Tekel Towers » Bombing Syria

Tek · 01/12/2015 11:10 pm

Is anyone actually in favour of this?And if so why?

TheShed · 01/12/2015 11:32 pm

No way.

01/12/2015 11:43 pm

Pointless with no endgame and no troops on the ground.

Syria is a complicated mess as it is and I'm at a loss to see what bombing will do to make things better.

lifesanocean · 01/12/2015 11:46 pm

I don't see what difference half a dozen UK planes is going to make to the umpteen other countries that are already bombing IS in Syria.

What is needing to be done in Syria/Iraq is neighbouring countries putting boots on the ground to take on IS and hopefully then get rid of Assad.

In terms of direct threats to the UK. Surely stopping the terrorist cells in Europe getting hold of machine guns and bombs is surely the best way of stopping more Paris-style attacks?

Similarly stopping the funding going in and out to IS in Syria, Iraq and their various cells around the world wouldn't be a bad thing either. Helping the Iraqis to recapture the the oil fields they have taken over would help as well, or simply destroy them then rebuild them later once IS have gone.

Last edited by lifesanocean (02/12/2015 11:07 pm)

huntedbyafreak · 01/12/2015 11:51 pm

100% against the bombing Syria. The funny thing is, if we'd voted Yes in Sept 2014 it wouldn't even be up for discussion. 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs will vote against this, the majority of Scots are probably against this. Yet here we go again.

Last edited by huntedbyafreak (01/12/2015 11:53 pm)

TheShed · 02/12/2015 11:43 pm

Looks like your poll counted for nothing TEK.

Too much money to be made in war.

Tek · 03/12/2015 12:39 am

I wonder if the 3 people who voted for bombing would care to say what good they think will come of it.

Edmond Dantes · 03/12/2015 12:44 am

huntedbyafreak wrote:
The funny thing is, if we'd voted Yes in Sept 2014 it wouldn't even be up for discussion. 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs will vote against this, the majority of Scots are probably against this. Yet here we go again.

Different year different argument

Arabnophobia · 03/12/2015 2:09 am

If the question was kill ISIS then most would say go for it.
If the question is bomb Syria then its like asking if you want to bomb all the factions including the so called goodies and innocent.

Too vague a question and most are not qualified to answer with passion as it's not as black and white without knowing the total plan or military strategics.
Nae offence to those with an opinion but you don't have a fucking clue here when saying a define response to a complicated question.

I say kill the IS fuckers but wonder how to without making a cunt of it and killing innocents and at the same time wonder what influence the economic value of war in a business and economic sense underlies intent together with same in the re building process.

The whole thing is more about money from those that make decisions and short sighted/ignorance and well wishing/ good intentions and opinions fae the people who care.

FUCKED UP and broken afore its ever fixed!

Don't know enough facts and future to know how to vote TBH.

RRDH · 03/12/2015 5:14 am

They'll bomb about as consequential as us is currently doing. Needs to be more aggressive than pin prick photo op bombing.

Tek · 03/12/2015 11:15 am

RRDH wrote:
They'll bomb about as consequential as us is currently doing. Needs to be more aggressive than pin prick photo op bombing.

What does that mean exactly?

PatReilly · 03/12/2015 11:46 am

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Nuremburg, 1946.

Billy_Hainey · 03/12/2015 12:01 pm

Irrespective of how you'd vote, or how you feel about this, our reporting of this from a covert military point of view is phuckin amateur. Imagine if the BBC World Service had broadcast the exact number of aircraft involved in a military operation, what their prospective targets were, the type of weapons they used, and oe Eh, where they are based. How long will it be before Cyprus gets attacked? Talk about loose tongues. Thank phuck Sky News didna exist in WW2.

Last edited by Billy_Hainey (03/12/2015 12:03 pm)

huntedbyafreak · 03/12/2015 5:27 pm

Edmond Dantes wrote:
huntedbyafreak wrote:
The funny thing is, if we'd voted Yes in Sept 2014 it wouldn't even be up for discussion. 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs will vote against this, the majority of Scots are probably against this. Yet here we go again.
Different year different argument

True. However, 57 of the 59 MPs democratically elected representatives in Scotland voted against this bombing. There is a definite democratic deficit in the UK. It needs addressed. This will drive a bigger wedge between the members of the UK.

Foreign policy was my main reason for being pro independence in first place. I know a lot of folk quite similar.

huntedbyafreak · 03/12/2015 5:32 pm

Tek wrote:
RRDH wrote:
They'll bomb about as consequential as us is currently doing. Needs to be more aggressive than pin prick photo op bombing.

What does that mean exactly?

I don't agree with RRDH on most thing political but he does have a point here. These air strikes are a drop in the ocean. They will do very little but probably radicalise ordinary Syrians who will no doubt see the loss of life of innocent civilians.

If we must take action in Syria then it needs to be a long term thing. Ground troops, get rid of ISIS, get rid of Assad, build infrastructure in the country after the terrorists are gone and after regime change.

