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: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

My reasoning is not about to be responsible for 1000s of deaths through now is it? Not in 10 years, 50 years or a 100 for that matter. I wonder if Mr Cameron can claim the same.

ISIS actions, aims and capabilities are well known simply because we bloody well created and armed the nutters. They are also highly exaggerated by people just like David Cameron. There a dog and pony show of our own creation who are ultimately doomed to failure down to there flawed belief system.

Fact is most Muslims just dont want to live under ISIS rule another reason they will fail, implode and end up fighting amongst themselves, truth is they are doomed by design.
edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: MrCrow

Question, what's the bigger threat?
1. A suicide bomber taking as much innocent lives as possible.
2. An airplane carpet bombing an area, taking all lives within extended range.

Nr.1 is considered terroristic, nr.2 is considered necessary, because of it.



Your examples fail, because the UK is not "carpet bombing" anywhere and hasn't done so in 70 odd years.

In fact, in the 400 or so airstrikes carried out by the RAF in Iraq against IS, zero civilian casualties have been reported, because of the strict ROE the RAF go by and the precision of the weapons used. Find me any other air force that can make a similar claim.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
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.


If you'd take 2 minutes to have a look - you'll see Saudi has been providing air craft to the anti-IS coalition for quite some time.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, am I to assume you're advocating bombing Assad instead of IS? After all, that's what the hostage seems to think should happen...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason



So, am I to assume you're advocating bombing Assad instead of IS? After all, that's what the hostage seems to think should happen...

Is that a serious question? Bomb Assad?

Read what he's really saying

This situation happened for many reasons - but you can't walk around the obvious. The original uprising that later merged into this clusterF was against Assad. Those people are still there and still involved

The man is protected - by politics and circumstance



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
ghost post...
edit on 12/3/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: double



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

My reasoning is not about to be responsible for 1000s of deaths through now is it? Not in 10 years, 50 years or a 100 for that matter.


Not necessarily, inaction could lead in years to come, to a greater conflict with many more casualties.

There is no single way out of this at the moment. We just have to do the best we can and I think, right now, doing nothing militarily is possibly the worst of the two main options available to us.

We aren't getting these people around the peace table any time soon and I doubt we could trust them not to become bellicose again when it suits them.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I suppose some of this also comes down to how far we are each prepared to go to ensure our security.

For me I think that this along with the so called "snoopers" bill proposal is a step to far, for me it crosses the line, sacrificing to much for security.

For others this is probably either just on the line or still a mile away from it. I think that's part of what this boils down to just how far will we go to ensure security. Clearly the MPs who voted in favour of this are prepared to go further than those who voted against this action.

Now as I have said I am 100% against this action, I think its going to far.

But now that the vote has been passed no about of winging from me is going to change the results of the vote when the bombs are all ready falling on ISIS targets in Syria. The only thing left for us to do is to make our views clear at the next election when the people will judge this action. My MP voted against this, he has my vote at the next election (not just for this), if you like me are against this action then the only thing you can do is try to use our democratic freedoms to make it known. (if you believe in our democracy)

Now that the vote has taken place and the bombs are falling and its not going to change supporting the servicemen and women active in Operation Shader and hope they all come home safe. Its happened we can't change that now so lets just watch this spectacle unfold, pray all our guys come home safe and that some good comes of this in that they destroy ISIS.
edit on 3-12-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Out of curiosity, should the international campaign be successful at destroying IS and bringing peace to Syria, will your vote change?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Out of curiosity, should the international campaign be successful at destroying IS and bringing peace to Syria, will your vote change?


If you mean my vote for my MP then no it will not change

I am assuming however that you mean if this operation is successful in totally destroying ISIS will my opposition to this action change then I dont know.

I honestly don't know if it will though, sure it would be great if we destroyed ISIS but then i think why does it always have to be us, what will the cost of this action be in terms of lives, pounds, and the impact on the ME. Like i said to you before it seems to me that every time we (by we i mean the West in general) get involved in the region things just get worse and another terrorist group emerges.

