back on the map and showed that he did mean what he said following Paris. Perhaps most satisfying for the Conservatives is the fact that it showed the Labour Party in complete internal combustion, something that will take the Labour Party quite some time to recover from.

Less serious bit - I wonder how long it will be before the 'war experts' come out of the woodwork to lend some 'credibility' to news reports. How long before Col Bob (the people's soldier) is asked for his 'expert' opinion?

Completely flippant bit - Finally, if I had the time (and wasn't wasting it on posts in internet forums:D ) I would put together a graphic of a Tornado with a made-up weapons payload, such as an Ion laser or something, and see how long it took to get used by some journalist in a proper news rag.

Hangarshuffle
3rd Dec 2015, 18:51
You might be waiting a long time JSF.


This will probably take years to conclude, not that it will. All the other wars are pretty well established now.. (Ukraine, Iraq, now the Yemen and certainly Syria (4 years is it now?)....also Libya of course, that's unfinished..Beirut (massive bomb went off recently but coming on 40 years a place I would have loved to have gone to in its heyday), whilst Egypt is a bit of a slow burner but they had Sharm al Sheik or wherever it is.., Iran possibly one for the future....Swat valley, Pakistan v India....Afghanistan of course unfinished ..Turkey and Russia just seemingly really starting. Cameron must have felt left out of it. Israel/Palestine. Gaza. Kurdistan.
I've lost track -think that's it for now (for that region alone).
France. Belgium. Germany. Back in region Tunisia......for terror.
We'll cop it in Blighty eventually, only a matter of catching up with all the above really. See who crows then? Do I feel sour? You bet.


But democracy was served I suppose - we have what we have and I accept it.
Some good answers on here- some good questions too. Time and history will judge the day.
My MP voted for the war incidentally. She hasn't put a peep about it on her website, I will ask her eventually.
I would ask the MODs to lock the thread now. Goodnight.

GlobalNav
3rd Dec 2015, 18:59
To the honorable MP Hilary Benn - HEAR HEAR!!!

Well Done Sir!!

tarantonight
3rd Dec 2015, 19:32
No! Unless there is a coherent plan for what happens next.

Have we learnt NOTHING from the past 20 years?

I have not read all of this thread, but from what I have seen feel the situation and threat is misunderstood - I have knowledge of this from a different perspective due to a previous life.

ISIS/ISIL cannot be compared to any previous terrorist threat the world has seen in history. I have heard it said that negotiations worked in the case of PIRA, we should try that. No possible comparison. The average ASU member back in the day would want to return to his family at the end of the (literal) day and maybe have a pint. Say no more.

It took place with the Taliban from what I understand. The Taliban did not want to take the issue to our country or Europe, they wanted to desk with us on their own turf.

ISIS/ISIL has to be destroyed totally. It is an immense task and I hate to think how long it will take - I genuinely fear for my children's generation as they become adults.

I haven't reviewed what I have typed as it is written from the heart.

'They' are coming to get us and need to be met with force. If not, the future is very bleak. Very.

Regards,

TN.

Bill Macgillivray
3rd Dec 2015, 20:06
Tarantonight,

I must (albeit) reluctantly, agree with you! We have moved to a much more difficult situation. Whilst I do not have to agree (indeed do not in many cases) with our "elected leaders", they are now faced with a very different foe than has been in evidence before. Da'esh have a different "purpose", target, call it what you will, to those other "**se **les" who went before, in my opinion (and, YES, I did have some experience of some of them !) I am no lover of our current elected "leaders" but, that is what they are! I foresee a long and very amateur political lead, with our Service guys doing the job, as always, to a level that is beyond MP's comprehension!!

Good luck to all!

Bill.

WE Branch Fanatic
3rd Dec 2015, 20:46
AtomKraft/Pious Pilot

Do you think Syrians being murdered by Daesh ever think it was good that nobody the West attempted to interdict/disrupt/cause attrition to their attackers?

Royalistflyer
3rd Dec 2015, 20:48
I agree with the previous two posters. Having post-service had a little career concerning middle east problems I can say that ISIS are definitely different from all others. The present ISIS operation is practically a re-write of the 1802 revolution in which the Wahabis took over Saudi Arabia. Saudi is the home of Sunni Wahabism and has spawned both Al Quaeda and ISIS. But ISIS are really sticking to the original play of 1802. Their objective is a Caliphate - a religious state led by a successor to mahommed - and they have openly stated that they want that to include Europe.
They will fight for years and since they virtually never field an army, they are difficult for the conventionally armed westerners to deal with.
These people are deadly serious and they have gone out of their way to try to scare us into submission - and as far as the politically correct, atheistic liberal left is concerned, they seem to have done a pretty good job.
ISIS - as has been said will never get into negotiations - that is of no interest to them. They want territory and they want to dominate the moslem world with us included in it.
We should in my view be supporting Al Assad in Syria. He is an Alawite - regarded by both Sunni and Shia as non-moslem. He works well with the Christian population (and there was a large Christian population in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine) He is in fact western culture-friendly. He understands what should be done there. Building on him and his army and the Iraqi army together with the Kurds, we might just be able to surround and defeat ISIS.

