the UK has voted in favour of Syrian air strikes.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

The way i see it is why should we be doing anything to a nation that has essentially done nothing to us?

Intervention on our part will simple lead to more loss of lives while breeding the next generation of terrorist, who i may add will indeed have legitimate cause to hate our nation by way of us bombing them, there family's and children in to oblivion.

There is no wait and see attitude we should not get involved in matters that are none of our concern.

Cameron might wish to take a look out a window sometime and possibly concern himself with our own nations needs and woes before deciding to bomb OIL FIELDS! Which is exactly where our first salvo has been targeted.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: Soloprotocol



I am not a Tory lover in fact I voted against them both times and will always do so but we have to take some action because this is getting closer and closer to home and while I know people like to say "It was planned by the governments" and all that stuff and trust me I'm right up there with you but at some point you have to do something and I've yet to see anyone present a proper logical opposite so SPEAK otherwise stop complaining about what action people are taking and remember that if by some horrible trick of fate one of your loved ones is a victim of this attack you were the ones who said not to bomb them.

some horrible trick of fate???? You sir need to wake up. Any UK Muslim sitting on the fence on whether to take things to the next level have now just had their minds made up for them.

If You support these actions then you support indiscriminate killing of innocent men women and children. At the end of the day and as history and recent history has proven, non combatants always pay the heaviest price.

I sincerely hope that by "some horrible trick of fate" Death by terrorism doesn't darken your door. Attacks on the UK are about to increase exponentially and only luck can prevent them all.

Russian official: UK airstrikes against IS can be welcomed in case they hit terrorists

MOSCOW, December 3. /TASS/. Russian Federation Council’s International Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev has said UK airstrikes against terrorists in Syria can be welcomed only in case they hit the announced targets.

"Though this decision (UK involvement in the military operation against Islamic State terrorist organization), just like other actions of the so-called US-led coalition on Syria, have no international legal grounds (while Russia undoubtedly has them), every airstrike against terrorists, if it what it is, hits the sought target that corresponds with our targets," Kosachev wrote on Thursday on his Facebook page. "And this can be welcomed. But I will repeat, only if these airstrikes hit the announced targets," he added.

Kosachev wrote that "it is important that formally the British parliament has made a decision about the country’s involvement in the military operation against ISIL militants (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - former name of IS) in Syria, and not in support of the anti-government opposition."

The official did not rule out that "Britons may have different targets." "Time will show what war Great Britain entered - anti-terrorist or civil," he concluded.

A few days ago, someone who's natural ability for international diplomacy doesn't need to be proved, came with an interesting anti-war statement :

The best way to fight IS ... is ignoring them

a reply to: woodwardjnr

And likewise, the "debate" in this thread is of even worse quality. To be honest, I knew exactly what to expect before I even opened the tread - 4 pages of left-wing back slapping about how they're "anti-war". It is precisely this ignorance that gave us World War 2.

At the end of the day, someone has to get rid of IS. If not, they will only get stronger and stronger, pushing their ambitions further and will only take even more of an effort later to clear up.

I do, however, feel like the plan is only half-hearted - but there are talks underway in Vienna to try and end the Civil War so maybe that will yield some tangible results to go hand in hand with the strikes.

As for Brimstone though, woodward, it is really that good. It's a tiny warhead on a tiny missile that can easily track and destroy a small mobile target like a car/boat and leave everything else around it untouched. The Yanks are chomping at the bit for them.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
If You support these actions then you support indiscriminate killing of innocent men women and children. At the end of the day and as history and recent history has proven, non combatants always pay the heaviest price.

Oh, give over. That's such a leap of logic it fails. You may as well say driving a car means you support the deaths of 70,000 people in the UK every year, because car pollution causes that many deaths.

One has to ask, Solo, what exactly are women and children doing at IS Oil plants, or IS training centres? Or is it just more of your typical hyperbole?

a reply to: stumason

And likewise, the "debate" in this thread is of even worse quality.

But none of us are paid up MPs who get a decision, so is bound to be a tad more trivial.

www.independent.co.uk... 57336.html

There's an interesting article from a French journalist who was hostage for 10 months with Isis, arguing bombing Isis is playing into a trap of Isis worth a read.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
If You support these actions then you support indiscriminate killing of innocent men women and children. At the end of the day and as history and recent history has proven, non combatants always pay the heaviest price.

Oh, give over. That's such a leap of logic it fails. You may as well say driving a car means you support the deaths of 70,000 people in the UK every year, because car pollution causes that many deaths.

One has to ask, Solo, what exactly are women and children doing at IS Oil plants, or IS training centres? Or is it just more of your typical hyperbole?

Oh here comes the Government shill. Thought you might show face today.

IS training centres...? I'm sure they have a big sign and sat navs saying IS training centres 3 miles on the left...jesus wept man.
IS are heavily embedded in civilian populated areas and no bombing of these places flat will ever kill them off. The numbers will increase tenfold.

All that bombing of civilian areas killing thousands of innocents will achieve is it will create more hatred in the middle east towards those countries doing the bombing. ie, us...well England. Scotland did the right thing again last night....Next London attack i'll PM you saying...told ye so.

BTW, are you putting on your fatigues and war paint as we speak,? seeing you're so keen on War and all that. NA...Thought so.

