HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
I am very much aware of this
Now we're going into Syria, we can get the job done and done right. The trick is to take out their command and control facilities first - leave them in a state of confusion
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
'Jihadi Jez' headline by Sky News is a disgrace
- Thread starter valenta
- Start date
- Status
I am very much aware of this
Now we're going into Syria, we can get the job done and done right. The trick is to take out their command and control facilities first - leave them in a state of confusion
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Goodness me, how inspired! Better go and tell the RAF that, must have been where we went wrong in Iraq.
HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
Where we went wrong with Iraq was having Tony Blair in charge...
AIUI, the RAF in Iraq have only been allowed to hit certain targets outside of major population areas where collateral damage is minimal.
Anyway... This should be fairly easy to do - if only we had the harrier fleet for 24 hour bombing
I can't tell if you're being serious or not...
HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
I am - why would I not be?
If we had had the Harriers and some carriers left, we could have used them for daylight raid and the land based aircraft for night bombing - never knowing when they might be attacked would leave anyone in a state of worry and confusion. ISIS, on the other hand, is a disorganised rabble so 24 hour bombing raids would break them
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Such a disorganised rabble that they have banks, oil supplies, heavy weapons and have orchestrated terrorist attacks in relatively secure countries.
I don't think you're as good a military strategist as you think you are...
I don't think you're as good a military strategist as you think you are...
HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
Thats because they snuck in through the back door...
I know they have heavy weapons, but I do not think that they have weapons to reach the altitudes Tornados fly at. As an aside, does anybody kow if the RAF has any Eurofighters that are cleared for desert ops?
I remain convinced that this is wind up but to answer your question yes the Typhoons are being committed to action as apparently six are being forward deployed to Akrotiri in the near future.
HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
Ah, I didn't know so it was a complete guess. I know that the Saudis put an order in for a couple a while ago, I just didn't know if we had any that could operate from desert bases rather then flying from the BST in Cyprus
All of our Tornado and Typhoon aircraft that are committed to this are forward based at Akrotiri we aren't operating out of any other bases other than the Reaper drones that are operating out of Kuwait.
HMS Ark Royal
Established Member
Yes, I know that
I was just wondering if any of the Eurofighters had undergone desert conversion during trials?
I was just wondering if any of the Eurofighters had undergone desert conversion during trials?
What about the others that voted against?
Would be a bit embarrassing if you took the Scots out the story.
Aren't they now fighting ISIS?
Surely it's just as embarrassing to take all the others that voted against out of the story?
Suppose that's true if you see everything though the prism of the UK.
Considering that was a vote in the Parliament of the UK I would suggest that it might be perhaps blinkered to see it solely through the 'prism' of one region of the UK. Relevant of course but a bit odd to focus only only one part.
Bill + Hilary Clinton too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't know, but the Thatcher Government was supporting AlQuada in the 80s, which went remarkably well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not in our name for the people of Chichester, Stevenage and Kettering too, despite many people in those towns supporting the strike. In fact those MPs went against their party whip so made a far more courageous terrorist-hugging choice.
Rather simplistic to say that just because an MP that may or may not have got a majority of votes in an election 6 months ago can qualify as "not in our name", or equally "yes in our name".
The UK parliament has just agreed to literally burning £1 billion over the next few years - money we apparently don't have.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
1. As far as I can tell from searching online, David Cameron's words were:
DavidCameron said:
You could probably quibble of exactly who David Cameron was including as a 'terrorist sympathiser' but it certainly wasn't only Jeremy Corbyn. The most obvious interpretation of that statement appears to me to be that Cameron was implying that any MP who opposes airstrikes is a terrorist sympathiser, which is clearly untrue - and, if intended, would amount in my view to quite a disgusting smear. The only possible get-out there is I haven't managed to find what he said immediately before and after that sentence: Maybe, knowing that context would change the meaning, though for the life of me I can't see how.
2. Corbyn has met representatives of terrorist organizations and on occasions he has shared platforms with them, but as far as I'm aware, he has in general made it clear that that is because he believes that achieving peace requires talking to everyone, no matter how unpleasant you think their views or actions might be. You might well be able to make a case that meeting those people in the circumstances that he did was unwise or naïve, but it certainly isn't the same thing as being a terrorist sympathiser. Or do you have some other reason for believing that in general he sympathises with terrorists, in a manner that makes labelling him 'terrorist sympathiser' appropriate?
Colin Parry is well known for being an iRA supporter* hence sharing a platform with Gerry Adams
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/colin-wendy-parry-share-peace-3498249
"COLIN Parry shook hands with Gerry Adams as they shared a peace platform.
Mr Parrys 12-year-old son Tim was killed in an IRA bomb attack in Warrington in March 1993.
He and his wife Wendy set up a peace foundation in memory of the schoolboy and fellow victim, three-year-old Johnathan Ball.
They were invited by Sinn Fein president Mr Adams to the Paths for Peace event in Canary Wharf, London."