Fonsini
4th Dec 2015, 01:00
I hear there are now a mix of 16 ground attack capable aircraft at Akrotiri with 4 launched on any one mission.


Does anyone honestly think that will make any difference to anything - it sounds like a gesture of support more than having any real impact on the tactical situation.


Not trying to inflame anyone but I confess I just don't get what all the fuss is about.


Also, wasn't the RAF already bombing IS in Iraq ? The politicians seem to be arguing as if this is something new, when in fact it's just a new dot on the waypoint indicator.


Feel free to straighten me out, I don't really have a dog in this fight other than hoping that those pilots are safe.

Phil_R
4th Dec 2015, 02:51
That was precisely the impression I got, on both counts. It's political support, and the practical difference it will make is near zero.

Question, though: could the current UK armed forces actually muster much more?I learned on this very forum that approximately one fifth of aircraft can comfortably be deployed at any one time. Eight Tornado is actually more than one fifth of the three squadrons that exist.

P

Kitbag
4th Dec 2015, 04:15
Question, though: could the current UK armed forces actually muster much more?I learned on this very forum that approximately one fifth of aircraft can comfortably be deployed at any one time. Eight Tornado is actually more than one fifth of the three squadrons that exist.

P

That probably depends on what the limiting factor is; aircrew, ground crew, flying hours, spares, weapons etc. Most could be ameliorated by spending more cash. Problem is, that cash needed to be spent probably 5 years ago to ensure the capability today. In the same way, the announcements about additional ac and sqns made in SDSR won't have any real effect until 2020.

Whenurhappy
4th Dec 2015, 04:26
Although there is near-jingoistic fervour in the print media about the deployment of aircraft to Akrotiri, what I find astounding is how basic facts are missed or just plane (sic) wrong. The Torygraph (on line this morning) had two Typhoons labelled as Tornados, a stock picture of an F3 described as a Typhoon and the best was the A400 described as a Typhoon (presumably the turbo prop variant developed in great secrecy....)

And I won't even begin to mention the factual inaccuracies in the Daily Fail...swamped and trolled as it has been by Putinistas.

Somehow, 70 years ago I am sure the grandparents of today's correspondents knew the difference between a Hurricane, a Spitfire and a Bombay....

AtomKraft
4th Dec 2015, 05:37
Well, I admit that Benn did well (especially for himself) with his speech- and he made a decent job of presenting the case 'for' bombing. So, hats off to him.

However. His speech, and our bombing, amounts to little more than willy-waving. It's what we do best these days.

We refuse to come face to face with problems in the ME which stem entirely from ill judged foreign policy on the part of the U.K. and our allies.

Like....
The unholy alliance between the UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia.
The equally poisoned one twixt the US and Israel
Our unfortunate support for the US in GW2.
And so on.

We have destabilised the region massively, mainly by removing from power those we didn't fancy (although at one point, we fancied them rather a lot...).

I reckon the former leader of Iraq would have had a fair idea how to deal with IS, and sorting them out would have taken him a long weekend- admittedly with heads and legs flying in all directions.

We don't understand the ME. Our attempts fo fcuk with the place, have historically only made things worse.

The peoples of the ME have been cutting each other's balls off since the first knife arrived in the region- we should leave them to it.

This bombing will achieve a little in the short term, but FA will be the nett effect.

Pontius Navigator
4th Dec 2015, 07:09
AK, not an unreasonable summary.

The unholy alliance between the UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia.
The equally poisoned one twixt the US and Israel

Without US Support of Israel what would you expect to happen? I expect you would have a holy war to end all wars with much of the ME glassified.

Of the Saudi case, they would probably turn to China and while that is probably popularly bad. It might not necessarily be bad that the world's manufacturer gets cheap oil to replace dirty coal. Who knows?

Above The Clouds
4th Dec 2015, 07:50
I expect you would have a holy war to end all wars with much of the ME glassified.

May well have been the best long term solution to let them get their own house in order.

AtomKraft
4th Dec 2015, 09:19
Pontious.
I mentioned foreign policy blunders earlier. Our siding with the Zionists, which we did in order to cheat the Frogs out of Syria- was the biggest of all.

