I think we need to start reconsidering our relationship with ISIS?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The_Opinion
As it shows that they are taking the targets that they should be doing.
Bombing a random empty truck isn't really worth spending £250,000 on doing.
To take out the enemy, they should be bombing civilian areas (which is where they are).
The Russian army / government is not run by a bunch of cowards, and they are willing to accept civilian casualties, and as a result, their bombing has been effective.
Bombing a random empty truck isn't really worth spending £250,000 on doing.
To take out the enemy, they should be bombing civilian areas (which is where they are).
The Russian army / government is not run by a bunch of cowards, and they are willing to accept civilian casualties, and as a result, their bombing has been effective.
Sorry but I just can't agree with you there. The UK armed forces should not be in the business of killing civilians unless there is literally no other option.
Even if the Laws of Armed Conflict allowed us to intentionally kill civilians I doubt you'd find many personnel volunteering to do the job. Despite what some anti-war protesters (who ironically are sometimes violent themselves) seem to think members of the armed forces aren't baby killing murders who have no remorse or conscience.
Even if you ignore the moral/humanitarian aspect of it, all killing civilians does is make the enemy fight harder & cause reprisal attacks down the line.
If your family was killed you'd want revenge.
Original post by Tempest II
Sorry but I just can't agree with you there. The UK armed forces should not be in the business of killing civilians unless there is literally no other option.
Even if the Laws of Armed Conflict allowed us to intentionally kill civilians I doubt you'd find many personnel volunteering to do the job. Despite what some anti-war protesters (who ironically are sometimes violent themselves) seem to think members of the armed forces aren't baby killing murders who have no remorse or conscience.
Even if you ignore the moral/humanitarian aspect of it, all killing civilians does is make the enemy fight harder & cause reprisal attacks down the line.
If your family was killed you'd want revenge.
Even if the Laws of Armed Conflict allowed us to intentionally kill civilians I doubt you'd find many personnel volunteering to do the job. Despite what some anti-war protesters (who ironically are sometimes violent themselves) seem to think members of the armed forces aren't baby killing murders who have no remorse or conscience.
Even if you ignore the moral/humanitarian aspect of it, all killing civilians does is make the enemy fight harder & cause reprisal attacks down the line.
If your family was killed you'd want revenge.
The kind of target I am thinking of is a house where known terrorists are staying amongst a number of civilians. A real general / politician would carry out the bombing. Russia would, China would, Turkey would, Saudi Arabia would, in fact any country that was not an utter push over would.
Original post by john2054
What i mean is that these are people's brothers fathers and sons, and they are now in a losing position. And i am the first to point out that the terrible things they have done, are unacceptable. But they are still human beings, and we need to move on.
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
7/10 troll
Original post by john2054
What i mean is that these are people's brothers fathers and sons, and they are now in a losing position. And i am the first to point out that the terrible things they have done, are unacceptable. But they are still human beings, and we need to move on.
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
Agreed but I HIIIIIGHLY doubt that's ever going to happen.
Original post by The_Opinion
The kind of target I am thinking of is a house where known terrorists are staying amongst a number of civilians. A real general / politician would carry out the bombing. Russia would, China would, Turkey would, Saudi Arabia would, in fact any country that was not an utter push over would.
There's no way a UK asset would knowingly carry out a air strike on a building with civilians in even if there's terrorists in there too. Even if a General ordered such an attack, the pilot/crew have the right to abort. As the Second World War showed, just following orders is no longer an excuse not to be placed on trial.
However strikes can be carried out on terrorist positions close to civilians which previously wouldn't have been possible due to low collateral damage caused by weapons such as Brimstone.
Original post by Tempest II
There's no way a UK asset would knowingly carry out a air strike on a building with civilians in even if there's terrorists in there too. Even if a General ordered such an attack, the pilot/crew have the right to abort. As the Second World War showed, just following orders is no longer an excuse not to be placed on trial.
However strikes can be carried out on terrorist positions close to civilians which previously wouldn't have been possible due to low collateral damage caused by weapons such as Brimstone.
