RichmondCommu
Established Member
Not that you're a bitter and twisted SNP member or anything like that.
Last edited:
-
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!
Syria bombing
- Thread starter FQ
- Start date
- Status
Not that you're a bitter and twisted SNP member or anything like that.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The level of training and coordination involved in successfully using a BUK missile system to engage an aircraft is huge. You're looking at three separate vehicles (usually four at least) including long range search radar, command vehicle and missile launch vehicle. All three have to work together, all three require significant training and skill to do their own jobs as well as work as a team.
To be blunt a sophisticated system such as BUK is not the sort of thing a pack of rebels use without significant and direct support from a State. This isn't like a shoulder fired missile of which many (but by no means all) are little more than point and shoot.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,333
Just another name for those who spread hatred and evil. Just like some historic bishops who killed (or had killed) lots of people who dared to criticise their vision of religion.
By destroying the vast oil resources ISIS has took control of and breaking up the logistics network it has created to sell that oil and fund its operations we will be at least making it more difficult for them
I dont for one minute think that air strikes are the sole solution to the problem of ISIS .
Syria would be a failed state even if we did not intervene , at least if we can use our military skill to avoid the failed state being controlled by a violent anti western Islamic organization we will have achieved some good .
If Russia intel is accurate then I completely agree that Turkey needs bringing to account for being complicit in funding ISIS .
Russia does have ulterior motive though and I am far from the opinion that it is bombing anti Asad rebels just for the humanitarian reasons it is claiming .
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The "rebels" had been shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft all week in that airspace. The "rebels" claimed they'd got a second An-26- they'd got one earlier in the week- until they realised it, er, wasn't one.
As Ainsworth says, the skills needed to fire a BUK are huge, and that implies that they had military support. Maybe Ukraine did it in some weird double-bluff, but more likely the Russians did it.
I wasn't talking about cutting off diplomatic relations, I was taking about cutting off investment, not doing business with them. Which we didn't do. We just let them carry on as normal. I know this because a friend of mine's a fairly senior banker and he's spent most of the last two years working in Moscow on UK business; so much for "sanctions" eh?
The Russian economy is tanking because Saudi Arabia are driving down the price of oil.
Speaking of "Russian intelligence", funny how this came out only after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that had repeatedly been buzzing Turkish airspace to provoke Turkey (just as they keep buzzing UK airspace). Not that I'm sure a country that fabricated satellite pictures to lie about MH17 would EVER lie about a country in retaliation. Especially as most of the oil goes south to the Wahhabis.
Ironically, of course, Russia are giving the Kurds a jolly good bombing, which suits Turkey right down to the ground given the PKK are considered terrorists there.
As Ainsworth says, the skills needed to fire a BUK are huge, and that implies that they had military support. Maybe Ukraine did it in some weird double-bluff, but more likely the Russians did it.
I wasn't talking about cutting off diplomatic relations, I was taking about cutting off investment, not doing business with them. Which we didn't do. We just let them carry on as normal. I know this because a friend of mine's a fairly senior banker and he's spent most of the last two years working in Moscow on UK business; so much for "sanctions" eh?
The Russian economy is tanking because Saudi Arabia are driving down the price of oil.
Speaking of "Russian intelligence", funny how this came out only after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that had repeatedly been buzzing Turkish airspace to provoke Turkey (just as they keep buzzing UK airspace). Not that I'm sure a country that fabricated satellite pictures to lie about MH17 would EVER lie about a country in retaliation. Especially as most of the oil goes south to the Wahhabis.
Ironically, of course, Russia are giving the Kurds a jolly good bombing, which suits Turkey right down to the ground given the PKK are considered terrorists there.
Last edited:
RichmondCommu
Established Member
However surely you cannot deny that there are heavy sanctions in place against Russia.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I thi k I just did. UK businessmen working for UK businesses don't spend two years in countries facing "heavy sanctions"; there's no money in it.
Iskra
Established Member
Good for you.
Just as an update. On a popular football messageboard that I use, in a for/against poll where nearly 500 members have responded, the majority are against bombing Syria. And that's from a messageboard which normally is politically to the right.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Unless they're doing something illegal
There are a lot of heavy sanctions in place that have it very difficult for Russia to borrow money on the open markets.Fair play to Cameron, he starts off wanting to attack Assad and ends up supporting him.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If Labour hadn't went all nasty British Nationalist on their own voters here they might not have lost some of the safest seats on these islands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If Labour hadn't went all nasty British Nationalist on their own voters here they might not have lost some of the safest seats on these islands.
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
Well yes that was the intention of the Kerry/Saudi deal in September 2014, however it's not quite worked out - after an initial fall in the Rouble those pesky Russians were able to stabilise the situation.