I don't suppose the demise of the oh-so-loved Jewish state would signal a mass outbreak of peace in the area, but it's the ****ty pivot upon which our troubles turn.

I wonder how long before we see IS popping up in Tel Aviv? Or maybe those pussies haven't got the bottle for that?

ORAC
4th Dec 2015, 09:50
Pressure Mounting On Dutch To Join Syria Airstrikes (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/12/03/pressure-mounting-dutch-join-syria-airstrikes/76752248/)

Courtney Mil
4th Dec 2015, 10:30
For all those of you who are having trouble with Parliament voting to kill children, bomb mosques and flatten schools and orphanages at the expense of teachers and nurses in the UK, here's an article from The Independent. But you probably shouldn't read it because it may affect your entrenched, self-righteous views. Then again, maybe not.

Debunking the righteous Syria memes that fill up your thread | Voices | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a6759396.html)

Eclectic
4th Dec 2015, 11:01
Surely Cameron sending 6 air defence Typhoons to Akrotiri is a bit telling when IS have no airforce.
Yes they are capable of dropping bombs, but the Tornado does it better.
Plenty of other people in the area do have airforces, so which ones are we worried about?

MAINJAFAD
4th Dec 2015, 12:09
Yes they are capable of dropping bombs, but the Tornado does it better.

Total rubbish, having seen the footage taken from the Litening III pods fitted to Typhoons in libya, they are just as good as Tornadoes in the dropping and guiding of LGB's. What Tornado brings to the party is Raptor and Brimstone. What is most likely going to happen is mixed packages of both types going out on missions, just as they did in Libya (and as the Buccs and Tonka's did in GW1). It does give the option of the Typhoon doing the designation and Paveway attacks while the Tornado carries the items that can't be carried by the Typhoon (that is of course if the Brimstone can be designated by another aircraft like Paveway can). If the PWIV has been cleared for Typhoon, that's 4 weapons per aircraft plus the designator.

Pontius Navigator
4th Dec 2015, 12:18
I wonder how long before we see IS popping up in Tel Aviv? Or maybe those pussies haven't got the bottle for that?

Got it in one, I don't think there are too many lefty liberals in Tel Aviv.

Parson
4th Dec 2015, 13:46
Whenurhappy,

Couldn't agree more. Where o' where do journalists come from these days? (and it's not just aviation). I have pretty much given up on the printed media. Speculation and hype I can cope with - it's the darn right ignorance and stupidy that I cannot abide. There is no excuse nowadays with the interweb on tap.

To answer the original question - yes, but only because we have to be seen to be doing something. Will it lead to the defeat of IS? Unlikely. This is not a conventional army that can be defeated by conventional tactics.

Hangarshuffle
4th Dec 2015, 18:16
Courtney mate that's just plain insulting to people and rather dis-respectful to their intelligence. Are we not allowed to speak, to even think?
I am neither entrenched, nor self-loading/loathing/right-on/right mess or whatever you said.
People have adopted the "no" position for a pretty wide variety of reasons. And come from a wide spectrum of society, I have to say.


I doubt they (the RAF crews or planners) are targeting schools, mosques...not impossible they hit them though, mistakes will probably be made eventually because its an air war.*
According to some of the **** papers I glanced this morning ,they (RAF crew) blasted an enemy sniper team into the never regions last night or so.
Granted that's life and death if you are an Iraqi squaddy being sniped and going to die.
But its hardly worth the risk to the entire UK now runs from the counter attacks, where ever they come.
The war planes will be in a job for life (pardon the pun) if these are the targets they are going after. Way too small.


Actually, before ISIS even get started here in the UK they've effectively split our country pretty well into bits, politically speaking.
Scotland was just about all no, looking at the "who voted how" websites. Other areas in England also pretty dramatically anti war. Mostly the red bits - the true blue bits very obvious.
We are not a united front as an island nation - this could be exploited effectively in the future by the evil and astute.
And so the violent spiral will continue and (purely in my opinion mind) it will come here and visit us. And so I hope this gamble with our British lives is so really worth it.


* Strangely, in a way now I fully concede to CM that many people who post online seem to accept that it actually is an RAF terror based war campaign aiming at civilians - why is this? Do the RAF need to do better propaganda more often?
.

spooky3
4th Dec 2015, 18:34
#228 (permalink)
AtomKraft

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 445
Well, I admit that Benn did well (especially for himself) with his speech- and he made a decent job of presenting the case 'for' bombing. So, hats off to him.

However. His speech, and our bombing, amounts to little more than willy-waving. It's what we do best these days.

We refuse to come face to face with problems in the ME which stem entirely from ill judged foreign policy on the part of the U.K. and our allies.