It won't be that. We'll fly over, drop bombs. Kill a few terrorists, kill losts of civilians and create more terrorists.

The fact that during this bombing we'll still be selling arms to the Saudis who are funding ISIS means that not a whole lot will change.

03/12/2015 7:23 pm

IMO we will end up with a bad case of mission creep.

USA/GB/France etc will bomb IS.

The Russians will bomb the other opposition groups.

The Turks will bomb the Kurds.

The main winner will be Assad and when his forces move in on weakened opposition groups the West will be facing a major embarrassment and 'limited' strikes against Assad's forces will begin.

Silver · 04/12/2015 1:20 pm

The one thing that pisses me right off is the whinging fae the families of the troops for getting sent into battle. It can hardly come as a surprise can it? Whether you agree with the decision to go into war or not, it's the career path that these guys have chosen.

Don't want to fly planes into war zones? Should've got a joab in Tesco.

RRDH · 04/12/2015 8:41 pm

huntedbyafreak wrote:
Tek wrote:
RRDH wrote:
They'll bomb about as consequential as us is currently doing. Needs to be more aggressive than pin prick photo op bombing.

What does that mean exactly?
I don't agree with RRDH on most thing political but he does have a point here. These air strikes are a drop in the ocean. They will do very little but probably radicalise ordinary Syrians who will no doubt see the loss of life of innocent civilians.

If we must take action in Syria then it needs to be a long term thing. Ground troops, get rid of ISIS, get rid of Assad, build infrastructure in the country after the terrorists are gone and after regime change.

It won't be that. We'll fly over, drop bombs. Kill a few terrorists, kill losts of civilians and create more terrorists.

The fact that during this bombing we'll still be selling arms to the Saudis who are funding ISIS means that not a whole lot will change.

Thats very very close to my feelings on the matter. The one thing I am not in favor of is any sort of democracy building project. Id settle for a stable government which works with the west on rooting out terror cells and so forth.

It is a strange feeling coming to a sort of quasi agreement on someting of this nature with you hunted

RRDH · 04/12/2015 8:44 pm

Silver wrote:
The one thing that pisses me right off is the whinging fae the families of the troops for getting sent into battle. It can hardly come as a surprise can it? Whether you agree with the decision to go into war or not, it's the career path that these guys have chosen.

Don't want to fly planes into war zones? Should've got a joab in Tesco.

100%. iveplenty support for those in the forces, but ridiculous to complain that your government sends you to war if you're in the f ucking forces!

Last edited by RRDH (04/12/2015 8:44 pm)

huntedbyafreak · 04/12/2015 8:58 pm

RRDH wrote:
huntedbyafreak wrote:
Tek wrote:

What does that mean exactly?
I don't agree with RRDH on most thing political but he does have a point here. These air strikes are a drop in the ocean. They will do very little but probably radicalise ordinary Syrians who will no doubt see the loss of life of innocent civilians.

If we must take action in Syria then it needs to be a long term thing. Ground troops, get rid of ISIS, get rid of Assad, build infrastructure in the country after the terrorists are gone and after regime change.

It won't be that. We'll fly over, drop bombs. Kill a few terrorists, kill losts of civilians and create more terrorists.

The fact that during this bombing we'll still be selling arms to the Saudis who are funding ISIS means that not a whole lot will change.

Thats very very close to my feelings on the matter. The one thing I am not in favor of is any sort of democracy building project. Id settle for a stable government which works with the west on rooting out terror cells and so forth.

It is a strange feeling coming to a sort of quasi agreement on someting of this nature with you hunted

they had a stable government when this all started.

The Middle East is a basket case, and will be for the foreseeable future. Just wait until the fundamentalists turn their attention on Israel. OYF. Israel will nuke them.

huntedbyafreak · 04/12/2015 8:59 pm

Silver wrote:
The one thing that pisses me right off is the whinging fae the families of the troops for getting sent into battle. It can hardly come as a surprise can it? Whether you agree with the decision to go into war or not, it's the career path that these guys have chosen.

Don't want to fly planes into war zones? Should've got a joab in Tesco.

Should post that on Twitter to enrage the Daily Mail types mate

Edmond Dantes · 05/12/2015 1:08 am

Give the forces Silver's wages.

huntedbyafreak · 05/12/2015 2:04 am

Give soldiers nurses wages

Or something like that

PatReilly · 05/12/2015 9:07 pm

huntedbyafreak wrote:

The Middle East is a basket case, and will be for the foreseeable future. Just wait until the fundamentalists turn their attention on Israel. OYF. Israel will nuke them.

At the back of my mind, I have a feeling that Israel know full well they won't be attacked until they want to be attacked. You see, I believe some conspiracy theories. Daesh supposedly hold territory very close to Israel.

huntedbyafreak · 05/12/2015 10:15 pm

The Israelis are prepared to die there IMO. They'll nuke first, then ask questions