Lt Kije Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Perhaps Obs our security services just aren't capable of catching all. Still only the two of us though Obs that think we should destroy ISIS, just one other thing, do you agree about Syria keeping Assad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Our security services have all but admitted they can't cope; if not personel resources, they've got issues with funding too - note they had to call off the surveillance of Assange in the Equadorian Embassy - costs a lot of money. Don't be fooled by prominent posts on here; I think mainstream opinion want ISIL terminated but don't want our boots on the ground. Better trained and equipped local forces, supported by UK/US special forces are now winning the conventional war in Syria/Iraq; that's precisely why ISIL has switched to attacks like Paris. Terrorist warfare is more about politics and publicity than military success, but they want to give the impression of success. As for Assad, I think it should be remembered that he is the "elected" President of Syria (as was), but even the Russians have accepted he may have to retire at some point, to allow a political solution. But no political solution is possible until ISIL is eradicated. The other dimension to this, is the positioning of the USA and Russia; if the US are seen to be supporting a Sunni opposition, supported by Saudi Arabia and Russia are seen to be supporting a Shia Assad, supported by Iran. Then this sectarian civil war in the M/East, could become quite dangerous for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Some good points their Obs,, I find myself more inclined to support the Russians, I do not think Saudi is a good ally. To be honest I think if we could follow the money they are behind the opposition in Syria and it would not surplice me if they were behind ISIS at the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think you will find it hard to find anyone who wouldn't want to see IS crushed. It's just that we have such a disgraceful record when it comes to dealing with the war on terror. The USA and Britain are as responsible for the uprising of IS as anyone. Our illegal and unsuccessful invasion of Iraq, which at one time saw us killing an average of 300 Iraqis per day for a whole year, has given Al Quaida , which then became IS, it's recruiting cry and add to that the fact that we train and arm many groups who then either throw in with IS or lose their weaponry to them its no wonder people worry about talk of invasion. Some reports show that the death toll in Iraq has now passed the amount killed in the Rwandan genocide and is approaching the numbers murdered by Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields. The US at first welcomed the formation of the Caliphate as a Sunni buffer in Syria, now it seems they don't. As I said, no issue whatsoever bombing IS as long as the people baying for blood accept the full consequences of our actions and the moral duty to properly care for the mass displacement of civilians such actions inevitably lead to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yep - talking the talk is a million miles away from walking the walk. Free speech is available to all, not just to the PC thought police to use when it suits them, and banned when it doesn't. I know it may have come as a shock, to hear some guy saying "shoot them"; but I'm afraid I hear those sentiments every day, when the subject gets broached - just talk - but it discloses a main stream attitude to this invasion, obviously not shared by the naïve and gullible bleeding hearts. Kije: because at the time another set of brainwashed religious zealots, had kicked off. removed as offended Algy with a swear word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 PJ is there any justification in posting a link containing foul language, honestly what credibility you had with me has just gone out of the window, this is a mixed forum and I can't remember any other member posting such a derogatory word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 PJ is there any justification in posting a link containing foul language, honestly what credibility you had with me has just gone out of the window, this is a mixed forum and I can't remember any other member posting such a derogatory word. As the comic page I linked to contained swearing and as it has offended your sensibilities I will remove it, for the record I find racist posts far more offensive than naughty words but there you go. (Did you ever have the decency to remove your racist jibe ?) I will sadly mourn the loss of your credibility for me but rejoice in the fact that you had some. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Much appreciated PJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think you will find it hard to find anyone who wouldn't want to see IS crushed. It's just that we have such a disgraceful record when it comes to dealing with the war on terror. The USA and Britain are as responsible for the uprising of IS as anyone. Our illegal and unsuccessful invasion of Iraq, which at one time saw us killing an average of 300 Iraqis per day for a whole year, has given Al Quaida , which then became IS, it's recruiting cry and add to that the fact that we train and arm many groups who then either throw in with IS or lose their weaponry to them its no wonder people worry about talk of invasion. Some reports show that the death toll in Iraq has now passed the amount killed in the Rwandan genocide and is approaching the numbers murdered by Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields. The US at first welcomed the formation of the Caliphate as a Sunni buffer in Syria, now it seems they don't. As I said, no issue whatsoever bombing IS as long as the people baying for blood accept the full consequences of our actions and the moral duty to properly care for the mass displacement of civilians such actions inevitably lead to. You raise some good points PJIS could be destroyed tomorrow very easily, I think what is stopping the West doing it, is an exit statagy, your lay need to look at the mess Blair and Bush made in Iraq, we can't go in without a plan to get out, and if we do go in and leave another mess like Iraq, what little credibility the UK has left on the World stage will disintegrate. When we leave we have to leave a strong and sadly a ruthless leader who can control the Country, No one in the West wants to be seen as backing a tyrant. But one way or another they are going to have to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 As we know Kije, we removed "strong" Leaders in the name of providing liberal democracy; without any thought that the people might not be ready for it and would slip back into medieval theocracy. As for "displacement"; we should make provision in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon for refugees, the US needs to put aside the super-power chess game for now, and combine with Russia to eliminate ISIL and any other religious fanatics. As for the million economic chancers in Europe, it's estimated that only around 25% are from Syria; and around 75% are young men of military age; so who's fooling who?