Like....
The unholy alliance between the UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia.
The equally poisoned one twixt the US and Israel
Our unfortunate support for the US in GW2.
And so on.

We have destabilised the region massively, mainly by removing from power those we didn't fancy (although at one point, we fancied them rather a lot...).

I reckon the former leader of Iraq would have had a fair idea how to deal with IS, and sorting them out would have taken him a long weekend- admittedly with heads and legs flying in all directions.

We don't understand the ME. Our attempts fo fcuk with the place, have historically only made things worse.

The peoples of the ME have been cutting each other's balls off since the first knife arrived in the region- we should leave them to it.

This bombing will achieve a little in the short term, but FA will be the nett effect.


You my friend have hit the nail 100% on the head, we simply don't understand these animals and they don't understand us and never will, But some so called clever folk in the west think that can change:ugh:

Pontius Navigator
4th Dec 2015, 18:42
Certainly Joe Public seems to equate RAF bombing with death and destruction as in WW 2 rather than the reality that it is more akin to long range sniping and more selective than bbc a machine gun.

However I think the frequent statement that the RAF crews ensure there are no civilians near the target. How do you tell them apart?

JointShiteFighter
4th Dec 2015, 19:21
What Tornado brings to the party is Raptor and Brimstone.

...and Paveway IV, and Storm Shadow (if the latter's necessary).

MAINJAFAD
4th Dec 2015, 19:35
JSF, First operational sortie of Typhoon with PWIV has just been flown today. Storm Shadow and PWIII are the two other weapons that Tornado can carry and Typhoon can't. Both are bit overkill in the current operational environment, though as you right in that they may be required (though if there is something that needed Stormshadow to kill it, a PWII or PWIII would be a much cheaper option in this air environment).

JointShiteFighter
4th Dec 2015, 19:48
Ah, fair enough. In which case then, that's brilliant. I'm happy that PWIV for Typhoon made it to the front line, just in time.

Kitbag
4th Dec 2015, 21:15
MAINJAFAD, I thought the DMS Brimstone was weapon of choice?, Has Typhoon now deployed with that capability?

MAINJAFAD
4th Dec 2015, 22:50
Nope not according to any public sources and I don't walk past the open hanger doors of 41 Sqn on the way to the office anymore to get a peek on what's hanging off the pylons of their Typhoons or Tornadoes. The question is however irreverent. First raid on Syria by the Tornadoes used Paveway only. If the Tornado carries Raptor and max Brimstone load, a Typhoon carries 4 PWIV, plus Litening pod and they are launched as a pair, its the about the same weapon load as 2 GR4's doing the same mission. (Plus there are at least a couple of AIM-120's to boot if you look closely at the photos of the armed Typhoons (not that I can see the RAF using them)).

Easy Street
4th Dec 2015, 23:16
Tornado can't carry RAPTOR and Brimstone simultaneously.

It's pretty obvious to me that the point of deploying Typhoon in the ground-attack role is that the Tornado fleet is stretched to its sustainable limit and any additional ground-attack capability added by Typhoon, even if it is "just" more Paveway IVs and Litening pods, is a good thing. Bear in mind the Tornado squadrons came into SHADER straight off the back of Afghanistan, and also took part in operations over Nigeria for a bit last year - it's not as if they have stored up a reserve of good will to burn in an extended surge, and we expect this to go on for years (the Government cited SHADER when it extended the third Tornado squadron to 2018). Sustaining the fight without prompting a flurry of PVRs - which would be particularly damaging among the WSO cadre, an endangered species - requires a cautious approach to deployment ratios. It's already at 1:2, which is pretty brutal by historic standards. Relocating all three squadrons permanently to Akrotiri might allow a greater effort - or it might result in a flood of PVRs from those unwilling to relocate. A bit risky, I would suggest.

downsizer
5th Dec 2015, 06:53
which would be particularly damaging among the WSO cadre, an endangered species

WSO about to re-open to DE recruitment. Already candidates at CBAT are being fluffed for the "new" role...:\

BEagle
5th Dec 2015, 07:00
All this yakking on about operational capabilities of Typhoon / Tornado needs to STOP RIGHT NOW!

As does discussion concerning ROE.

The RAF is prosecuting military operations against the evil known as daesh - that's all you Need to Know!

Haraka
5th Dec 2015, 09:02
All this yakking on about operational capabilities of Typhoon / Tornado needs to STOP RIGHT NOW!

As does discussion concerning ROE.......as also the idiocy of allowing individuals to use unofficial imaging devices in any area of sensitive military operations.

Courtney Mil
5th Dec 2015, 11:12
BEags,

The ROE thread has gone.