The real losers have been the North American Shale and Tar Sands industries which are really tanking. Many have theorised that that may have been the Saudi intention all along taking advantage of the US's geopolitical obsessions!
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,449
Exactly....and what are we doing about Turkey's actions? (Nothing?)
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,800
The problem with Turkey is they have a large and efficient military and NATO doesn't want to lose it or the ability to use the Turkish airbases.
I imagine after the needless shooting down of the Russian plane senior NATO officials are wondering what will happen next.
If it comes down to a straight ISIL or Kurds choice Turkey will side with ISIS, they're no friends of the west at all.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I doubt it, Russia has been buzzing the airspace of most Western powers for at least the last year, the RAF keep having to "escort" Russian military jets away from UK airspace at least once a month.
It probably wasn't the best outcome that Turkey finally got sick of it and shot one of them down, given that that was what Russia were intending with the provocation, but I doubt the rest of NATO give two stuffs.
Russia, with a long history of fabricating intelligence to suit their agenda, weren't saying anything until last week. Now suddenly Turkey are the baddies funding ISIS. It's a transparent attempt to try and ostracise Turkey in retaliation, it is nothing else.
Strange that the Turkish holidays resorts seem safe.
Thousands of Westerners enjoying a holiday a few hours drive away from ISIS.
I'd guess Islamic State are being bought off, big time.
Don't touch us and you get safe passage and oh we'll buy your oil.
Thousands of Westerners enjoying a holiday a few hours drive away from ISIS.
I'd guess Islamic State are being bought off, big time.
Don't touch us and you get safe passage and oh we'll buy your oil.
WestCoast
Established Member
For all the criticism they have attracted (some of it not entirely unwarranted I might add), I think Turkey is in a very difficult position. Given that the group tends to look back rather than forwards, IS is an ideology at complete unease with Turkey's approach to secularism and Islam as they've made quite clear.
Turkey is the NATO gatekeeper between west and east and the economic role model for the region, reliant on IS's "crusaders" gracing its shores for a sizeable chunk of its economy. Tunisia was often put in the same category as Turkey prior to the Spring and look how it is now struggling to keep a grip on extremism that came across its borders. A problem exacerbated by growing economic woes.
Turkey is serving its own interests but one could wonder if its interests are indirectly our interests. I'm no expert in geopolitics or Turkey but it's one thought that has crossed my mind after watching some insightful documentaries.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Sharm el Sheikh and Tunisia were "safe" holiday destinations right up until they weren't. Don't be so sure.
I wouldn't be holidaying in Turkey this year, put it that way.
I wouldn't be holidaying in Turkey this year, put it that way.
Well the Russians seem to have published their case for Turkey buying Daesh oil which can be found here:
WestCoast
Established Member
I don't disagree with your point, but there were question marks about security in Tunisian resorts before the beach attack following on from previous attacks and recent rise of extremism in the country. I certainly wouldn't have gone. Sharm is an interesting one, on the face of it the resort is extremely well guarded by Egyptian forces and remains so but the airport was/is the weak link. Still a volatile region of course.
The problem is where is considered "safe"? The Turkish resort of Bodrum is a stone's throw from the Greek Island of Kos, also a popular destination. Given that terrorism doesn't respect national boundaries, it's difficult to provide an accurate measure of risk. You could argue the whole of the eastern Mediterranean might be worth avoiding at the moment and choose somewhere like Portugal instead.
Anyway, back to the topic...
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Let us all be patriotic and think of how much our holiday spending money can help our own resorts.......and take all our holidays in our own country....
IS don't care about civilians, they will happily butcher and murder hundreds or even thousands of people who don't agree with their cause. In Syria they currently have free reign in the middle of the country. They have training camps, oilfields, command posts etc etc. What is it going to take for the left wing to realise that we have to destroy this despicable organisation? A Paris style attack in this country? The slaughter in San Bernardino CA was in the name of IS. How many innocent people have to die in the civilised world before the left wing realise that IS need to be destroyed now. But it seems the Labour Party are far more interested in threatening their own MPs who voted for strike action than destroying IS.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Agreed.
That sounds to me like a complete misrepresentation of many of the arguments on the left. Lots of people in the Labour Party and on the left, and many of the MPs who voted against airstrikes want ISIS removed, but voted against airstrikes because they concluded that on balance airstrikes would not help achieve that aim. Look for example at this very well written explanation from my own MP of why she voted against air strikes. It's clear from her explanation that she would be very happy to support military action if the Government came up with a credible plan that in her view was likely to work.
I personally, as someone on the left and therefore presumably one of the people whom your post was intended to attack, would happily support even sending troops in to remove IS on the ground - if it was part of a credible strategy to restore some reasonable Government to the area. But air strikes alone doesn't cut it.