You'll be sipping pimms while someone else's son dies for Glorious England/Oil/Saudi relations/£££££££

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Perhaps, but asking for an intelligent debate on a forum which (used) to pride itself on denying ignorance isn't too much to ask. Instead, we get nonsense posts filled with childish name calling or posting utter rubbish.

I would read your link, but it doesn't seem to be working. I do know that IS are trying to bait the West into more action, however, this is common knowledge and has been stated by them for a long time. They think if they can lure us in, then the Muslim world will rise against us, which once again I find such a leap of logic as to be unfathomable. IS have been responsible for far more dead Muslims over the past two years than anyone else, so I fail to see why they would get a recruitment surge as a result.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Oh here comes the Government shill. Thought you might show face today.

Oh, here we go - case in point, childish name calling....

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
IS training centres...? I'm sure they have a big sign and sat navs saying IS training centres 3 miles on the left...jesus wept man.

Don't be foolish - SF and recon provide targeting info - you know this. We're not dropping bombs willy-nilly

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
IS are heavily embedded in civilian populated areas and no bombing of these places flat will ever kill them off. The numbers will increase tenfold.

So, because of that, we should just let them sit there and gathering strength? Good plan, Batman. I knew you had no alternative.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All that bombing of civilian areas killing thousands of innocents will achieve is it will create more hatred in the middle east towards those countries doing the bombing.

And what "thousands of civilians" are these being killed by UK bombing, Solo? If anything, Russia is hitting civilian area's harder and with large, dumb bombing runs straight out of WW2. I don't see you bemoaning them though, in fact, quite the opposite.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
ie, us...well England. Scotland did the right thing again last night....Next London attack i'll PM you saying...told ye so.

"Scotland" did jack - the SNP only used it as a beating stick for political point scoring, but we all know the SNP isn't Scotland, despite how much they think they speak for every Scot.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
BTW, are you putting on your fatigues and war paint as we speak,? seeing you're so keen on War and all that. NA...Thought so.

I wouldn't tell you if I was! You don't know anything about me, Solo (primarily because you simply do not listen a word anyone else says)

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
You'll be sipping pimms while someone else's son dies for Glorious England/Oil/Saudi relations/£££££££

While you're chowing down on a Haggis and deep-fried mars bar, guzzling Whiskey by the gallon while letting everyone else do the dirty work to keep your beloved Scotland safe....

About 4 pm yesterday some tornados flew over my house. Wonder if they were going over there ready?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: sg1642

Doesn't this officially make it world war 3 if 5 nations are attacking another?.
Tbh with you I think we should be bombing these bastards.
I don't agree with war but some times war has to be fought the last just war was against the nazis I think despite ISIS being made by mistake by the west we need to sort out our mess together with the rest of the world.
I would like to see the Saudis doing more though we need this ISIS gone.
But I do say again it was the wests fault most of it our stupid leaders.
It's gone potty all of it but is it all planned? nah we arn't that intelligent and just have the ability to feck everything up.

Im with you on this one.

Never been one for war on here. But ISIS kinda took the decsion out of our hands by declareing war on us first.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Dwoodward85

Going to war to prevent war is a logical fallacy,

Here is the the thing we were already at war with ISIS in the first place.

originally posted by: stumason

It is precisely this ignorance that gave us World War 2.

Nope its worst than that.

This is like WW2 havieng already started and people moaning about us bombing Germany......

a reply to: crazyewok

This is true although to be fair we also had a hand in the creation and armament of said terrorist organisation by way of the other numerous conflicts and dodgy deals we have be involved with that contributed to there inception.

I just don't think we will ever come to a reasonable solution by way of bombing other nations. All that seems to do these days is breed hatred and discontent.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's not like we're going in there to flatten cities. The RAF is studious in making sure that collateral damage is limited, if not eliminated. The RAF is the best in the world when it comes to precision bombing and target recon, it's why our Allies want us there in the first place.

Yes, there may be occasional civilian casualties, but that is War. They declared on us and have stated their wish to attack us at home. Why should we be expected to sit on our hands and wait for it?

a reply to: andy06shake

One could also argue that the UK had a "hand" in creating Nazi Germany, which we did.

And we then (eventually, once all the peace at any cost lot were shut up) had to deal with it, which we did.

So, if we did have a hand in creating IS (indirectly) then surely it is our responsibility to deal with it, not simply wash our hands and walk away?

a reply to: stumason

Exactly do people want us to do nothing and let them take over tge whole of the ME?.
Should we have not fought the nazis also?.

a reply to: stumason

www.independent.co.uk... 57336.html

Not sure why that links not working, found a gene ric video though of him. His name is Nicholas henin in and was held hostage by Isis

a reply to: stumason

Im not suggesting that we should not prevent terrorist attacks from happening. I simply just dont see the logic in bombing Oil fields in Syria by way of preventing these heinous acts from occurring on our own soil.

It has been tried and done numerous times in the past with little or no effect. Cant really see there being any difference this time around.

a reply to: stumason

So just because history has a habit of repeating its self and once again our nation fails to learn from her mistakes we should take it upon ourselves to attempt to rectify the situation by dong something we already know will not work?

This is definitely not the will of our people especially so in this day of age.