The UK's 'brimstone missiles' haven't killed any ISIS militants in Syria

Yet so far they haven't been used effectively once, according to the source.

Yet so far they haven't been used effectively once, according to the source.

Misrepresenting your sources and lying are not the best ways to improve your limited credibility, you know. There are ways to use weapons that don't involve killing, and destroying money-making infrastructure is, arguably, a better long-term use of the weapon than killing individuals.

Killing just the individual ISIS terrorists won't be very effective. They're gonna just get replaced by new jihadists looking to die a martyr. By targeting infrastructure we have an opportunity to weaken them as an overall, unified enemy.

Legalise marjiuameth.

Killing just the individual ISIS terrorists won't be very effective. They're gonna just get replaced by new jihadists looking to die a martyr. By targeting infrastructure we have an opportunity to weaken them as an overall, unified enemy.

Legalise marjiuameth.

The notion that bodycount alone is what we measure success against is callous, insulting and entirely wrong. It's a pathetically juvenile way of looking at things. Getting that kind of journalism from the Huffington Post is to be expected but it's a surprise from the Independent who, frankly, should know better.

We've only used 9 of the things the entire time we've been active over Syria - the vast majority of our missions there have been reconnaissance based - and those 9 have been perfectly successful at destroying ISIS equipment and vehicles.

Stupid arguments about a stupid topic.



Nowhere in either article does any source say anything of the sort. You are projecting your opinion - that the only thing these are good for is killing people - onto the situation.

If you can only speak from ignorance, why not do us all a favour and not speak?

Misrepresenting your sources and lying are not the best ways to improve your limited credibility, you know. There are ways to use weapons that don't involve killing, and destroying money-making infrastructure is, arguably, a better long-term use of the weapon than killing individuals.

You wouldn't know what effective use of munitions was if it slapped you in the face.

Posted from TSR Mobile

As the Indie article makes clear we are not just targeting militants:

“This includes targeting oil infrastructure and enabling equipment under Daesh control, helping to reduce their ability to profit from selling oil to fund their activities.

“We have also targeted Daesh’s military equipment and infrastructure, including vehicles, defensive fighting positions firing on friendly forces, a tunnel complex, weapons stores and a command and control centre.

Perhaps read the articles you use as sources? No one ever claimed the mission against ISIS would reach an arbitrary body count and be complete, looking solely at number of dead enemies obscures the true picture. Try winning a war if your men have no weapons, no trucks to get into position and no money to be paid with.

Great response, well formatted and good use of sources.

I don't understand why we're getting involved in Syria though, ISIS poses a domestic threat by being capable of radicalising foreign nationals to commit attacks. Bombing their oil and stuff does little to hamper this, given that AK47s and suicide vests aren't a massive investment.

They pay their fighters $200 dollars a day, that is a fortune in regional terms. Bombing their oil infrastructure and outright destroying their cash supplies hampers their ability to pay fighters, this saps motivation and drains recruits. This allows other local players to take advantage and push back ISIS territory. We have already seen them lose around 15 to 25% of their territory since we got involved. If we destroy the state then bang goes their efforts to radicalize British citizens, just making them appear weak and stopping them taking further territory also contributes to this. It is a far better policy than allowing the state to grow, appear powerful and therefore more able to attract recruits. As I said before as well suicide vests and guns may be cheap, but they are useless if you do not have men to wear them or the ability to get them where you need them.

Don't reply to my threads, you started similar antics on another of my threads and you stopped responding when I made my reply. So give me one reason not to block you.

Calling you to account for misleading people with links that don't say what you say they say, are "antics", are they?



I don't know what you are talking about but I don't care whether you block me or not. I can reply to any thread I wish.

ISIS fighters are motivated by religion among other things and not just money, and they have more than enough money from tax collection to last a very long time without any oil.