* yes that's sarcasm.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
May I be allowed to pass comment on those statements that talk in terms of a negotiated peace process in the Middle East conflict areas by asking if those people supportive of such aspirations can lay their hand on their heart and say that they truly believe that ISIL would espouse such a position.
ISIL have made their views very clear indeed that they would regard such a stance as "a Crusader attempt to weaken the resolve" of their gradual dream of a International Sunni-based Caliphate that will reach from both sides of the sub-Saharan African continent, North Africa, the Middle East, those areas south of Russia, the Indian sub-continent and the far East, both in the north to the western borders of China and southwards down to Indonesia.
Israel must be very aware of how the conflict leaves them so geographically placed and I wonder what political moves are afoot in the very strong Jewish political lobby in the United States of America.
ISIL have made their views very clear indeed that they would regard such a stance as "a Crusader attempt to weaken the resolve" of their gradual dream of a International Sunni-based Caliphate that will reach from both sides of the sub-Saharan African continent, North Africa, the Middle East, those areas south of Russia, the Indian sub-continent and the far East, both in the north to the western borders of China and southwards down to Indonesia.
Israel must be very aware of how the conflict leaves them so geographically placed and I wonder what political moves are afoot in the very strong Jewish political lobby in the United States of America.
I - reasonably, I think - interpreted Cameron to be talking about Corbyn and his close inner group of supporters. I agree that extending the reference to include all who voted against is highly offensive, but, so far as I can see, that extension was made, not by Cameron, but by those wishing to stir th epot
It is notable that, throughout his career, Corbyn has been keen to "talk" to opponents of established states, but not to embrace the establishment. To do so once may be forgiven, to do so on so many occasions suggests a certain sympathy with that kind of group.
Naive? Possibly. Unwise? Certainly. He is a more astute operator than George Galloway. But, as he is finding out, having made a career out of being anti-establishment, he should expect people at the very least to point that out.
For me, the chief stumbling block is that ISIL actually have nothing to negotiate with. They are not a state, even de facto; they do not have a status. What can they concede in negotiations? All they can offer in negotiations is that they will stop fighting, and, I presume, they will only do that once demands are met.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
You have to understand the Wahabbist theological mind-set of those behind the Sunni wish for their Universal Caliphate rather than looking at the subject from purely a localised area event, as I stated in the areas shown in my earlier posting, there are localised extreme fundamentalistic Sunni ethic groups such as Boko Haram, al-Shaabab, al Quaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIL, the Pakistani and Afghan Taleban, Uighar nationalists, Abu Sayyaf, etc, which are all part and parcel of a co-ordinated scheme to fully achieve this stated aspiration
So how will attacking Syria help combat this?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I never knew Tony Blair was Air Chief Marshal.
You learn something new every day.
Oswyntail said:
And Peter Robinson, leader of the DUP (who are allied with the Conservatives, and voted in favour of attacks in Syria; a close ally of Cameron) has in the past supported the Ulster Volunteer Force- the most brutal and deadly of all the terror organisations in Ulster- and stated on video that the UDA were "good people" and "not terrorists, just defenders".
Funny how that's not getting mentioned, isn't it.
Last edited:
Possibly because he is not "Leader of the Opposition". When Corbyn took the job - voluntarily - did he really expect not to have his background mentioned? If complete fabrications like the pig story can be used in one direction, rather more relevant indiscretions can be used in another.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's not a reasonable comparison because the pig story has never - to my knowledge - been used by the Labour leadership or the Labour Party as a means to attack Cameron. I seem to recall at the time that it was reported that Corbyn deliberately avoided any mention of the story because he didn't believe that kind of personal attack should form any part of politics (though that's a vague recollection, I don't have a link to confirm it).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't get the impression that most of those who talk about a negotiated peace process expect to include ISIL in that process. Certainly, at Labour meetings I've been to where this has been discussed, those advocating such a position seem on the whole to be thinking more along the lines of a negotiated peace amongst the other groups in Syria (Assad, the pro-democracy rebels, etc.) which would then allow a more stable Syrian Government to defeat ISIL.
I think your observation is correct. However, a common characteristic of many of the groups Corbyn has talked to is that they often represented (or claimed to represent) groups who were arguably marginalized or discriminated against. So, without knowing what's going on inside Corbyn's mind, it's perfectly plausible that any sympathy is for the aim to assist those marginalized people, not with the terrorist methods adopted. Indeed, there is a very strong tradition within the Labour Party of wishing to support groups perceived as marginalized or subject to discrimination, which would suggest that interpretation is very plausible.
So it's not really logically possible to deduce from the fact that Corbyn has tended to talk to such groups that he today supports terrorism. Indeed, the fact that Corbyn seems to very strongly err towards always seeking peaceful resolution to any conflict, would seem to be completely incompatible with such a claim. And remember, that Cameron's description of Corbyn (and unidentified other people in Labour) as a terrorist sympathizers carries strong connotations of current (not historical) direct support for terrorism - a dreadful claim for which there is no significant evidence (at best, all you have is a vague association based on having met some groups in the past). That certainly doesn't seem to me like the sort of claim a (supposedly) responsible Prime Minister should be making.
Last edited:
- Status