This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Miscellaneous Thread V

Reply 7220

atom y humber

1

Original post by Jimmy Seville

Trumps wife is deffo with him for his looks and personality.

He ticks the requirements for mail order brides.

#makeusallgreatagain

Reply 7221

atom y humber

1

you have to wonder what you'd do if you're an American. Who would you vote for out of someone who clearly isn't suited for the position or a pathological liar who comes with too much stain.

I'd probably want a third Obama term but that'd mean tearing up the constitution which as an American you've been conditioned to believe that's just not an option.

Reply 7222

fallen_acorns

20

people back in england complaining about it being to hot, on the 1 day of the summer when its actually hotter (by 1 degree) then here in china.

Dealing with it for one day is fine.. delaing with 30-35 degree heat for 2 months is awful :frown:

Reply 7223

fallen_acorns

20

Also black teens at hyde park throwing things at police and shouting BLM?

Brb. going to go destroy some **** because of bad things that the police are doing in Slovakia...

-- Can people not differentiate between the US and the UK? I mean, we have our problems, many of them racial.. but thankfully police shootings are not really one of them. and whilst profiling does still exist in the UK, its nothing compared to the level that US minorities have to face..

Reply 7224

Kim-Jong-Illest

16

Original post by fallen_acorns

Also black teens at hyde park throwing things at police and shouting BLM?

Brb. going to go destroy some **** because of bad things that the police are doing in Slovakia...

-- Can people not differentiate between the US and the UK? I mean, we have our problems, many of them racial.. but thankfully police shootings are not really one of them. and whilst profiling does still exist in the UK, its nothing compared to the level that US minorities have to face..

Not condoning what they did also dont really agree with the ideology of most of BLM really but police brutality against ethnic minorities is still a problem in this country tbh, even proportionally there are more alleged assaults against minorities in some of the most ethnically diverse places around the country. I know personally of many communities who are losing confidence in their police forces already.

Reply 7225

AR_95

21

lol even if the UK is better than America in terms of people, we've still got idiots. Just look back to the London riots and basically every wireless festival too

Reply 7226

fallen_acorns

20

Original post by Kim-Jong-Illest

Not condoning what they did also dont really agree with the ideology of most of BLM really but police brutality against ethnic minorities is still a problem in this country tbh, even proportionally there are more alleged assaults against minorities in some of the most ethnically diverse places around the country. I know personally of many communities who are losing confidence in their police forces already.

Dont disagree that there are racial problems in the UK, (hence my post said ' mean, we have our problems, many of them racial.. but thankfully police shootings are not really one of them. and whilst profiling does still exist in the UK,')

But using BLM as your protest method is just stupid, considering it was specifically created to target a problem that does not exist here in the UK.. you could argue that its grown to be more since then, but given recent events I would suggest its still heavily linked to guns. I mean, its like protesting for LGBT rights in england, using a campaign that russian LGBT rights activists use... and trying to apply it to england.. one countries problems are just far more extreme then the other, and each have unique differences.

For me with the UK, protesting against the police is like targetting the dog that chases after your pet rabbit.. rather then actually asking the important questions like: whose dog is it.. why did they let them go after the rabbit.. why was the rabbit in the open and not protected.. etc. Its focusing on a symptom of the UKs racial problems, rather then the actual route causes of them.

(besides the hyde park incident screems of nothing more then a group of kids wanting to kick off a little as its hot and the summer and they have nothing to do... and instead of just letting it be called what it is.. by screaming BLM, people may actually think they are a protest, and fighting for a legitimate cause)

Reply 7227

Jimmy Seville

16

Which melt actually took my comment seriously ?

Reply 7228

Rk2k14

OP

17

As if you'd 'accidentally' kill 85 civilians with some of the most advanced military tech in the world.

Brb not terrorists.