Of course there are people who are more generally against any military action and to whom your comments might well be more appropriately addressed. But those people are not 'the left wing' - they are individuals with views across the political spectrum on other issues (Although I'll grant it's plausible that more of those people are on the left than on the right).
Indeed a number of people who are against air strikes have threatened MPs in ways that are in my view despicable. But those people are not 'the Labour Party' - it's not even clear whether many of those people are even Labour Party members - I guess would be that some are, some aren't.
I have to say, it would be nice if you made the effort to get some of your facts correct before posting this kind of stuff - something which numerous posts of yours have convinced me that you are thus far unwilling to do.
Last edited:
Metrailway
Member
I'm not going to wade into the debate regarding whether extending air strikes in Syria is the best course of action.
However, I would like to address the posts which have stated that the RAF's contribution will be negligible. In Iraq, the RAF has provided 60% of aerial surveillance and, prior to the parliamentary vote, the RAF provided 30% of aerial surveillance in Syria. In Iraq, the RAF has contributed to 8% of air strikes and Britain is the second largest contributor to the US led air campaign. Britain's contribution is not token.
However, I would like to address the posts which have stated that the RAF's contribution will be negligible. In Iraq, the RAF has provided 60% of aerial surveillance and, prior to the parliamentary vote, the RAF provided 30% of aerial surveillance in Syria. In Iraq, the RAF has contributed to 8% of air strikes and Britain is the second largest contributor to the US led air campaign. Britain's contribution is not token.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
One recent matter to note concerns the ISIL establishment on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, which follows their similar move in the North African areas.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I'm not sure who "the left" are, but most people are clear that ISIS are despicable and need to be destroyed.
The question is how we do it. Some think air strikes will do it, some think it'll make it worse. I'm in the latter camp.
As for Russia and Turkey, it boils down to whether you take Vladimir Putin- who's just been embarrassed by having his fighter jet shot down- at face value. Russia have a long history of fabricating intelligence to suit their own agenda- they doctored satellite images to cover up MH17- and I think we can take what they say with a huge dose of salt. They weren't saying it two weeks ago. This is about paving the way for retribution against Turkey- "we must bomb them, they're defending ISIS"
The question is how we do it. Some think air strikes will do it, some think it'll make it worse. I'm in the latter camp.
As for Russia and Turkey, it boils down to whether you take Vladimir Putin- who's just been embarrassed by having his fighter jet shot down- at face value. Russia have a long history of fabricating intelligence to suit their own agenda- they doctored satellite images to cover up MH17- and I think we can take what they say with a huge dose of salt. They weren't saying it two weeks ago. This is about paving the way for retribution against Turkey- "we must bomb them, they're defending ISIS"
I say "the left" as that includes all the left wing parties who voted against action. At least the air strikes will go some way to disrupting ISIS and their network. Some people it seems would rather we just sat and did nothing. I would rather we get on with it now than waiting until there is an attack in this country and innocent people in this country die.
The group that supports Mr Corbyn, "Momentum", reportedly called the death threats to Labour MP's as "robust lobbying", and said they should just put up with it or quit. I notice that Mr Corbyn was not exactly distancing himself from those comments. So how is "Momentum" any different to IS?
The group that supports Mr Corbyn, "Momentum", reportedly called the death threats to Labour MP's as "robust lobbying", and said they should just put up with it or quit. I notice that Mr Corbyn was not exactly distancing himself from those comments. So how is "Momentum" any different to IS?
Best let the Scottish Labour Party know because they say the SNP are right wing.
WestCoast
Established Member
I believe "in the name of" is a very appropriate choice of words. The problem is that no weapon is able to kill an ideology that keeps on reemerging time and time again with its 'base' in that part of the Middle East. Some people committing these attacks did so in the name of IS but not necessarily with the direct support of IS.
I see the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda as more or less direct predecessors to IS, their approach and aims might have been different but it's the same ideology. As technology has developed so has the power of such groups to get across their message; IS has a slick media presence which helps it attract followers enabled by things like Twitter.
I agree that IS should be tackled, but as I've said earlier I'm not convinced air strikes by western nations will weaken their ideology. I'm inclined to say they will strengthen it. I don't have the answers but there needs to be a fundamental rethink in collaboration with other Middle Eastern nations about how to go forward. We need to think long term, as in what would be the best scenario for Syria in 20 years time. The problem is what Russia wants is not what the US/UK want and that's why I feel tackling IS in isolation could be less effective than it appears on the surface. Without a cohesive strategy for Syria, we are all after different targets making the country more comfortable for the IS ideology to flourish (perhaps in a different form).
Referring to the awful shooting in California, one is reminded that many more people die each year in the USA by people who carry out gun attacks not in the name of IS. However, many in the USA do not support the notion of introducing more restrictions on the owning of firearms.
Last edited:
- Status