ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Just to underline what George says, the Royal Saudi Airforce is about twice the size of the RAF flying identical aircraft in many cases (they have both Tornados - the German variant, and Typhoon fighters). Their ground attack capacity is about three times as great as ours

I don't disagree with much of George says on this as he has a more realistic appraisal of what we can bring to the table, and that we'll be at full stretch defending ourselves rather than trying to prosecute an attack thousands of miles away. If America isn't going to underwrite this with aggressive measures then its frankly futile

If we're to go in and try to sift through the population to find ISIL we're going to need substantial armies and support logistics to do it.

The only countries that could do it independently are

The USA
China
Russia
and increasingly, India

Organisations that might be able to do it?

NATO (which is America in all but name)
Some kind of Arab coalition (even if half of them would be broadly sympathetic)

If you're going to fight, then fight to win. This idea of chucking a few obsolete 1970's ground attack aircraft designed for penetrating the Russian Steppe into the fray ain't going to alter a thing. It hasn't done previously, and won't do again

This is where I disagree with George though. I don't think the tribes can sustain a fight against ISIL

You might recall that the last time we tried this 'smart' intervention in support of disparate on the grounds tribes, it was in Libya. The British were their with their crap planes, and once again their crap planes missed their targets with such frequency that they had to rush an untested version of the Typhoon into the front line. The 'success' of Libya (yes that's what the government described it as) was even heralded as a new model for intervention by Obama. It was felt then that this was a clean way forward that would allow us to settle these kinds of conflicts in such a way that we didn't have to fight ourselves. War by PR if you like. Programming co-ordinates into fire and forget missiles at 20,000 ft isn't that brave in the context military gallantry and is low immediate risk (for us)

In the immediate aftermath gay Hague and Cameron used to go to Libya to herald this model of fledgling democracy and hold it up as a flagship, a beacon of arab self-determination in a sea of militancy and corrupt government.

Anyone fancy explaining why our government no longer visits Tripoli yet alone mentions it.

This model that so many of you are now imploring us to follow is exactly the same

Sometimes war is really very simple and straight forward. You just get the biggest army with the most weapons, and say 'Go'. The Zhukov doctrine if you like. It might lack subtlty and might not be smart or clever, but it tends to work the best
 
Your leit-motif of "if you're in it, try to win it", means precisely fu*ck-all, given it dismisses the contribution of those prepared to get involved, as more meaningful than your fantasy that Russia, China and India will all-of-a-sudden get involved.

You might as well invoke the Death Star, and the Imperial Battle Fleet in your deluded quest against IS. Or the Tooth Fairy. Or Santa.

All of your theorising is based on 'cloud in my coffee', what-if, dream-catching, toss-pottery. Drag your arse into the real world, and you'll see that the more we can throw at them - even if it just EC1 with his sticks - is better than your proposed 'nothing'.

You're doing a grand job on the Ryder Cup thread though! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Your leit-motif of "if you're in it, try to win it", means precisely fu*ck-all, given it dismisses the contribution of those prepared to get involved, as more meaningful than your fantasy that Russia, China and India will all-of-a-sudden get involved.

You might as well invoke the Death Star, and the Imperial Battle Fleet in your deluded quest against IS. Or the Tooth Fairy. Or Santa.

All of your theorising is based on 'cloud in my coffee', what-if, dream-catching, toss-pottery. Drag your arse into the real world, and you'll see that the more we can throw at them - even if it just EC1 with his sticks - is better than your proposed 'nothing'.
Click to expand...

The only coffee involved is the stuff I've just spluttered out on reading your latest and trying to reconcile it with the person who posted this only a few weeks ago as their solution -


1. A pan-Islamic conference should be established, with a remit to tackle extremism; both domestically within each State, and in wider regional/global contexts. The point at which Islamic states can ignore this issue has now passed, and it is in their own best-interest to grasp the nettle.

2. A genuine global coalition needs to be put together. China should be encouraged to participate (Uighur problem as motivation), as indeed should Russia (Chechen, Turkmen problems as motivation), plus all of the regional players (including Assad and Iran). This coalition should execute a Blitzkreig operation against Islamic State, attacking it on all fronts, and with a remit that the number of body-bags should out-weigh the number of trials by a factor of 1000:1. I personally have no interest in bringing these people before justice - terminate them, and let their God judge them (it's what they want anyway).


More coffee? :whistle: I realise that conversions on the road to Damascus are not without precedent, but this is the mother of all U-turns. A few weeks ago you were advocating a hard line, no nonsense approach that might actually work, a few weeks later you've been seduced into endorsing David Cameron's aerobatics show. Incidentally, one of the MP's voting against today was a conservative and former soldier who explained he did so precisely because air strikes alone won';t acheive a jot other than make Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband feel better about themselves and perhaps just a tiny little bit more relevant in their imaginations than they did this morning. I would endorse your conclusion that Clive had provided "a pathetic and clueless response". I can't remember what it was to, but it almost certainly would have been
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
The U.S. has seen its first beheading on American soil this evening.
Click to expand...

