Jump to content
IGNORED

Paris attacks news coverage (MERGED)


The Batman

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Its a fact.  The terrorists put it on a website.

I do like Ken though to be fair.  Made his mistakes but doesn't pretend to be perfect and often speaks sense.

Well that's the most convincing argument I have ever read or heard and i'm totally convinced by that rehashing of Livingstone's excuse, have you ever seen any of the propaganda films of Hitler's Nazi Germany made during WW2?.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Firstly that poll was over the weekend 2 weeks after Paris.

The highlighted portion is undoubtedly true, however the EU did not help with a vote last week quoting the human rights of returning jihadist's within the EU, it beggars belief when European leaders are trying tighten borders up and abandoning schengen, that the nutters in the EU parliament take a vote like that.

I think the last sentence is what I believe the hope is for any ground offensive, the only difference being is to deal with Assad after any ground offensive, because we will also need his loyal forces, whether we like it or not.

Air strikes are just IMO a prelude to this.

But I really cannot help but say Turkey IMO is still a problem.

 

I still believe people are thinking: "Let's hit back at those ***** for Paris" rather than reasoning through the full implications, Es.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of your other points, but I continue to believe our "first step" is likely do us more harm than good. We saw "strictly limited airstrikes" doing more harm than good to our cause in Libya,  Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Yanks might like to remember how useful a Viet Cong recruiter airstrikes were in the 60s and 70s.

On one thing we agree. We both know that a land war offensive will be the only way to defeat IS and that will only work without the direct input of us dreadful "Crusader" type chaps. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

I still believe people are thinking: "Let's hit back at those ***** for Paris" rather than reasoning through the full implications, Es.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of your other points, but I continue to believe our "first step" is likely do us more harm than good. We saw "strictly limited airstrikes" doing more harm than good to our cause in Libya,  Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Yanks might like to remember how useful a Viet Cong recruiter airstrikes were in the 60s and 70s.

On one thing we agree. We both know that a land war offensive will be the only way to defeat IS and that will only work without the direct input of us dreadful "Crusader" type chaps. ;-)

The bombing is ongoing and a no vote will not stop that and crucially it would not stop another terrorist atrocity from occurring in Britain IMO, because whatever Livingstone says our involvement in Iraq was not the catalyst for 7/7.

I would be against airstrikes if I believed that there was an alternative, I cannot think of one nor have I heard one, the recruitment argument is true but be honest Robbo ******* cartoons is a recruiter for Isis as well, so I don't believe this will make a vast difference.

The highlighted portion is indeed common ground and you have Gorgeous George Galloway to thank for that 12 months ago he opened my eyes as to the complex politics of the area and also reading T E Lawrence 'the 7 pillars of wisdom' helped to cement my views and also George destroyed the odious Jacqui Smith into the bargain, which was a double whammy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to hear those saying "bombing doesn't work" explain their position, when the overwhelming evidence suggests that bombing does indeed work.

Libya. Huge clamour to attack From all quarters when an armoured column moved toward Bengazi. It would have been a massacre. As it was, NATO decided against boots on the ground to assist in the transition post war and the various militias decided to fight amongst themselves. Good example of positive intervention, but also a good example of the need to follow through with coherent strategy.

Kosovo. As above, but this time with significant NATO resource deployed on the ground. Conflict averted that would of involved a regime already linked with genocide in the Balkans. A good example of intervention and putting in the resource to get stability post conflict (I didn't agree with taking Kosovo).

Syria. Since ISIS have been targeted by an international coalition, we've seen their advances stopped, turned and now significantly reversed. Without intervention, they would control all land along the Turkish border by now, and Bagdad would be a war torn ruin.

 

personaly I think the intent to bomb Syria is now a token gesture on our part, and the balance has already turned against ISIS. The argument that this would somehow make us a bigger terror target is somewhat misled though, we've been bombing ISIS for a long time, all this vote would do is allow the RAF to bomb them over the border.

 

PS Red Robbo I tried to respond to your post but since the firmware update on the forum it's been a challenge from my iPhone. US intelligence report to congress puts fighters at around 250k. That's combatants. Males of fighting age in Syria who have arms, who knows. Probably millions, but they're not classed as combatants, even in the 10th UN report on Syria published this Sept. I could not find the UN report c4 purportedly referenced. I suspect the true figure of those involved, of Syrian nationality, during the course of the conflict will never been known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Were you not all for bombing Syria the other day?!