However strikes can be carried out on terrorist positions close to civilians which previously wouldn't have been possible due to low collateral damage caused by weapons such as Brimstone.
How old are you fifteen? You really don't know anything about the way the military works i'm afraid... These soldiers are trained to kill, that is their job. That is what they are paid to do, and it is what they do very well.
Original post by john2054
How old are you fifteen? You really don't know anything about the way the military works i'm afraid... These soldiers are trained to kill, that is their job. That is what they are paid to do, and it is what they do very well.
I'm 25 & I'm a member of the RAF thank you very much. I know far more about this matter than you do mate.
Original post by Tempest II
I'm 25 & I'm a member of the RAF thank you very much. I know far more about this matter than you do mate.
Wow. Owned him very nicely.
Original post by Tempest II
There's no way a UK asset would knowingly carry out a air strike on a building with civilians in even if there's terrorists in there too. Even if a General ordered such an attack, the pilot/crew have the right to abort. As the Second World War showed, just following orders is no longer an excuse not to be placed on trial.
However strikes can be carried out on terrorist positions close to civilians which previously wouldn't have been possible due to low collateral damage caused by weapons such as Brimstone.
However strikes can be carried out on terrorist positions close to civilians which previously wouldn't have been possible due to low collateral damage caused by weapons such as Brimstone.
Yes they would, we made such attacks in other wars, look at WW2 and Dresden. Pilots will do as they are told, like they do in other armies. Besides, it is not a case of deliberately killing civilians, it is taking out the enemy knowing that civilians will die.
Original post by john2054
What i mean is that these are people's brothers fathers and sons, and they are now in a losing position. And i am the first to point out that the terrible things they have done, are unacceptable. But they are still human beings, and we need to move on.
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
A lot of bad things have done, but this is a demographic we have demonized and driven in to a corner. Rather than to continue to hurl bombs and bullets at down, i think now is the time to sit down with the isis high command and negotiate a truce, okay?!?
lol ur names john. Jihadijohn. **** off isis sympathizer
Original post by The_Opinion
Yes they would, we made such attacks in other wars, look at WW2 and Dresden. Pilots will do as they are told, like they do in other armies. Besides, it is not a case of deliberately killing civilians, it is taking out the enemy knowing that civilians will die.
I'm not going to say that no civilian is ever going to die at the hands of the UK armed forces ever again, unfortunately it isn't realistic.
But the mentality is completely different these days compared to the Second World War - civilian casualties are something the UK tries very hard to limit.
I can understand how from the outside it's assumed that members of the armed forces will simply do what they're told. Trust me, this isn't the case in my experience. Crews will ask questions & can/will abort if they have good reason to. I highly doubt you'll find many pilots willing to kill civilians even inadvertently.
Have a read of this if you get chance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12004264/Islamic-State-jihadists-using-human-shields-to-avoid-air-strikes.html
Original post by Tempest II
I'm not going to say that no civilian is ever going to die at the hands of the UK armed forces ever again, unfortunately it isn't realistic.
But the mentality is completely different these days compared to the Second World War - civilian casualties are something the UK tries very hard to limit.
I can understand how from the outside it's assumed that members of the armed forces will simply do what they're told. Trust me, this isn't the case in my experience. Crews will ask questions & can/will abort if they have good reason to. I highly doubt you'll find many pilots willing to kill civilians even inadvertently.
Have a read of this if you get chance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12004264/Islamic-State-jihadists-using-human-shields-to-avoid-air-strikes.html
But the mentality is completely different these days compared to the Second World War - civilian casualties are something the UK tries very hard to limit.
I can understand how from the outside it's assumed that members of the armed forces will simply do what they're told. Trust me, this isn't the case in my experience. Crews will ask questions & can/will abort if they have good reason to. I highly doubt you'll find many pilots willing to kill civilians even inadvertently.
Have a read of this if you get chance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12004264/Islamic-State-jihadists-using-human-shields-to-avoid-air-strikes.html
In which case such pilots should resign, no armed force in the world will be successful by being a bunch of pansies. As I have said, Russia doesn't care, and its air campaign is working. ISIS use fear and the killing of civilians as a tactic, and it worked.
