0123456543210
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Bomb Turkey as well, they have been ***** lately.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Damn, you've certainly convinced me!
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by 0123456543210)
Bomb Turkey as well, they have been ***** lately.
What makes you say that?
0
reply
0123456543210
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
What makes you say that?
Firstly, I want to clarify that UK doesn't just carpet bomb whole countries, but with the new technology the RAF can precisely strike the ISIS and Free Syrian Army camps whilst minimising collateral damage. In regards to Turkey, they wanted war when they shot down SU 24 and they should pay for it, unfortunately because UK is being an America's ***** this won't happen, but Russia should burn this country to the ground .
0
reply
alldayniqqa
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Every MP is sitting there reading this thread and wondering how he came to his decision without asking you first
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by 0123456543210)
Firstly, I want to clarify that UK doesn't just carpet bomb whole countries, but with the new technology the RAF can precisely strike the ISIS and Free Syrian Army camps whilst minimising collateral damage. In regards to Turkey, they wanted war when they shot down SU 24 and they should pay for it, unfortunately because UK is being an America's ***** this won't happen, but Russia should burn this country to the ground .
The raf most deftly will not be targeting free Syrian army elements.

Why did the Russian backed Syrian regime shoot down a Turkish aircraft, fire mortar and artillery rounds into turkey and fund and equip the terrorist organisation PPK?
0
reply
Senecaa
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
I'll do my best to explain this from my pov.

There are essentially two sides in the Syrian conflict:

1. Pro-Assad
1.1 Russia
1.2 Iran
1.3 Government of Iraq
1.4 Hezbollah

2. Against Assad
2.1 America
2.2 UK
2.3 France (after the Paris shootings)
2.2 Israel
2.4 Turkey
2.5 Saudi Arabia
2.6 Jordan
2.7 FSA

Then, there are:

3. Al-Nusra Front
3.1 ISIS/ISIL

Now America claims to be funding the non-radical opposition i.e. FSA, but FSA are in an official alliance with Al-Nusra, who despite their little petty bickers with ISIS, are best buds. The funding to the FSA inevitably waters down to both Al Nusra and ISIS. Just over a year ago, Assad was winning the war, funding was increased, and without substantial Russian support, there was a real chance of him suffering the same fate as Ghadaffi.

Russia, seeing that Assad can no longer hold his ground against the 3 musketeers who share 'non lethal' support from America, logistical support and safe haven from Turkey and Jordan, decided that enough is enough, we shall take on ISIS ourselves.

America and her allies have been uncooperative with Russia, stating that they shall conduct their own operations against ISIS whilst in reality, they seek to undermine Russian operations in Syria.

Unsurprisingly, the UK, as history shows, is now dragged into the Syrian conflict. Make no mistake, this is not about combating ISIS. This is a show of force from the United Kingdom of America to Russia. Both sides are now showing their hand on who they really are supporting. It's a proxy war and by deciding controversially to bomb Syria, the UK may actually fall on the side of 'terrorist sympathizers' compared to staying neutral. But neutrality, is not possible.

Why are Russia and Iran so keen on defending Syria? Because once Syria falls, Iran will follow, and the realization of the latter will result in Russia becoming truly isolated following the Ukrainian unrest. You will remember that a breakthrough deal with America and Iran was finally concluded only 3 years after the beginning of the Syrian civil war, when the powers that be realized that it could turn out to be a 10-15 year war.
2
reply
username1567177
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
You bloody freak, because a country is a **** in your opinion, you think they should be bombed?
mature
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Senecaa)
I'll do my best to explain this from my pov.

There are essentially two sides in the Syrian conflict:

1. Pro-Assad
1.1 Russia
1.2 Iran
1.3 Government of Iraq
1.4 Hezbollah

2. Against Assad
2.1 America
2.2 UK
2.3 France (after the Paris shootings)
2.2 Israel
2.4 Turkey
2.5 Saudi Arabia
2.6 Jordan
2.7 FSA

Then, there are:

3. Al-Nusra Front
3.1 ISIS/ISIL

Now America claims to be funding the non-radical opposition i.e. FSA, but FSA are in an official alliance with Al-Nusra, who despite their little petty bickers with ISIS, are best buds. The funding to the FSA inevitably waters down to both Al Nusra and ISIS. Just over a year ago, Assad was winning the war, funding was increased, and without substantial Russian support, there was a real chance of him suffering the same fate as Ghadaffi.

Russia, seeing that Assad can no longer hold his ground against the 3 musketeers who share 'non lethal' support from America, logistical support and safe haven from Turkey and Jordan, decided that enough is enough, we shall take on ISIS ourselves.

America and her allies have been uncooperative with Russia, stating that they shall conduct their own operations against ISIS whilst in reality, they seek to undermine Russian operations in Syria.

Unsurprisingly, the UK, as history shows, is now dragged into the Syrian conflict. Make no mistake, this is not about combating ISIS. This is a show of force from the United Kingdom of America to Russia. Both sides are now showing their hand on who they really are supporting. It's a proxy war and by deciding controversially to bomb Syria, the UK may actually fall on the side of 'terrorist sympathizers' compared to staying neutral. But neutrality, is not possible.

Why are Russia and Iran so keen on defending Syria? Because once Syria falls, Iran will follow, and the realization of the latter will result in Russia becoming truly isolated following the Ukrainian unrest. You will remember that a breakthrough deal with America and Iran was finally concluded only 3 years after the beginning of the Syrian civil war, when the powers that be realized that it could turn out to be a 10-15 year war.
A good post.

Just to add that Russia wants Assad to remain in power to keep this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ...lity_in_Tartus

Russia has historically always wanted access to ports that don't freeze over.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Senecaa)
FSA are in an official alliance with Al-Nusra, who despite their little petty bickers with ISIS, are best buds. The funding to the FSA inevitably waters down to both Al Nusra and ISIS.
I'd hardly describe it as a "petty bicker". Nusra and ISIS are enemies that fight against each other wherever they get the chance, and they have done since early 2014 at least. FSA funding may benefit Nusra, but it will not be going to ISIS.

You've also got other independent Islamist groups who are not affiliates of Al Qaeda or ISIS. Like Ahrar al Sham, Jaish al Islam, and some other smaller groups like the Sham Legion. All of those work with the FSA.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (153)
14.5%
I'm not sure (46)
4.36%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (312)
29.57%
I have already dropped out (29)
2.75%
I'm not a current university student (515)
48.82%

Watched Threads

View All