ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Warbler, your position seems to be that 'this isn't our fight'?

It is our fight - one we should be taking-on for humanitarian reasons as an absolute minimum. Standing by whilst indiscriminate slaughter takes place is simply not on. Failure to act means we will have learned nothing from the likes of Rwanda or Yugoslavia.

The Arab states are contributing not-much-more than allowing their airspace to be used, so they have even less to bring to the party.....but their involvement is crucial; both in terms of legitimising further 'Western' action against an Islamic foe, and demonstrating that Islamic states refuse to have these kinds of atrocities 'done in their name'.

Your focus continues to be on Cameron and the Tories, which is about as myopic as it gets, given the nature of the problem at hand.
 
Last edited:
they have beheaded a brit..there are brits amongst the murderers.....how can we not be involved?..we look a right set of lemons asking others to take part and standing back ourselves..tomorrows vote is a no brainer unless we want to look completely silly
 
EC1 said:
we don't have the hardware?..you sure?
Click to expand...

Yep

Not for no reason did the American's dub the British 'the borrowers' when they were in Iraq. Not for no reason were Blowpipe missiles (which were obsolete when we built them) handed back by the then Mujahadin with the explanation that they're crap and don't work (this is from a group who didn't manufacture their own) it's like a famine victim giving food parcels back and saying they'll continue to eat dust thanks. Our primary battlefield tank was withdrawn from the NATO firing competitions because it couldn't hit a barn door. Our main battlefield rifle (the SA80) has had to have something like 300 design modifications made to it because it didn't work. Our main ground attack aircraft in the first Iraq war had to be supplemented by 1960's Buccaneers because it kept getting shot down. It's primary bomb (JP233) was withdrawn because it didn't destroy much that a half decent cement mixer wouldn't put right 12 hours later. The Typhoon was rushed into an emergency ground attack role in Libya because Tornados kept missing their targets. Cameron scrapped the most capable ground attack aircraft we had and sold it to America for spare parts (the Harrier). The much vaunted Typhoon was out performed by the French designed and built Rafaelle. Our aircraft carriers don't actually have any aircraft on them until the middle of the next decade. They're container ships in anything but name. Even our submarines break down in the middle of the Atlantic when we sell them to the Canadians with a dodgy MoT. Come to think of it, we leant the French a transport aircraft in Africa earlier this year, and that broke down too

We do march and change the guard outside of Buckingham Palace for tourists very well though
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Warbler, your position seems to be that 'this isn't our fight'?
Click to expand...

Please explain to me just what you think you're bringing to this 'fight' - military inventory please with appraisal of the decisive difference it'll make to anything. Looking forward to it :<3:
 
Warbler said:
Please explain to me just what you think you're bringing to this 'fight' - military inventory please with appraisal of the decisive difference it'll make to anything. Looking forward to it :<3:
Click to expand...

Dunno. Maybe we'll fly day-sorties because the French and Yanks are too scared to??

Whatever the UK contribution, I'd rather that we do something to contribute to the overall effort to ice these IS cu*nts, than do sod-all but wait until your phantom armies from Russia, China and India appear over the top of the hill. ;)
 
even if we had only got sticks..we have to take action Warbler..not to do so makes us look like cowardly pussies..expecting others to do battle on our behalf

i'm glad you weren't making decisions in 39
 
I find te logic of not contributing because we are not big enough completely baffling. Uk is 5th biggest force in the world isn't it?

Should America tell Australia to fck off because they are just a small country then?



Why this obsession with the wonders of china and Russia's forces?

It certainly makes sense for NATO forces (and those that operate closely with NATO, France Australia,) to coordinate than trying to work things out with the Chinese.
 
Last edited:
So far we've got

"something" - from General Grasshopper
"sticks" - from Admiral EC
and MoD overspends on civil servants - from wing commander Clivex

Can you not see what you've all got in common?