There is a serious side to this of course other than the person is now headless.

This is the sort of 'defence' that I'm concerned about and which I think we'll be stretched. It's a real shame that so many of you didn't get the difference between 'defence' and 'attack'.

I have little doubt that we can't attack, but we still just about have the resources to defend. Even then though we need to scope this out in terms of what might be involved in an escalation of sectarian race war on our own soil.

The killers of Lee Rigby were reasonably co-operative in waiting for the police to turn up and then charging them. What might have happened if they'd decided to start lashing out at passers-by? What might have happened if they'd had just a small handgun?

The issue as I see it, is you either do something, or you don't, what we've got instead is a half way house that does little but allows our politicians to bask in a warm after glow of thinking they've done something morally correct which won't actually make a great deal of difference because it's so ineffective

Naturally enough, the next jump you make in the name of pragmatism is working out how to do something effective. You quickly conclude that half a dozen Tornados isn't the answer and that instead you need to start getting the militarised capable of countries of the world involved. Now as it happens, the USA could do this on their own, they have the capacity. We don't. We'll be stretched just to defend our own soil from domestic threats if this turns nasty
 
Warbler said:
The only coffee involved is the stuff I've just spluttered out on reading your latest and trying to reconcile it with the person who posted this only a few weeks as their solution -


1. A pan-Islamic conference should be established, with a remit to tackle extremism; both domestically within each State, and in wider regional/global contexts. The point at which Islamic states can ignore this issue has now passed, and it is in their own best-interest to grasp the nettle.

2. A genuine global coalition needs to be put together. China should be encouraged to participate (Uighur problem as motivation), as indeed should Russia (Chechen, Turkmen problems as motivation), plus all of the regional players (including Assad and Iran). This coalition should execute a Blitzkreig operation against Islamic State, attacking it on all fronts, and with a remit that the number of body-bags should out-weigh the number of trials by a factor of 1000:1. I personally have no interest in bringing these people before justice - terminate them, and let their God judge them (it's what they want anyway).


More coffee? :whistle: albeit I would endorse your conclusion that Clive had provided "a pathetic and clueless response". I can't remember what it was to, but it almost certainly would have been
Click to expand...

I fail to see the contradiction, Warbler.

A coalition involving Arab nations is exactly what has come to pass. Whilst I would prefer that to be truly global i.e. involving Russia and China, that doesn't mean we should not participate ourselves, if it's clear that both have chosen to adopt a wait-and-see posture.

You advocate that a UK response is too piffling a contribution to matter, and reckon it's a notion borne from a lack of self-esteem anyway; as if niche, UK racing forums are a regular hide-out for Cheney wannabes.

I tend towards the pacifist in most cases, but IS is the manifestation of a cult that won't stop until either they're dead, or everyone else is, because - guess what!!? The prize in this twisted game is Death itself, so they always win in the end.

Taken to its logical end-game, there's nobody left. The Khmer Rouge were ambitious, in the same way that a British female tennis player is 'ambitious' to get into Round 2 at SW19. This lot are more like the Nazis in that they want to kill pretty-much everyone that doesn't think like them.

They are a threat not only to their immediate geography, they are a threat to the evolution of the species, and they should be treated like the virus they are.

Any contribution towards eradicating this filth is worthwhile - no matter how small. :cool:
 
Last edited:
My tuppence worth.

George Galloway isn't too far off the mark in that piece.


Warbler knows a lot less about aircraft than he thinks he does. There are numerous factual errors in his latest spiel - not least blaming the Tornado for any failure of guided missiles to accurately hit their targets, or the suggestion that they were designed to strike to the heart of the Russian steppes. With a range of something of the order of 750 miles, they had an absolute maximum penetration to the far side of Poland from their German bases in the Cold War (assuming refueling after take off).

I'd also be interested to see some evidence of the suggested failure rate of attacks in Libya.
 
I could research this myself but there seems to be some clued-up folk on here so could I ask you:

Does this multi-national campaign, on Iraqi soil, have the tacit or official (UN) approval of Russia?
 
How can the actual aircraft be responsible for the failure (supposed) of a guided missile? It the same as blaming the aircraft carrier for the failure or an aircraft. Makes no sense

Each nation that is contributing to this war against a genuinely evil force should take great pride in its efforts however small the contribution.

One one last note about the fantasies of china. When Pakistan had those terrible floods, one country stepped in immediately with huge amounts of aid and on the ground assistance. They didnt hold back and didnt weigh up whether they should and whether they shouldn't. Another country that is supposedly pakistans greatest allie and happen to be on the border rather than 4000 miles away did absolutely fck all

Give me the us of a over china anyday. They would only get involved so that they could make a return on the body parts of beheaded victims
 
simmo said:
I'd also be interested to see some evidence of the suggested failure rate of attacks in Libya.
Click to expand...