Reply 7229

Kim-Jong-Illest

16

Original post by fallen_acorns

Dont disagree that there are racial problems in the UK, (hence my post said ' mean, we have our problems, many of them racial.. but thankfully police shootings are not really one of them. and whilst profiling does still exist in the UK,')

But using BLM as your protest method is just stupid, considering it was specifically created to target a problem that does not exist here in the UK.. you could argue that its grown to be more since then, but given recent events I would suggest its still heavily linked to guns. I mean, its like protesting for LGBT rights in england, using a campaign that russian LGBT rights activists use... and trying to apply it to england.. one countries problems are just far more extreme then the other, and each have unique differences.

For me with the UK, protesting against the police is like targetting the dog that chases after your pet rabbit.. rather then actually asking the important questions like: whose dog is it.. why did they let them go after the rabbit.. why was the rabbit in the open and not protected.. etc. Its focusing on a symptom of the UKs racial problems, rather then the actual route causes of them.

(besides the hyde park incident screems of nothing more then a group of kids wanting to kick off a little as its hot and the summer and they have nothing to do... and instead of just letting it be called what it is.. by screaming BLM, people may actually think they are a protest, and fighting for a legitimate cause)

Not really, the movement has little to do with the method in which these people were being killed, look at Eric Garner and Jonathan Sanders who were both put in to chokeholds till they died. Both these victims are still very iconic figures in that movement even if they aren't recent events whereby guns were more heavily involved. So in that sense, yes, it does make sense that people in the UK are representing BLM especially since police brutality, with the use of guns or not, is still a very real thing in the UK. Just because police shootings make up a significant part of the problem you cant just ignore the other parts of it and say it doesn't fall under the same category.

Legitimate protesting is a consequence of those questions being asked but not answered properly though. You see police commissioners acknowledging that minority groups are treated badly just for them to be undermined in the same speech and therefore brushed under the carpet. People are taking to protesting because they feel they aren't being listened to in a normal conventional fashion, not as a first resort. It's now up to people higher up to acknowledge peoples concerns and actually do something about it otherwise our deep rooted problems will just get worse.

Agree on the last bit tbh, this incident is being blown out of proportion largely and you have idiots (not just the kids but journalists too) discrediting the whole movement.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7230

username1315644

17

Original post by Rk2k14

As if you'd 'accidentally' kill 85 civilians with some of the most advanced military tech in the world.

Brb not terrorists.

Its not really that hard. In Afghanistan you had soldiers accidentally calling airstrikes on their own position, and US pilots obeying. The advanced tech ensures the bomb hits where the pilot intends in all conditions and always with the intended level of destruction, not that he knows its a good idea to drop it there. You're still relying on either imagery from a distance or a group (in this case of questionable qualification) to be reporting, what is or is not at that location. The whole call of duty advanced warfare picture is defence firm marketing, the coalition bar pockets of special forces is still lacking the best asset they can have in reducing civilian casualties which is qualified people reporting from the area of operation.

Death toll around Manbij is pretty horrific, but its not simply coalition strikes its coalition strikes in support of a Syrian and Kurdish ground offensive, so the picture from the ground which is being used to decide when and where to strike is being provided in real time by what is pretty much an non-qualified source. If the coalition didn't bend the rules, you wouldn't be dropping anything. Its only those strikes which have given those groups the upper hand on ISIS. So for those civilians its either this, or ISIS. If the group the US is supporting says they are pinned down by sniper fire coming from a building, what does the US do about it?

Reply 7231

Rk2k14

OP

17

Original post by Fizzel

Its not really that hard. In Afghanistan you had soldiers accidentally calling airstrikes on their own position, and US pilots obeying. The advanced tech ensures the bomb hits where the pilot intends in all conditions and always with the intended level of destruction, not that he knows its a good idea to drop it there. You're still relying on either imagery from a distance or a group (in this case of questionable qualification) to be reporting, what is or is not at that location. The whole call of duty advanced warfare picture is defence firm marketing, the coalition bar pockets of special forces is still lacking the best asset they can have in reducing civilian casualties which is qualified people reporting from the area of operation.