Sentiment and a misplaced idea of the UK's ability to do much. You might all feel better and warmer within yourselfs for your token contribution, but do you really want to win this war? If you do then you'll need to hand it over to people capable of doing it properly and that means manpower. You can't win a war from the air alone

And shame on Grasshopper in particular for parrotting this stupid "American's are too scared to fly daylight missions nonsense". Leaving aside the fact that in WW2 America flew the daylight missions and the RAF flew at night (something EC still thinks we're fighting by the sound of it) this is actually an ill-informed legacy of the first gulf war when the British flew suicide missions at about 50ft dropping runway denial weapons on Iraqi airfields that had no aircraft on them

The American's warned them about the stupidity of these tactics and that they were outdated, but the British had trianed for this mission and they were sure as hell determined to provide practise for Iraqi triple A gunners. The thing is they were using a rigid weapon called JP233 that meant flying in a predictable straight line to drop it. It made them sitting ducks, and as Thatcher lamented at the time, we were "losing a Tornado a night" not because we were brave and every one else was a chicken, but because were stupid and bloody minded. After 2 weeks we announced that we'd succeeded and withdrew from the tactic. In reality the American's had stood us down and instead we hasitily fitted Buccaneers with crude lazer guided equipment and set about bombing civilian areas that we mistook for bridges when bombs fell outside the radar cone

Don't belief all this John Bull stuff they feed you Grassy
 
Last edited:
i don't want us involved because i think we are any good at anything...we have to be involved seeing as how Brits are being beheaded by Brits..it makes no difference about what we got..we have to take part..we have had war declared against us and you want to sit and smoke a spliff and have a leaflet campaign about how our defence budget seems to have been pi$$ed up a wall somewhere

i think you on wind up mesen;)
 
We're pretty badly off in truth

We spend a fortune on maintaining a civil service to support the military. At 1 to 2 we have the worst ratio in the world

We've also built two aircraft carriers without aircraft
We've recently built 6 state of the art destroyers (type 45's) capable of shooting down multiple aircraft simultaneously (not a threat that ISIS pose)
and of course we have commitments to buy 4 nuclear missile ready submarines for a weapon we can't use

I ask again, what do any of you usefully think you can achieve other than making yourselves feel better? All you're going to do is fly a squadron of Tornados around Iraq doing photo reconnaisance or if you're really 'up for it' drop a few bombs. You'll have 12 aircraft, of which only about 8 will be combat ready at any single time. Tornado target miss runs at about 33%. Work it out

Lets not forget what happened in Afghanistan. It took us 12 months to get 4 chinook helicopters out there from Salisbury Plain because they weren't modified for working in desert conditions yet and had to undergo trials. In the second world war we could build a bomber in 24 hours ready to fly straight from the factory's runway

Basically wer'e ****
 
well,,best just let Brits go on murdering folk then..and have rest of world laugh at us whilst they wipe our arse

i don't think so

we'll see tomorrow if we go down that route...if we do then we hang our heads in shame imo
 
You fight wars to win them EC, or at least establish a position of defence from. Do you seriously think for one second that dropping a few bombs in Iraq is actually going to prevent Brits being murdered? We're more likely to encounter Woolwich type incidents in the longer term where we might have the resources to defend ourselves. We simply haven't got the capacity to project "military prowess" (as Cameron keeps calling it) around the globe

I'm curious to know what this 'prowess' is actually, because last time I checked you can't win wars based on marching bands, back copies of Victor comic, and showing re-runs of Rourkes Drift

As I keep saying, what do you think you're going to usefully achieve other than inflating your own ego and making yourself feel better about yourself?

And let me just remind you of something again. This is NOT a new offer, or new direction. Cameron offered this 6 weeks ago and no one took him up on the offer. The Kurds ignored him. He's had a consulate in Iraq ready to process requests for help and no one made any. Basically the Americans and the French dived in and left Britain behind. We ain't got anything they couldn't get there and then and therefore they weren't going to waste their time indulging British assessment criteria. He's had a little team sitting there twiddling their thumbs whilst the French assume the role of primary European ally. That is what this is really about.

Last week they had a rumage around and sent them some out of date old machine guns from Catterick. Obviously that decision cost one hostage their head.

