Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I'm not saying in any way that body count measures success.
    Then why make up lies like the quote below?

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Yet so far they haven't been used effectively once
    You are clearly putting forward the opinion that unless we're killing lots of people the weapons can't be effective. That opinion is complete balls.

    The weapons are plenty effective when used against certain targets as they have been.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Then why make up lies like the quote below?



    You are clearly putting forward the opinion that unless we're killing lots of people the weapons can't be effective. That opinion is complete balls.

    The weapons are plenty effective when used against certain targets as they have been.
    By effectively I mean in the regard of killing off the ISIS militants
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    By effectively I mean in the regard of killing off the ISIS militants
    You are coming over as being rather bloodthirsty, and not really concerned with what is militarily effective.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    By effectively I mean in the regard of killing off the ISIS militants
    Why?

    Why do you assume that that's the only use of these weapons? Why is that the only measure you mark the weapons against? When has that ever been the stated aim of the Government or the RAF?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why?

    Why do you assume that that's the only use of these weapons? Why is that the only measure you mark the weapons against? When has that ever been the stated aim of the Government or the RAF?
    Because the original argument put up by Britain was that the brimstone missiles are extremely effective in taking out terrorists and avoiding civilian casualties. "fire-and-forget" use against mass formations of enemy armour" that's the 'special quality' of Britain's involvement here, yet they are clearly not being used for terrorist casualties, therefore why can't France or the US or even one of the Middle Eastern countries just bomb the oil regularly with their own bombs instead of focusing on this nonsensical propaganda that Britain's brimstone missiles are ultra valuable.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Because the original argument put up by Britain was that the brimstone missiles are extremely effective in taking out terrorists and avoiding civilian casualties. "fire-and-forget" use against mass formations of enemy armour" that's the 'special quality' of Britain's involvement here, yet they are clearly not being used for terrorist casualties, therefore why can't France or the US or even one of the Middle Eastern countries just bomb the oil regularly with their own bombs instead of focusing on this nonsensical propaganda that Britain's brimstone missiles are ultra valuable.
    Those two arguments are not related.

    They are being used against enemy formations when suitable - ie, when collateral damage must be kept to a minimum. They are not being used when other, cheaper weapons would be just as effective.

    Brimstone was only a small part of the reason we got involved over Syria, the larger part was the Tornado's RAPTOR pod, a reconnaissance tool that betters the options available to other air forces. Of course, you ignored that at the time because it wasn't sexy or about blowing stuff up.

    Brimstone wasn't a reason to get involved. It was the promise that we are doing everything we can to limit civilian casualties when we go into action. That's why it was lauded.

    There is the added point that of the 3 aircraft types we have that are doing the bombing over Syria and Iraq only one can currently use the Brimstone.

    You're barking up the wrong tree and making a pig's ear of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Those two arguments are not related.

    They are being used against enemy formations when suitable - ie, when collateral damage must be kept to a minimum. They are not being used when other, cheaper weapons would be just as effective.

    Brimstone was only a small part of the reason we got involved over Syria, the larger part was the Tornado's RAPTOR pod, a reconnaissance tool that betters the options available to other air forces. Of course, you ignored that at the time because it wasn't sexy or about blowing stuff up.

    Brimstone wasn't a reason to get involved. It was the promise that we are doing everything we can to limit civilian casualties when we go into action. That's why it was lauded.

    There is the added point that of the 3 aircraft types we have that are doing the bombing over Syria and Iraq only one can currently use the Brimstone.

    You're barking up the wrong tree and making a pig's ear of it.
    Nonetheless, our efforts are not helping resolve the Syrian Civil War. The war had been going for almost four years without ISIS, what's to say another ISIS isn't just going to form in the chaos of what is essentially a proxy war between Russia, France / UK / USA and Turkey?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Nonetheless, our efforts are not helping resolve the Syrian Civil War
    How do you know?

    How much time have you spent on the ground? How much study have you done on the subject? Your comments in this and other threads suggest you don't really know what you're talking about, so why should we listen to your opinions?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    How do you know?

    How much time have you spent on the ground? How much study have you done on the subject? Your comments in this and other threads suggest you don't really know what you're talking about, so why should we listen to your opinions?
    Because the Syrian Civil War started in 2011, ISIS didn't become a proper fighting force until 2014.

    Therefore, removing ISIS from the game isn't going to resolve everything.

    Therefore, us bombing ISIS is doing nothing to stop the Syrian Civil War.



    Open your thick head before crying about why you should adhere to my opinion. We should be focusing on getting rid of Assad, and not bombing some terrorist group which is akin to those who have existed for decades.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Given how many of these Stop The War Campaign pukes and their useful idiots on TSR and the like were banging on about how we should target their money-making infrastructure etc (as if that wasn't always one of the aims of the strikes anyway lol) as opposed to killing people, you think they'd be happy about this.

    The fact that pretty much none of them are says a lot about their true opinions. Notice how social media is crawling with people posting OP's article in a gloating sense in the same way he did is further testimony to this.

    They're being found out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    No, he's right. You've embarrassed yourself............yet again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    They're being found out.
    Very true. The RAF has waged a campaign in which only seven people have been killed, all of them of the enemy's forces, in which strategic IS infrastructure and assets have been destroyed or removed from the war effort. Who would be against that?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I wish there was a cleaner way of just wiping out thousands of people, unfortunately nuclear weapons also have a negative effect on the surrounding area and can cause a lot of damage to nature.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I'm not saying in any way that body count measures success. I'm just saying that the argument made that Britain has unique, high demand missiles which the French and Americans want to see in action was ludicrous, and the tories pretty much just wanted to contribute to bombing so that they would appeal to the rest of the coalition against ISIS.
    Err NO. There were several reasons why we were asked to join amd it wasnt just becayse of brimstone missiles. they arent likely to ause ISIS casualties if they were aimed at infrastructure. The missiles remain unique in terms of their capabilities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Err NO. There were several reasons why we were asked to join amd it wasnt just becayse of brimstone missiles. they arent likely to ause ISIS casualties if they were aimed at infrastructure. The missiles remain unique in terms of their capabilities.
    Tory idiot.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    You wouldn't know what effective use of munitions was if it slapped you in the face.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    LMAOO
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Very true. The RAF has waged a campaign in which only seven people have been killed, all of them of the enemy's forces, in which strategic IS infrastructure and assets have been destroyed or removed from the war effort. Who would be against that?
    It's very clear that there are quite a lot of people with a weird fetish for hating everything the West does just because it's the West. They ***** and whine about things they (wrongly) think we're doing, suggesting we do X, Y and Z. Then we do X, Y and Z and they still ***** and whine about it.

    Combine this with things like how they have a fit when either UK or USA does something (pretty much anything) but are as silent as the mice they are when Russia does 50 times worse. Then they have the gall to pretend they actually care about the victims. It's obviously only a hatred of the West (probably closely linked to a hatred of themselves, combined with a desperate need to fit into whatever it is that's fashionable to be faux-outraged about like a sanctimonious creep) that fuels them.

    So yes, this episode is one of many that is quite curious in terms of the reaction of these people and what it says about their true form
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    So yes, this episode is one of many that is quite curious in terms of the reaction of these people and what it says about their true form
    It is as if they feel, and attempt to make us feel, collective guilt, akin to the great crime of cultural appropriation.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Doug Stamper)
    Tory idiot.
    Wow that was a great post. Instead of inaccurately insulting people perhaps you might explain yourself with a response that addressed the issues in the thread.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.