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 They are also from Iraq and Afghanistan, not like we did anything to encourage refugees to flee those places is it? Is it so hard for you to understand that when we drop bombs human nature is to try to escape? And if we cram them all into poorly equipped camps with no schools or any chance of a future then again, human nature will kick in and they will seek a life. Obviously the youngest and fittest will go ahead first in the hope of settling and then reuniting their families at a later date, again human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Sorry, might be "human nature"; but so is breaking and entering when you've got nowt. Afghanistan supposed to be pacified (although we know it's a matter of time for the Taliban to take over again); Iraq supposedly has been pacified; but in both cases adjacent "safe" countries for genuine refugees are available. In the case of the young men, we could ask why aren't they in their Army fighting for the kind of country they want? And the big give away you've let slip; "go ahead first, in the hope of settling and the reuniting their families at a later date"; this means roughly one million increasing to at least five million; and as I keep asking, what are your plans for hosting them? No; they are economic chancers, not genuine refugees, seeking "a better life"; might be human nature, but so is defending the territorial integrity of one's country. Which means, make provision for genuine refugees in the adjacent "safe" countries; and ship the rest of the bogus asylum seekers back to their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Undeveloped countries presently home over 80% of all refugees. They are struggling massively and the longer the bombing and killing goes on the more people are going to up sticks and leave. No parent would want to have their children grow up uneducated in a camp. Get over your hatred and accept the responsibility your integral country has for causing much of the suffering which led to this sorry state of affairs. Not so long ago you were skriking over the amount of forrin aid Britain sent abroad, now you seem to wish to increase this massively. p.s. there is no such thing as a "bogus" asylum seeker, that is a derogatory phrase made up by right wing gutter press. Anyone can apply for asylum and can either be successful or unsuccessful. p.p.s. It was no slip. it was me pointing out human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 As we know Kije, we removed "strong" Leaders in the name of providing liberal democracy; without any thought that the people might not be ready for it and would slip back into medieval theocracy. As for "displacement"; we should make provision in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon for refugees, the US needs to put aside the super-power chess game for now, and combine with Russia to eliminate ISIL and any other religious fanatics. As for the million economic chancers in Europe, it's estimated that only around 25% are from Syria; and around 75% are young men of military age; so who's fooling who?!I agree with most Obs, you even raised a smile when you mentioned our half hearted efforts to form "Liberal Democracies ", but then it all went pear shaped, not sure where you got your figures, but as we both know Iraq thanks to us trying to form a liberal Democracy there is also in a mess But your spot on in the main Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Errm nope PJ; I wasn't "skriking over the amount of forren aid"; I was moaning about how it's being mis-spent, without an audit trail, without going to those for which it was intended, and in some cases going to support countries now more advanced in some regards than us. This is precisely the place for "forren aid"; disaster relief, either from wars or natural disasters. It would of course help, if every other rich Nation contributed too, via the UN; especially ultra-rich States like Saudi Arabia; it would also help the situation if Saudi Arabia was prepared to host it's Sunni bretheren from Syria, rather than funding continued strife. Two Libyan soldiers convicted of rape in Aldershot, were due to be deported back to Libya, following a jail term; they applied for asylum in the UK for fear of punishment if they returned - now I'd call that bogus. Any excuse will be used to claim asylum here, from alleged threat of FGM to abuse by a family member - all such threats exist in families in the UK, so perhaps they should be claiming asylum somewhere else? And our immigration officials are falling for this nonsense, and quietly dispersing the consequences into council flats throughout the UK. So with our population due to grow to 70 million (that's without this latest exodus); perhaps you could advise as to where they will all be housed, educated and supported; and that's without mentioning the probable civil strife that will ensue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 So you have never said that forrin aid should be reduced and should not be ring fenced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Reduced or not ring fenced, doesn't prevent targeting to real need. Funding the political elite in third world countries, some with their own nuclear weapons and space programs, isn't my idea of need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 Just a quick troll - maybe it was wrong for the west to go into Iraq, but was Afghanistan not a base for terrorists already when the west went in to neutralize it? The current problem is having started something the USA pulled out without finishing the job and it is Obama who is being weak and indesisive that is allowing ISIS to function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 You are correct about Afganistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Syrians. Specifically, the Turkmen militia who shot the Russian aircrew dead as they came down in their parachutes while shouting about Alans snack bar, those Syrians. What's the betting that when Putin has finished with them they roll up in Europe with a Syrian passport and a sorry tale? Refugees, bless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 John, your cynical enough to understand what's going on !!!! Coff: The Yanks went chasing Al Quaida (Bin Laden) into Afghanistan. The Taliban were already in control, but were not themselves an international threat. However, it can be argued that they were hosting Bin Laden, allowing it to be used as a base of operations. Ironically, when they finally caught up with Bin Laden, he was in Pakistan, our ally ! The operation to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan, could have been done earlier in Afghanistan and saved a lot of money and lives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I think the Afghan conflict was set up to drain the poison out of the abscess which is Pakistan, with their very own jihad right next door it kept the extremists who are Pakistans main export from wandering all over the Middle East causing trouble as 'insurgents'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Hmmmm seems the Germans may be starting to regret their open door policies even more after New Years Eve.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yes and seems more are attempting to enter the UK now illegally....by speedboat from Belgium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hmmmm seems the Germans may be starting to regret their open door policies even more after New Years Eve.... Yes, they're rather cross about it, in fact they're getting hopping mad as they learn about their authorities covering stuff up. Compare that to this country, where the public greeted news of the Rotherham/Birmingham/Oxford (and the rest) sex offending shenanigans with "What times X Factor on? Did you see Big Brother? and Great, the footys on!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.