This week, they asked the American's to ask the Iraqis, to formally ask us at the UN for our help. The American's have eventually persuaded the Iraqis that its a silly British protocol and that perhaps it's a good idea to say "please" and used their own influence. The American's obviously want a wider international alliance to share the cost and presentation, whereas the Iraqi's couldn't see the point as they know the British have got **** all to the table that they aren't already getting

Cameron will stand up tomorrow presenting himself as a gallant knight in shining armour coming to the assistance of fledgling democracy under threat from evil. All of the MP's will guffaw hear, hear, an dpat themselves on the back for being decent upstanding global citizens. No one will point out that this isn't actually a new position and was offered, and ignored, six weeks ago. Neither will they point out that the request for assistance has only now been made because the British had to ask the American's to lean on the Iraqi's to make it

In the end another Brit gets their chopped off 48 hours later and Cameron abhores and says its evidence of why we have to confront this threat with half a dozen 1970's aircraft that might as well have ice cream jingles fitted to them for all the bloody use they'll be to the bigger picture
 
Warbler. at the risk of sounding like clivex (and you can imagine how seriously I take that), your posts on this matter are nothing but 6th-form, common-room, navel-gazing tripe.

You ask the question about how much ordinance the UK might use, as if it's serious and can contribute to do the debate. And present vague answers as the coup-de-gras that wins you the argument.

It's frankly laughable as an approach - on a par with an argument with dyed-in-the-wool Yesser, in terms of intellectual jousting. It doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid.

Here's the difference it might make.

It might help result in more IS near-term casualties.
It might help release the Pershmerga and/or Iraqi army to reclaim territory earlier.
It might help reduce humanitarian suffering more quickly
It might embolden other Islamic states to tackle their own domestic Jihadist networks.

I'm personally prepared to roll the dice on it, given the upside.

Rather that than sit naked opposite a mirror, whilst reciting Proust and masturbating into a gym sock. ;)
 
Last edited:
Charming

But I agree. So what about what's gone before? You lose a deal in business because you didnt get the pitch right so.. You never pitch again? Err no

I suspect it's quite easy to trawl through the military history of any country and find a few mistakes. And?

And this obsession with Cameron. Ok he's not that likeable in many ways but so what?

I just don't get it. It's the do nothing states that **** me off
 
if we are as defenceless as you say Warbler..then best throw what we have now along with others..rather than wait for them to invade us when everyone with your mindset has let them build up into a force no one can deal with

when they marching up past houses of parliament it might be too late

and if left unchecked..thats a possibility..in your world of non action
 
Last edited:
Quick look through the net.. Just to counter any arguments that this is a USA France uk matter alone

Countries that isis have made direct threats against and where actions have been thwarted

Not an comprehensive list of course

Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
Italy

As with aq the idea that a country is only under threat because of previous actions is total bollocks.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
As with aq the idea that a country is only under threat because of previous actions is total bollocks.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, absolutely correct.
They hate you not because of what you have done or might do -- they hate you for what you are.
They hate you because you are Western, liberal and modern. They hate you and want to kill you because you are kuffar; because you are not one of them.
 
EC1 said:
if we are as defenceless as you say Warbler..then best throw what we have now along with others..rather than wait for them to invade us when everyone with your mindset has let them build up into a force no one can deal with

when they marching up past houses of parliament it might be too late

and if left unchecked..thats a possibility..in your world of non action
Click to expand...

If we have no defence as Warbler suggests we'd have been invaded time and time again (the countries would be queuing up!).
So why don't they? Oh yes I know, we do have defence, and weapons and very good soldiers.
But it's all Cameron's fault hey Warbler, mmmmmm what about his predecessors?
 
