Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
P
Poor press coverage
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....
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....
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
AK, not an unreasonable summary.
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?
The unholy alliance between the UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia.
The equally poisoned one twixt the US and Israel
The equally poisoned one twixt the US and Israel
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?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect you would have a holy war to end all wars with much of the ME glassified.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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
Debunking the righteous Syria memes that fill up your thread | Voices | The Independent
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Yes they are capable of dropping bombs, but the Tornado does it better.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
.
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?
.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
However I think the frequent statement that the RAF crews ensure there are no civilians near the target. How do you tell them apart?