Death toll around Manbij is pretty horrific, but its not simply coalition strikes its coalition strikes in support of a Syrian and Kurdish ground offensive, so the picture from the ground which is being used to decide when and where to strike is being provided in real time by what is pretty much an non-qualified source. If the coalition didn't bend the rules, you wouldn't be dropping anything. Its only those strikes which have given those groups the upper hand on ISIS. So for those civilians its either this, or ISIS. If the group the US is supporting says they are pinned down by sniper fire coming from a building, what does the US do about it?

Of course there will be casualties- part of war but the sheer number of civilians being killed suggests that its 'lets just drop them and hope for the best'.

Always said airstrikes weren't the best method of tackling a group like ISIS. Special teams on the ground would undoubtedly reduce the casualties of war and it could be a more effective method of targeting these groups. Airstrikes also provide propaganda for these group to highlight 'the real enemy'.

Of course its well and good saying what you should do but just a thought.

OP

Original post by Rk2k14

Of course there will be casualties- part of war but the sheer number of civilians being killed suggests that its 'lets just drop them and hope for the best'.

Always said airstrikes weren't the best method of tackling a group like ISIS. Special teams on the ground would undoubtedly reduce the casualties of war and it could be a more effective method of targeting these groups. Airstrikes also provide propaganda for these group to highlight 'the real enemy'.

Of course its well and good saying what you should do but just a thought.

Airstrikes obviously aren't the best method but what exactly would you recommend? Its mass casualties either way and you cannot pretend you would be content with lower but still huge that either. Special teams cannot be deployed in large numbers that is why they are special, large numbers on the scale needed to cover two countries is called in invasion. That will not be perceived well in the Muslim world.

Invasion = bad, been there
Airstrikes = bad, civialians
Nothing = bad, ISIS
Supporting Assad = bad dicator
Arming opposition groups to remove Assad = Libya = bad destruction of the state and clear abuses.

In all seriousness. Which realistic workable plan would leave you think 'well done America, they really did a stellar job!'

Reply 7234

Zayn is Bae

1

Original post by Fizzel

Airstrikes obviously aren't the best method but what exactly would you recommend? Its mass casualties either way and you cannot pretend you would be content with lower but still huge that either. Special teams cannot be deployed in large numbers that is why they are special, large numbers on the scale needed to cover two countries is called in invasion. That will not be perceived well in the Muslim world.

Invasion = bad, been there
Airstrikes = bad, civialians
Nothing = bad, ISIS
Supporting Assad = bad dicator
Arming opposition groups to remove Assad = Libya = bad destruction of the state and clear abuses.

In all seriousness. Which realistic workable plan would leave you think 'well done America, they really did a stellar job!'

It's easy to look in hindsight, but surely the years of inactivity watching Assad blow the people to bits, before electing to arm rebels who by that time had started to display questionable tendencies? If we hadn't bent over backwards for Russia at the beginning of the uprising, we could possibly, possibly, be looking at a different Syria.

Reply 7235

username1315644

17

Original post by Zayn is Bae

It's easy to look in hindsight, but surely the years of inactivity watching Assad blow the people to bits, before electing to arm rebels who by that time had started to display questionable tendencies? If we hadn't bent over backwards for Russia at the beginning of the uprising, we could possibly, possibly, be looking at a different Syria.

So your critisim of America's foreign policy in this case is that it wasn't quick enough to move to armed intervention in a sovereign state to overthrow the government? That seems slightly out of step with your usual position. Also there is a shift of responsibility in there with rebel tendencies. You're effectively shifting their responsibly for their tendencies, from them to America as a byproduct of them not acting. Those tendencies are entirely within their own control and provide perfect justification for nothing doing anything until the facts have been established. Lets not forget we didn't hesitate in Libya, and that has turned out well for the Libyan people. Did you hold this view of US action in Libya btw?

As a side if we are going to be talking about America doing their air campaign better or hints that it is a malicious campaign. We should take a look at other regional powers and see to what level they are able to avoid casualties and see if we can find a real life example of it being done better or absence of malice. Turkey against the Kurds? Russia against the Assad opposition? Saudi in its war in Yemen perhaps? The UK in Afghanistan?