P J Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 That's because I don't live in s Walter Mitty like fantasy world like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 29, 2015 Report Share Posted November 29, 2015 You wish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Don't think anyone on this forum was suggesting bombing Syria, in fact quite the opposite; and arguably it would be illegal anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 "bomb em back to the stone age" was something that an anonymous american was quoted as saying. (not sure whether it was the korean war or the viet nam war though) given the decentralised nature of the "enemy" this would be impractical as well as pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Iraqi Army is in the process of re-taking a Town from ISIL; they've leafleted it to warn civilians and give them time to escape; then with close air support they can advance into the Town; this is precisely the kind of approach required to evict ISIL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Iraqi Army is in the process of re-taking a Town from ISIL; they've leafleted it to warn civilians and give them time to escape; then with close air support they can advance into the Town; this is precisely the kind of approach required to evict ISIL. This then makes a mockery of your previous claim that no civilians are allowed to leave ISIS controlled areas. Make your mind up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Who said ISIL will let them leave? The report said they'd been leafleted, and a "safe" corridor held to allow their escape. As for the bigger picture; reports suggest that Jihadi brides, UK and others, having become disillusioned with IS, have been beaten to death for wanting to return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Really? Where did you read those reports? You just change tune left right and centre. How are civilians going to escape IS if there own can't desert? Here is a belter though, how will the civilians get from the IS held town to the safe corridor unharmed? Utter propaganda and you either know it or have fell for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 You've got a habit of constructing arguments that you then attribute to someone else in order to knock down. Well, sorry, but I'll not be falling for such nonesense. Reports: All over the net (news), TV news and Papers (if you get them). How are civilians going to escape - I imagine with difficulty. Which then leaves the nutters using "innocent civilians" as a human shield. In your luvvie handbook, in order not to kill "innocent civilians" we should then bombard the nutters with love and affection to the point where they beg for mercy. Sorry, but we're back to the problem with wars, the innocent sometimes get killed along with the guilty, which argues for not resorting to war in the first place, unless a well thought out plan is in place and has an article 7 mandate from the UN. So whilst I may support the elimination of ISIL, there is simply no need for us to extend operations to Syria (where we've not been invited by the legitimate Government) as opposed to Iraq, where we have been invited by the legitimate Gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 You've got a habit of constructing arguments that you then attribute to someone else in order to knock down. In your luvvie handbook, in order not to kill "innocent civilians" we should then bombard the nutters with love and affection to the point where they beg for mercy. Hypocrisy from you?????? And all in the one post. Well I never lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 and may I just say I admire the way you stick to your guns and I congratulate you on how well you are ignoring me :D :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Only press the ignore button when you've lost an argument (again) and start straying into the juvenile realms ! Didn't you start crying over the possible loss of "innocent civilians" as a result of bombing, which then leaves us with one of your usual "do nothing" arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 It wasn't me who said I was pressing ignore, that was you , in at least 2 threads, which means, if we follow your own reasoning, that you had lost the argument. No surprise there yet a refreshing change from your usual BS . I am concerned about civilian casualties yes. Only a psychopath wouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 No, your concerned about civilian casualties inflicted by bombs, but not too worried about women being stoned to death, gays thrown off roofs or captives beheaded; now that's BS ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Apparently, these IS bods are not too keen on the Kurds ,especially the squads of women who are both dedicated & ferocious & scare the living daylights out the murderous zealots. It is amazing that at least one of our oil supplying gulf allies in this affair has ideals among its ruling classes that are not so far removed from the terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 You've got a habit of constructing arguments that you then attribute to someone else in order to knock down. Well, sorry, but I'll not be falling for such nonesense. No, your concerned about civilian casualties inflicted by bombs, but not too worried about women being stoned to death, gays thrown off roofs or captives beheaded; now that's BS ! Crass hypocrisy yet remarkably consistent . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Getting back to the vote in Parliament: There's simply no need for the UK to extend military operations into Syria; we are hitting ISIL in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi Gov; so we are doing our bit, and with 6 jets, bit is the right word. Unlike the Russians, we've not been invited into Syria by the legitimate Syrian Gov and there is no UN article 7 mandate for us to do so - so we're acting illegally. Which takes us to the real motivation, which imo, is preparation for regime change in Syria, which will no doubt bring us into direct conflict with Russia, making the title of this topic more relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 ditto such a well thought out and reasoned response how cutting lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 all your worth ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 The well respected BBC correspondent Frank Gardner estimates that there could be as many as 110 different factions all with differing agendas who Mr Cameron is hopes will come together to fight IS at ground level. 70,000 men on that basis will take some organising especially with a rag tag band of generals trying to run the show. Unless there are well drilled troops on hand to lead the way there could be an even bigger massacre of opposition groups than Assad has managed already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Right on Dave; plus most of these "factions" have a Sunni Muslim agenda, backed by Saudi and the Gulf States; so not exactly seeking a liberal democracy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Maybe a big wall or even a huge Iron Curtain around the whole of the middle East would help... let them get on with things and let them find their own level like when Saddam et al were around. No flights in, no flights out and certainly no people wandering across Europe in a bid for a better life.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Great idea Baz. For you. 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.