It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: blupblup
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.
originally posted by: Swsgm30
I can also see a scenario developing whereby, if we arm the current Local Ground factions as an offensive against ISIS, we will eventually have to confront them.
originally posted by: stumason
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.
originally posted by: Mclaneinc
The only thing I agree with is that IS and radical Islam should be defeated but my difference is that it should be defeated HERE in the UK where it and Radicalism has a growing following not helped by the open door policy we have for unknown young males with no documents that we offer sanctuary to but get repaid by demands for Shariah law and home grown attacks.
Since MPs voted for war over Syria RAF Tornados and Typhoons have mounted only three strike missions
General Mark Welsh, chief of staff of the US Air Force, said: “This is never going to look like the first Gulf War air campaign. That is just not the intent of the strategy that has been decided on, whether anyone agrees with that or not.”
Of the 148 airstrikes on Syria between 1 and 22 December, the United States carried out 127 and the “rest of coalition” 21, according to the Centcom figures. It is known that French aircraft carried out two strikes in the period, meaning that no more than 19 strikes were carried out by the RAF. A “strike” means that at least one bomb was dropped or missile fired.
British Ministry of Defence reports of the RAF’s three attack missions in Syria speak of them striking at least 17 targets. The unmanned drone attack on December 25 involved firing a single Hellfire missile at an Isil checkpoint south of Raqqa.
The Ministry of Defence said that the RAF’s contribution to reconnaissance over Syria is more significant, with some reports that it is providing up to 60 per cent of the coalition’s entire tactical reconnaissance capability. It declined to specify the number of reconnaissance missions flown, however.