I have absolutely no respect for the leadership of the armed forces of the UK, I think that they are incompetent, cowardly and self-interested.
Original post by Tempest II
I'm 25 & I'm a member of the RAF thank you very much. I know far more about this matter than you do mate.
Did you even click on that last link i provided? Er no you don't. You are obviously so infatuated with your air force, that you fail to see the bigger picture.
The war in Iraq broke international law. You are probably going to try and justify that as well now?!?
Original post by Tempest II
I'm 25 & I'm a member of the RAF thank you very much. I know far more about this matter than you do mate.
PRSOM. The OP's moronic 'I'm older than you so you're wrong' logic is quite a kick.
Going by the analogy that the OP is not actually trolling and is being serious then I would point out that this is a very complex subject. Some people have already shown that they understand that. At the other end of the extreme there are people in this discussion who have proved that there are people opposed to ISIS who are even worse than ISIS members themselves. People like that are the ones who will escalate problems.
From a balanced perspective - ISIS is not a person; it is a group of people and an ideology. Also, note that it is also not just led by one person. Cut off one head and another will spring up in its place. It cannot be killed but it can be exacerbated by techniques like indiscriminate killing of innocent people under the ideology that "people in poorer regions of the world are all alike and of less importance than westerners!" In other words the "bomb them all" kind of mentality will make things worse.
There are posts from people on here that indicate that certain people do not respect life - those who think they they can just eradicate an ideology by blowing people up left right and centre with no regard for non-combatants like children. They are here to remind us that some of the people opposed to ISIS are basically the same as ISIS or worse.
We also have people who are implying that ISIS are "Islamic"... and yet Muslims are one of the main casualties of ISIS. This is both from the perspectives of Muslim people being killed by members of ISIS and Muslims abandoning Islam to join ISIS.
ISIS (as an ideology) itself is rotten to the core - I highly doubt that actual negotiation can occur with any one of those who actively support the central ideology of ISIS. I would suggest that one of the only ways to quell things like ISIS is to not feed it - to find ways of preventing people from joining it or similar groups... which is of course incredibly difficult (especially with the people trying to kill an ideology by killing people).
I have noticed that no one has mentioned the likelihood that ISIS could actually be funded and supported by certain people in western governments indirectly (USA, UK, etc). I am neither saying that this is true or not, I am not fueling a conspiracy here - I am simply implying that this kind of thing (things like ISIS) provides western governments with the ability to justify certain actions. If that is the case, and this is being funded by westerners in order to justify exerting more control over its citizens, then this would be even more complex.
Ideologies like ISIS will probably never die. Humans, on the other hand, all die though. It is how we live that matters (and maybe the way we die as well).
From a balanced perspective - ISIS is not a person; it is a group of people and an ideology. Also, note that it is also not just led by one person. Cut off one head and another will spring up in its place. It cannot be killed but it can be exacerbated by techniques like indiscriminate killing of innocent people under the ideology that "people in poorer regions of the world are all alike and of less importance than westerners!" In other words the "bomb them all" kind of mentality will make things worse.
There are posts from people on here that indicate that certain people do not respect life - those who think they they can just eradicate an ideology by blowing people up left right and centre with no regard for non-combatants like children. They are here to remind us that some of the people opposed to ISIS are basically the same as ISIS or worse.
We also have people who are implying that ISIS are "Islamic"... and yet Muslims are one of the main casualties of ISIS. This is both from the perspectives of Muslim people being killed by members of ISIS and Muslims abandoning Islam to join ISIS.
ISIS (as an ideology) itself is rotten to the core - I highly doubt that actual negotiation can occur with any one of those who actively support the central ideology of ISIS. I would suggest that one of the only ways to quell things like ISIS is to not feed it - to find ways of preventing people from joining it or similar groups... which is of course incredibly difficult (especially with the people trying to kill an ideology by killing people).