There's a qualification in any hierarchy of hate

Denmark is a standing dish because they published cartoons
Italy is soft touch because they ransoms
And the threat against Belgium was actually against a Jewish museum that happened to be in Belgium

Tomorrow you'll be reading about how Iraqi intelligence (whatever that is) has uncovered a plot to attack the metro networks of New York and Paris. Ultimately this is more serious, and if it involves sarin, very serious. London wasn't mentioned

Now you can of course guffaw at this 'lead' I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in it myself, as I'm prepared to speculate the Iraqi's might finally have captured an IS soldier and tourtured the buggery out of him into disclosing anything in order to stop them. There is also a world of difference between an aspiration and having the capacity to deliver

I've actually got nothing against going to war as it happens, but if we're going to do it, then lets do it properly. That doesn't mean flying half a squadron of Tornados (known as the 'flying brick') around Iraq dropping a few speculative bombs here and there to make us feel better about ourselves. This is basically ego fuelled self indulgent. It's also militarily ineffective and just increases the risk to ourselves. Operation 'Might' as Grasshopper has seemingly dubbed it

I'm afraid you're all massively over estimating the capacity of the British military. I can only assume you've been dutifully swallowing up the propaganda that your MP's and media feed you. We have expertise in trainer jets, sonar, and mine clearance. We have very little expertise in ground attack. In fact we're an embarrassment

Where are the arab countries in all this? Hell Saudi Arabia has been buying up enough kit over the last two decades (replacing the Tornados we bribed them into buying once). They aren't alone. The Middle and far East have been some of the biggest arms importers for the last 20 years now. Isn't about time they put some of this kit to use? The Royal Saudi air force is bigger than the RAF. What about India? They fly some state of the art planes, and have taken their fare share of hits

This is just the UK government desperately trying to look globally relevant and ease their own sense of guilt complex by conning themselves into believing we're doing something useful

You need a global conference and some harsh deals doing that bring in the countries with the manpower capable of making a decisive impact

Europe ain't got the clout, simple as that

We've already been party to some catastrophic errors of judgement, in fact we've pretty well been the co-authors of it
 
OK EC1 and Tiggers can't read

"We're more likely to encounter Woolwich type incidents in the longer term where we might have the resources to defend ourselves. We simply haven't got the capacity to project "military prowess" (as Cameron keeps calling it) around the globe"

Let me try and explain it again


We might be able to 'defend' ourselves. Defence of your own territory is much easier than going on an attack thousands miles away - get it?

That's why I've also said that the European nations would be better of withdrawing to the defence and policing role that they have the capacity to discharge still. They should leave the offensive actions up to those who have the military assests to do it, and critically, those who have the armies big enough to put into the field. We don't have that

We can police our own streets, although that's not really been tested, and I suspect we might find it a whole lot harder than even I imagine, but we're along way from being able to do anything unilaterally any longer

Hell it took us 1 month to clear out a bunch of criminal African druggies called the west side boys in Sierra Leone so stretched we were on that particular special op. The American's can put those sorts of things together in hours

Look go an drop bombs on IS if you want, if it makes you feel better, but that's all it'll do

If you're really serious about defeating islamism (and I have to doubt how many of you really are) then you'd realise that outside of using WMD, (and I don't mean nuclear as there is a way of doing this) Britain has very little capacity or role to play. Your advocacy of strong response (and I choke on the word strong) is largely for your own personal feel good factors. Start telling me how you're going to bring the middle east armies, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Indians into the theatre and I'd think that perhaps you;re starting to 'get it' but at the moment you're intoxicated on a heady mix of 'reach for the stars' and 'the Dambusters march'
 
I've read somewhere that the number 1 internet search in Saudi Arabia is anal sex. They're absolutely obsessed with porn and trashy western pop culture in general and this extremism is just a device they use to try and absolve themselves of the guilt they carry around with them.

Imagine taking the internet into a time machine and showing victorians double penetration and girls with clit rings and full sleeve tattoos shitting in cups. It would send those folk a bit doolalley as well.
 
Euronymous said:
I've read somewhere that the number 1 internet search in Saudi Arabia is anal sex. They're absolutely obsessed with porn and trashy western pop culture in general and this extremism is just a device they use to try and absolve themselves of the guilt they carry around with them.

Imagine taking the internet into a time machine and showing victorians double penetration and girls with clit rings and full sleeve tattoos shitting in cups. It would send those folk a bit doolalley as well.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:
Love it :lol:
 
Back
Top