I'm not 'all for bombing Syria', no.

I'm all for bombing ISIS though, which incidentally we are already doing. It just so happens ISIS are in Syria, unfortunately.

I did also caveat my support for bombing of ISIS in Syria by highlighting that a comprehensive strategy was needed during the attacks and of course a plan for after - the article I posted highlights the fact that such a strategy and plan has yet to be formulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing alone cannot work and therein lies the problem as we patently aren't going to commit land forces in Syria. Ever.

Therefore I suggest attempting to forge a peace amid more secular factions in Syria is and must be the main plank of our strategy.

I can't really see any evidence that bombing by the US and France has made much difference in Syria and Russia's strikes have been mainly directed at non-IS positions, notably those of the FSA and Turkmen militia, who would have to be on board for any negotiated peace in the country.

IS actually captured another Syrian town last week, while in the north it's the efforts of the Peshmerga that mainly seems to have halted their advance.

The evidence from Afghanistan is that airstrikes definitely did act as a Taliban recruiting sergeant. 

There's a guy in my village who was a senior officer at Bagram airfield who tells me he came round to that point if view during his three tours of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

I'd be interested to hear those saying "bombing doesn't work" explain their position, when the overwhelming evidence suggests that bombing does indeed work.

Libya. Huge clamour to attack From all quarters when an armoured column moved toward Bengazi. It would have been a massacre. As it was, NATO decided against boots on the ground to assist in the transition post war and the various militias decided to fight amongst themselves. Good example of positive intervention, but also a good example of the need to follow through with coherent strategy.

Kosovo. As above, but this time with significant NATO resource deployed on the ground. Conflict averted that would of involved a regime already linked with genocide in the Balkans. A good example of intervention and putting in the resource to get stability post conflict (I didn't agree with taking Kosovo).

Syria. Since ISIS have been targeted by an international coalition, we've seen their advances stopped, turned and now significantly reversed. Without intervention, they would control all land along the Turkish border by now, and Bagdad would be a war torn ruin.

 

personaly I think the intent to bomb Syria is now a token gesture on our part, and the balance has already turned against ISIS. The argument that this would somehow make us a bigger terror target is somewhat misled though, we've been bombing ISIS for a long time, all this vote would do is allow the RAF to bomb them over the border.

 

PS Red Robbo I tried to respond to your post but since the firmware update on the forum it's been a challenge from my iPhone. US intelligence report to congress puts fighters at around 250k. That's combatants. Males of fighting age in Syria who have arms, who knows. Probably millions, but they're not classed as combatants, even in the 10th UN report on Syria published this Sept. I could not find the UN report c4 purportedly referenced. I suspect the true figure of those involved, of Syrian nationality, during the course of the conflict will never been known. 

I think the reason people are against further bombing is there is no coherent exit plan/stategy for exit. Everyrhing seems a little knee jerk at the moment. We have been stung by that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Bombing alone cannot work and therein lies the problem as we patently aren't going to commit land forces in Syria. Ever.

Therefore I suggest attempting to forge a peace amid more secular factions in Syria is and must be the main plank of our strategy.

I can't really see any evidence that bombing by the US and France has made much difference in Syria and Russia's strikes have been mainly directed at non-IS positions, notably those of the FSA and Turkmen militia, who would have to be on board for any negotiated peace in the country.

IS actually captured another Syrian town last week, while in the north it's the efforts of the Peshmerga that mainly seems to have halted their advance.

The evidence from Afghanistan is that airstrikes definitely did act as a Taliban recruiting sergeant. 

There's a guy in my village who was a senior officer at Bagram airfield who tells me he came round to that point if view during his three tours of service.

Which seems to be part of the plan.

But also with any ground forces likely to be from countries who normally would not form any alliance it is going to take time and now even longer after the as yet IMO fully explained downing of the Russian bomber by Turkey, I am still at a loss to understand why they did it, it doesn't make any sense, Russia today directly accused Turkey of protecting it's illicit trade of oil with Isis as the reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Collis1 said:

I think the reason people are against further bombing is there is no coherent exit plan/stategy for exit. Everyrhing seems a little knee jerk at the moment. We have been stung by that before.

Strange post, you don't need an exit plan/strategy for a bombing campaign, you just stop bombing, you need one for a ground war which we will not be involved in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Which seems to be part of the plan.