I have noticed that no one has mentioned the likelihood that ISIS could actually be funded and supported by certain people in western governments indirectly (USA, UK, etc). I am neither saying that this is true or not, I am not fueling a conspiracy here - I am simply implying that this kind of thing (things like ISIS) provides western governments with the ability to justify certain actions. If that is the case, and this is being funded by westerners in order to justify exerting more control over its citizens, then this would be even more complex.
Ideologies like ISIS will probably never die. Humans, on the other hand, all die though. It is how we live that matters (and maybe the way we die as well).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by The_Opinion
As it shows that they are taking the targets that they should be doing.
Bombing a random empty truck isn't really worth spending £250,000 on doing.
To take out the enemy, they should be bombing civilian areas (which is where they are).
The Russian army / government is not run by a bunch of cowards, and they are willing to accept civilian casualties, and as a result, their bombing has been effective.
Bombing a random empty truck isn't really worth spending £250,000 on doing.
To take out the enemy, they should be bombing civilian areas (which is where they are).
The Russian army / government is not run by a bunch of cowards, and they are willing to accept civilian casualties, and as a result, their bombing has been effective.
OK, so a group of people considered to be members of ISIS are believed to be residing in a housing estate in UK. Say for example: a housing estate that your family lives in.
We should blow up that UK housing estate, right? Your family is just collateral, right?
Maybe we should blow up the whole town - in that way if there are others criminals around we can get them too. There are always criminals so we would be doing everyone a favor, right?
...oh sorry I misunderstood! You are talking about bombing people in another country. My bad! A country that you consider less important than ours with lots of expendable people. This can all take place hundreds of miles away of course.
AHAHAHAHAHAHaHiaHslASDCDJKEFWLKNSFBMIOL K;AEWN SLZKGX VD
i'M DEAD XD
I nominate you as our Prime Minister. Go! Save us from ISIS sitting down to some teaa!
i'M DEAD XD
I nominate you as our Prime Minister. Go! Save us from ISIS sitting down to some teaa!
Original post by cheesus Toaster
OK, so a group of people considered to be members of ISIS are believed to be residing in a housing estate in UK. Say for example: a housing estate that your family lives in.
We should blow up that UK housing estate, right? Your family is just collateral, right?
Maybe we should blow up the whole town - in that way if there are others criminals around we can get them too. There are always criminals so we would be doing everyone a favor, right?
...oh sorry I misunderstood! You are talking about bombing people in another country. My bad! A country that you consider less important than ours with lots of expendable people. This can all take place hundreds of miles away of course.
We should blow up that UK housing estate, right? Your family is just collateral, right?
Maybe we should blow up the whole town - in that way if there are others criminals around we can get them too. There are always criminals so we would be doing everyone a favor, right?
...oh sorry I misunderstood! You are talking about bombing people in another country. My bad! A country that you consider less important than ours with lots of expendable people. This can all take place hundreds of miles away of course.
What a moronic comparison.
Original post by The_Opinion
What a moronic comparison.
I see - so how about you put us all right and define what you really mean?
I do apologise but it appears that I (we) must have misunderstood your posts. Would you like to reword them? If you did that then maybe you would not seem like a gung-ho warmonger who likes to butcher innocent people in the name of peace of mind for western people.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is a relationship like this even considered healthy
- Gf mad over liking someone's picture
- What's the problem with my relationship?
- Predicted Grades - Advice urgently needed please!
- can someone tell me how they'd interpret this email
- Texting dynamic
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationship
- My boyfriend dumped me over these reasons
- A guy said ‘oh is that *my name*’ ?
- Started dating somebody new, advice needed.
- Student maintenance loans for previous years.
- I can’t think of my bf or I get a sick feeling or his touch
- Honestly, is this normal for a first relationship? I have doubts a lot
- Applying through clearing?
- I think my boyfriend is upset with me
- *TW* Suicide/Depression** Depressed bf pushing me away - do I walk away
- Loving in silence - is it possible?
- How to not put on weight after operation
- Me and my partner have been arguing more and more.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
