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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


Or is that your definitive proof of "US Support for IS"
No, my posts on the last page show that the US and EU (NATO) are trying to conquer Syria. The UK, a member of NATO, has just announced it will begin bombing missions in Syria to assist in that endeavor.

Bully for you. You have rejoined the nations that support International Terrorism.



The start of the conflict was a *civil war.* The conflict in Syria began

in 2011. A significant part of Syria since 2014 has been claimed by ISIL

(an entity internationally recognised as terrorist.)

A number of western and other countries including US, France, and Russia

participate in direct military action with ISIL

The Kurds receive military support from Iraqi Kurdistan and air support

by US, Canada, French, and British Air Force.


en.wikipedia.org...


Contrary to what every one is saying the UK is not warmongering or gung- ho

but responding to a crisis. No one has taken on board the other countries

already involved and that the French President appealed to the British

to stand along side them in fighting ISIL.


I fail to see how 'outsiders' are going to be able to solve what is basically

a civil conflict.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: sg1642



I suppose one could argue that if we don't crush those who would opress us, then ther'd be none of the above anyway.

Better to survive and have poorer services than fail to act and all be dead or enslaved.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Seriously you think we would ever be conquered by ISIS/ISIL or there like? Now that really is stretching it!

You do relies that we live on an island and last time i looked ISIS were not exactly a naval power!

And its exactly the kind of thinking behind Cameron's scream of austerity while being quite willing to lob millions of pounds worth of ordnance in Syrias direction.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Probably not conquered, but they are here.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCrow

So are Jehovah's witnesses who have about the same chance of enslaving us or conquering our nation.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
cameron wants to play international big man. his ego matters more to him than uk citizens. just like bliar.

a rat.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake


Seriously you think we would ever be conquered by ISIS/ISIL or there like? Now that really is stretching it!

You do relies that we live on an island and last time i looked ISIS were not exactly a naval power!




What makes you think they are not already here? 2% or even less among

the throng of refugees piling into Europe makes for a lot of suicide

bombers.

[b]LOL!! the channel can be swum .... but hey!! what about Dunkirk?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: andy06shake

Probably not conquered, but they are here.


Maybe, as long as "we" are there, they will be here.
Kind of like the ultimate chicken/egg paradox...



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, true, but Jehovah's witnesses don't carry jacket bombs and carve people up. Not having a go, just making a point



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Whilst they may not be an old fashioned invadin army in the sense that The Wehrmacht were, they are every bit a threat to our way of life.

I can't quite believe that you can't see that.

What happens if we do nothing and they end up in control of Syria and Iraq then what might they be able to achieve with all that money and power?

Even today they are capable of well planned attacks in various cities.

How will our NHS cope after a NBR attack on a big city or something? Or if they blow up a couple of hospitals or schools.

Thge truth is, it's easier to stamp them down now, before they get stronger, than to wait.



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

I hate to be the one to break this but not all refugees Muslim or otherwise have anything to do with ISIS.

What about Dunkirk? Seems to me we got beaten back by a superior force already entrenched in the area who also take had the majority of air cover which pretty much decimated our force at will.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
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.

Radicalism needs fertilisation, that the military provides.
In other words, increased bombing = increased terrorism.
Why isn't anyone considering an option 3?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCrow

That's a point eh, maybe we should exterminate them before they gain the capability to do so? (Joke)

I have said it before and will again "Going to war to prevent war is a logical fallacy" especially so when you live on an island.




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



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:17 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.

Radicalism needs fertilisation, that the military provides.
In other words, increased bombing = increased terrorism.
Why isn't anyone considering an option 3?


Sorry - are you asking me this because I said terrorists were already here but Jehovah's witnesses don't carry bombs? I'm not seeing the connection.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MrCrow


I have said it before and will again "Going to war to prevent war is a logical fallacy" especially so when you live on an island.





Good job for the world that this brand of logic was absent in 1939, eh?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCrow

I just responded, triggered by your words.
It might not be targeted at you personally within context, sorry if I'm unclear.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Everyone knows that the world powers have already decided to conquer Syria....

it is demeaning that the government still pretend to go along with this dog n pony show to make us think there is a chance of someone other than the leaders calling the shots!




top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join