I'm not about to scour the internet for you

It was leaked by the French who wanted to highlight how much better their Rafaelle was performing than the British as a big contract with India was the air at the time. The British didn't deny it, but only a very small proprotion of the British media reported it. We like to do the patriotic thing like screaming headline in todays Telegraph "Britains off to war" - (which feature a picture of an American F15e)

From memory, it was based on the first set of completed attacks which had something like 4 misses from 9. Things improved, but then the fact that the Typhoon was also rushed into a ground attack role at the same time might tell a story.

The military rarely tell the truth, but you can observe things that happen in the immediate aftermath to give you a clue. This notion that American pilots weren't skillful or brave enough in the first Gulf war was used as cover to explain Tornado losses. JP233 was subsequently dropped as a weapon under the cover of a landmines treaty. The British moved to laser guided Paveways delivered at medium altitude. Clearly the truth was that Britiain was flying obsolete tactics and doing a bad job

The Pentagon has never released the results of the war games between Su35's and F16's, but we know that the F22 programme was accelerated in the immediate aftermath

Draw your own conclusions as to why the Typhoon was hastily assembled into a ground attack configuration

As Clive has said about the issue of bombs, or what they call 'platforms'. The reason for scrapping the harriers largely rested on the types of weapons Tornados could carry that harreirs couldn't. So I tend to agree with him that the assessment of the aircraft is linked to its weaponry. The MoD thought so anyway

And I was being a flippant with the Russian Steppe. A lot of RAF Tornados were based in Scotland and tasked with defending North Sea oil (not that they'd have been any good at it)

What I am surprised about however, is the number of Tory MP's (and their identities and backgrounds) who have either voted against this, or abstained. I honestly thought I'd be on my own in questioning the point of this gesture

I'm concerned to hear my own thinking articulated by John Redwood though. If you can't win the war or affect its outcome, why ask people to die for you seems to be his conclusion
 
ISIS advance to the outskirts of Baghdad. :blink:
Heaven help all those unfortunate people.

It doesn't seem that the aerial bombing has been effective in halting the butchers -- let alone push them back.
Canon Andrew White, the vicar of the only Anglican church in Iraq, says:
'The Islamic State are now within 10km of entering Baghdad. Over a 1000 Iraqi troops were killed by them yesterday, things are so bad. If ever we needed your prayer it is now.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Western-airstrikes-against-terror-group.html


___________________________________
 
Its extremely worrying

Warbler. John Redwood can be a bit of a clever dick cold fish who thinks hes a bit smarter than he is. Humanitarian is not a word he has ever been known to utter. However coldly logical his point (presumably he would have allowed those 40000 christians to be slaughtered) you have to start somewhere. You cant sit around trying to iron out every last little point whist ISIS continue to grow
 
Aerial bombing was a feelgood intervention. So far you've had TWO tornados flying googleearth mapping exercises over the desert looking for pick up trucks with a washing machine on the back. It was apparent from a very early stage that this was a boots on the ground job and a reinvasion. It's why I kept asking you time and time again if any of you supported it. There are no silver medals in this race. If you're going to do it, then do it properly
 
there are 3.8 million people live in Baghdad..what weaponry is likely to be available?..because if there are only 10000 Isis i can't see how they can take that number of people if tooled up in some way

again..i'm probably being naive but this seems a bit odd how so few..relative to population of Baghdad... can be so powerful

inform me where i'm not seeing this in context
 
Last edited:
i thought i were being a bit simplistic..but this situation doesn't add up to me...if our village had some evil bastards reigning down on us we'd be out with whatever weapons we could muster and fight to the death..particularly when you know that if you don't what will happen to you
 
Many will say it will depend on how the Sunni population take to isis but although they have their greivances, there will not be unaware of what isis is all about. Worth remembering too hat he Sunnis kicked out aq quite forcefully a little while back

10000 at most, controlling 380 times that number. Doesn't weigh up frankly.
 
There's a video appeared on my Facebook timeline of IS merchants just driving about in a motor, running up alongside a car, and just pegging the people in the vehicle with an AK47......same with some dudes who were doing nothing more controversial than walking down the street somewhere.

It's totally indiscriminate, and it won't be stopped by air-strikes. When are the Arab League (or at least the Islamic coalition partners) going to step forward and agree to put some boots-on-the-ground to tackle these ba*stards??
 
Last edited:
The US & China and to a lesser extent Russia, are the only people capable of deploying in the numbers needed at the speed required and with the hardware

Unless the population of Baghdad has been weaponised and trained, then 10,000 armed and organised people will defeat 3.8 million unarmed and badly organised civilians. It'll be interesting to see how the British trained ones in the south fare, as there has been a few sniggers in the British military that it's been the US trained elements that have run away

I think they'll run as well

Oh for Saddam

Despite what some of you were saying earlier, you simply have to fight to win. This isn't one of those silly motivational posters where participation is deemed more important than the result
 
Back
Top