But also with any ground forces likely to be from countries who normally would not form any alliance it is going to take time and now even longer after the as yet IMO fully explained downing of the Russian bomber by Turkey, I am still at a loss to understand why they did it, it doesn't make any sense, Russia today directly accused Turkey of protecting it's illicit trade of oil with Isis as the reason.

 

There seems little doubt that Turks were aware of the illicit oil trade - at a local level, if not nationally. They also allowed thousands of.Jihadists to just March over their border. 

However I think the plane's downing had more to do with Russia's airstrikes on ethnically Turkish villages. Those villages are controlled by local militia who are anti-Assad but also anti-IS.

An expanded Turkey, both in terms of sphere of influence, and perhaps in this case in terms of territory,  is one of Erdogan's policy goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

There seems little doubt that Turks were aware of the illicit oil trade - at a local level, if not nationally. They also allowed thousands of.Jihadists to just March over their border. 

However I think the plane's downing had more to do with Russia's airstrikes on ethnically Turkish villages. Those villages are controlled by local militia who are anti-Assad but also anti-IS.

An expanded Turkey, both in terms of sphere of influence, and perhaps in this case in terms of territory,  is one of Erdogan's policy goals.

And the EU wants them in:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Right Hand said:

And the EU wants them in:facepalm:

TBF they are no longer in the "asking to be admitted" club. Erdogan isn't interested in EU membership. And there was never a timetable in place over Turkey. They would fail both economic and human rights criteria. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

TBF they are no longer in the "asking to be admitted" club. Erdogan isn't interested in EU membership. And there was never a timetable in place over Turkey. They would fail both economic and human rights criteria. 

 

I thought that entry of some form is on offer with the new deal re migrants.

PS:- allegedly arrested 1,300 migrants today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I thought that entry of some form is on offer with the new deal re migrants.

PS:- allegedly arrested 1,300 migrants today.

Associate membership - like Norway, Switzerland and Serbia etc.

Economic and human rights criteria would have to be met for full membership and they are a long way off there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough consideration is given to how ISIS came about.  They were the bastard child of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists.    The American's helpfully facilitated their conception and the gestation of the foetus in Camp Bucca - a massive detention facility during the 'insurgency'.  They had unhindered opportunity to meet, discuss, come to an arrangement and then plan.  Once they were all released they were soon in the position to exploit the power vacuum both in Iraq and neighbouring Syria.  Please, no one be so naive as to think they that the Americans weren't aware of this.  

 

Both us and the Americans funded and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s to fight against the Soviet Union and look where that got us. We are allies with the Saudis who also happen to fund ISIS, we're allies with the Turks who seem to be powerless to stop a massive black market trade in Oil across the border from Syria.  

Our current Prime Minister wants us to bomb ISIS " because it's the right thing to do".  To "stand side by side with our allies'.  That's it.  That's the argument.

 

It seems to me that this is really about tidying up a problem very much of the west's making, as it was with Afghanistan and has been historically whenever us, the French or the Americans have behaved like Imperial powers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Associate membership - like Norway, Switzerland and Serbia etc.

Economic and human rights criteria would have to be met for full membership and they are a long way off there.

You have a very benign view of our unelected leaders in Brussels Robbo. It is all about preserving the two main planks of European unification, the EZ and Schengen, and it doesn't matter how much of European taxpayers money is thrown at it or to what extent we endanger the security of the people of Europe. It is all secondary to the supertstate and, as most of Turkey is not actually in Europe, the building of a European empire. It's also rather good fun to cosy up to Turkey as it's another jolly good way of annoying Putin.

As for ''economic criteria'' they didn't worry too much about that when Greece was allowed into the Eurozone and I rather suspect they will once again be prepared to turn a blind eye to a few ''criteria'' in the case of Turkey if it aids the preservation of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, marshy said:

You have a very benign view of our unelected leaders in Brussels Robbo. It is all about preserving the two main planks of European unification, the EZ and Schengen, and it doesn't matter how much of European taxpayers money is thrown at it or to what extent we endanger the security of the people of Europe. It is all secondary to the supertstate and, as most of Turkey is not actually in Europe, the building of a European empire. It's also rather good fun to cosy up to Turkey as it's another jolly good way of annoying Putin.

As for ''economic criteria'' they didn't worry too much about that when Greece was allowed into the Eurozone and I rather suspect they will once again be prepared to turn a blind eye to a few ''criteria'' in the case of Turkey if it aids the preservation of the project.

Turkey is miles away from where Greece was, Marshy. 

But, hey, we can both agree it was an  awful deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...