In the unlikely event that ISIS is obliterated with no negative short or long-term impacts then sure it would be foolish to say that military intervention was not worthwhile.

However right now, today, they day after the vote neither you nor i know what the outcome of this is going to be I can only base my views on if I think this is right or wrong based what i know today. So when i look at all the information I have available to me right now, on balance I don't think its worth it.

I hope that I look back next year and see that my worries were unfounded.
edit on 3-12-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Out of curiosity, should the international campaign be successful at destroying IS and bringing peace to Syria, will your vote change?

Russia, America and the coalition of the willing couldn't defeat the taliban and al qaeda, how the hell would the UK defeat al qaeda's monsterous big brother. ?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Your right there is no immediate solution to the situation but our air strikes won't help matters. Tell me this what will our strikes achieve that the French, US or Russian strikes could not?

We cannot in all good conscious go around destroying innocent lives under the premis that at some future date ISIS will become a contender, which they mostlightly never will. That's just not the way we should play the game, to be honest it seems like poor form on our part.
edit on 3-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Listen to the hypocrisy of this pathetic POS..




Video below.
www.al-monitor.com...#



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
So Cameron wasted no time and ordered the first airstrikes the same night. However, it appears the target was already destroyed in October. Misreporting back then, a practice run, a 'safe' target to ease the public in, a token show of support, biding our time while IS are fighting Assad or something else? Theories please?


3 December 2015


The "successful" strikes hit the IS-controlled Omar oil fields in eastern Syria, the defence secretary said.


www.bbc.co.uk...


23 October 2015


"A HUGE airstrike blitz in the heart of Islamic State territory has destroyed one of the terror group's main sources of income."

"The terrorists' oil field in eastern Syria - part of a half a billion dollar crude industry for the group - was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition. US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski told reporters in Baghdad the Omar oil field was blitzed, heavily damaging the lucrative funding source for ISIS."


www.express.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
It was always going to happen so we now just have to hope that we can inflict as much damage against IS fighters and strongholds and cause little to no damage to civilians.
At the end of the day IS are literally the biggest c*nts on the planet right now and every single MP and member of ATS no matter their position on our involvement in Syria, wants these animals destroyed and halted in their tracks from spreading hatred, misery and carnage in the region and elsewhere.

The problem is that this ideology espoused and the actions perpetrated by IS are not contained to Iraq and Syria.
If we're going in to help the Syrians and try and end the civil war Then that's one thing and that is good - but IS will simply not be defeated by us dropping a few precision guided missiles.
You cannot destroy a mind set, an ideology and a warped interpretation of a religion by simply blowing stuff up.

Saudi Arabia are hugely influential and finance much of this terrorism and need dealing with but we don't, we suck up to them and ask them for guidance on human rights.
The situation is just not a simple "let's go join our buddies cos they asked us and bomb stuff and it'll all be ok"
If only it was that simple.

People are radicalized in their homes, online and there are probably as many who wish to harm us outside this region and already in "the west" as there are in the middle east.

But the decision is made and I hope that something worthwhile is accomplished by our involvement and the continued involvement of our allies.

What a strange and messed up world this has become.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

I've refrained from posting anything on this subject till now - thank # for some common sense.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn


Me too.... it's just mad but felt it was only right to add my tuppence.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
They will spread the load out, they'll demonstrate that we stand together and thus are collectively a more daunting enemy than they may have previously imagined



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

They've got to stop these nutters before they let off some horrid WMD in one of our capitals. It's going to happen at some point in time where a whole city is going to be destroyed through WMD by these nutters. Total recolonisation of the ME and north africa for 50 years is the only way to stop this and re educate the mind set in those zones.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: boymonkey74

Sorry BM you sound naive...today is a sad day in UK history for me.




I disagree. I think the leadership of most countries involved now know the stakes and who not to piss off ie each other. Theyre not that stupid.


Although by all means the WW3 chanters can keep on chantin.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join