It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the UK has voted in favour of Syrian air strikes.

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

No worries!




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCrow

The connection would be that they are both religiously orientated organisations that believe what they are doing is the will of God, however misguided the case may be.

As to terrorists, they have always been among us, take the IRA for instance another organisation that have about as much chance of enslaving us as ISIS do.



Certainly some food for thought given the position that Cameron would have us believe.
edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Tell me this who sponsored/provided the financial backing to both sides during said conflict? To my thinking that would be the bankers who funnily enough are also the ones currently working Mr Cameron's strings and the bastards lightly to profit the most from the conflict in Syria.

And this is not 1939 the world is a lot more integrated and to be frank rather a smaller space these days. I would love to also add a lot more enlightened to the above, but that just would not be true.
edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
So the best argument we've seen on this thread is "we must do something. We had the same response to Iraq and Afghanistan. We always forget. After we do "something". Then what? Or what if "something " makes matters worse?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

I read one in the Guardian:

I was held hostage by Isis. They fear our unity more than our airstrikes


The group is wicked, of that there is no doubt. But after all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Bashar al-Assad is the priority. The Syrian president is responsible for the rise of Isis in Syria, and so long as his regime is in place, Isis cannot be eradicated. Nor can we stop the attacks on our streets. When people say “Isis first, and then Assad”, I say don’t believe them. They just want to keep Assad in place.

At the moment there is no political road map and no plan to engage the Arab Sunni community. Isis will collapse, but politics will make that happen. In the meantime there is much we can achieve in the aftermath of this atrocity, and the key is strong hearts and resilience, for that is what they fear. I know them: bombing they expect. What they fear is unity.


He makes more important points in the article, but his approach never gets and serious consideration in these situations



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
So the best argument we've seen on this thread is "we must do something. We had the same response to Iraq and Afghanistan. We always forget. After we do "something". Then what? Or what if "something " makes matters worse?


Exactly, that's my point I tried to make earlier.
The answer to conflicts (that probably were created in the first place) always seem to be more violence or bombings.
It's a never ending cycle, that's always bad for the public, however always good for the ones profiting of it.
There's a clear pattern to this, now if only enough people would see it...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

That's all fluff though isn't it?
If we hadn't gone to war in 39 we would have had that war later, with less chance of winning.

Your comparisons with the IRA earlier are also erroneous.
Isis want a global caliphate living or dying under their rule.

The IRA wanted unification on Eire and NI and there was no reason to believe they ever intended to take over law making on the mainland.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis
Yeah obviously an interesting perspective, by someone who has more experience with Isis than the armchair generals here



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

My comparisons are a tad erroneous? I would say that's rather synonymous with ISIS ability to enslave or conquer our island nation.


Edit: Need to continue discussion later, have to go get a tooth out.

edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

No, it's no one's "way of getting around" anything - RAF pilots routinely get seconded to the USAF as well as other Air forces and likewise, USAF and other AF pilots come to the RAF.

It's happened for years - long before Syria, long before Iraq and long before Afghanistan.

It has nothing, whatsoever in the slightest, to do with trying to circumvent Parliament.

There are 11 other countries already bombing Syria so how does one more country bombing them help the situation. If you ask me in a few months well see Country number 13 come into play China, then what?.

There is a big difference between being seconded for the experience of using each others equipment and understanding how you're allies operate and being seconded for War purposes, or are you going to tell me Killing is all part of the Hardening up process..

Maybe you either dont want to believe or cant see it for whatever reason, but one big mistake or "deliberate mistake" by whatever side could escalate this into a full blown World War..Way too many countries with Nuclear capabilities waving there dicks around the one small area for my liking.


Not in my Name.


Just a quick question. What's the UK's out in all of this. Still in Afghanistan since 2001. still involved in Iraq since 2003. will be be still heavily involved in Syria in 2030.? How does that fix anything.? But then again, it's the perpetual war game, it's not about fixing anything is it.
...
You know Stu I've never heard you once say the words.. It's about Oil...Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, these invasion, interventions...It's all about the Oil and Gas.

Funny that eh.

You know it, I know it, We all know it. It's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of a nasty dictator here and there, because that's what we do, Yeah, we go get the bad guys, we go kick out those nasty regimes because that's what good guys do. BS..

We could'nt give a rats arse about the Saudi oil barons who have beheaded more people this year than IS or al qaeda combined, SubjugateING woman in the same way Daesh do...Or China for that matter. We turn a blind eye to China's human violation rights. Na, they're our friends, our allies...

Na, i'll tell you the reason we dont pick on china or Russia for it's gas. Because they are waaaay to big for the bully to deal with....



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Funny I've not seen anyone interested in getting support from our allies in the region, like Saudi Arabia, who also have tornados and brimstone missiles. Are they going to help out. Or don't they want to get rid of their ideological bedfellows Isis. They clearly have no interest in providing support for Syrian refugees. Again they expect that burden to fall on the west.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

My comparisons are a tad erroneous? I would say thats rather synonymous to ISIS ability to enslave or conquer our island nation.


As I've alluded to before just because they can't destroy our society now...doesn't mean they won't be able to in 20 50 or a 100 years.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Wasn't the northern Ireland conflict only resolved after discussions by both sides. I don't remember air strikes to resolve that issue.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

So we should kill people because of something they may or may not do in 20-100 years time???

Come on to grips that's bordering on the diabolical



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

After we get rid of ISIS we march on downing street hang the bastards then on Parliament hang the bastards and start again.
I suggest everyone does the same in every chuffing country on earth.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Now that's more like the usual sense you make boymonkey74.


I would certainly be up for helping you or anyone else for that matter do just that!
edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Wasn't the northern Ireland conflict only resolved after discussions by both sides. I don't remember air strikes to resolve that issue.



Killing off their top bomb makers by finding, then sabotaging their timer chips helped as did better Intel that allowed units such as 22 reg to ambush and kill lots of their most competent operators.

You also need to bear in mind that there was a parity between unionists and republicans where violence was concerned and the civvies of both sides were sick of it.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

So we should kill people because of something they may or may not do in 20-100 years time???

Come on to grips that's bordering on the diabolical




Your reasoning is no less flawed.

These people are launching and sponsoring attacks already, so it's not some sort of pre crime scenario is it?
Their actions, aims and capabilities are well known.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm hoping the Vienna peace talks might provide a bit of a solution, but it's never going to solve thousands of years of sectarian violence and the desire to bring about their apolypitic prophecies/fantasies.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join