# How should the UK government deal with IS?



## scottbrown (Oct 4, 2014)

Following on from the video released last night of another UK citizen being beheaded by IS, what would you like DCs next move to be?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 4, 2014)

What more can the government do bar troops on the ground ?

Air strikes to strategic targets have been increased


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 4, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What more can the government do bar troops on the ground ?

Air strikes to strategic targets have been increased
		
Click to expand...

Like you said Phil, nothing more the can do. I think a government statement making it even more clear than it is how dangerous it is out there and get all those aid workers and journalists to leave the area before more of them are captured. Why do people with a Red Cross on their shirt or a journalism degree think that they are invincible, these people really do not care about your life and will kill anyone.


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 4, 2014)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=098_1412378328

As is said in this statement from IS though, they want western troops on the ground. 
Maybe it's time to up the ante, give the country notice so the innocent can leave and then absolutely flatten it from the air leaving nothing.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 4, 2014)

scottbrown said:



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=098_1412378328

As is said in this statement from IS though, they want western troops on the ground. 
Maybe it's time to up the ante, give the country notice so the innocent can leave and then absolutely flatten it from the air leaving nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Dr Kissinger....


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 4, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Thanks for that Dr Kissinger....
		
Click to expand...

And your approach would be? 

Let's be honest, do people really think that there is any chance of diplomacy with IS? I don't think so.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2014)

What needs to happen now is for every Country...every single one....to mobilise against IS.
They are not doing this in the name of Islam, they are using Islam as a shield.
All Muslims across the World need to unite with everyone else to exterminate IS as they are dragging true Muslims into the gutter.
The whole World needs to declare absolute Shock and Awe war on these peasants and eradicate them as soon as possible.

Is there any other way to stop it...?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Oct 4, 2014)

scottbrown said:



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=098_1412378328

As is said in this statement from IS though, they want western troops on the ground. 
Maybe it's time to up the ante, give the country notice so the innocent can leave and then absolutely flatten it from the air leaving nothing.
		
Click to expand...

And just where are the innocent majority to go and who and how is the country to be rebuilt afterwards.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 4, 2014)

scottbrown said:



			And your approach would be? 

Let's be honest, do people really think that there is any chance of diplomacy with IS? I don't think so.
		
Click to expand...

Believe it or not there may be some middle ground between flattening an entire area and just talking to them.  

And ever considered that if you give them notice then the terrorists will leave as well?  Which puts a bit of a spanner in your well thought out plans...


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 4, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Believe it or not there may be some middle ground between flattening an entire area and just talking to them.  

And ever considered that if you give them notice then the terrorists will leave as well?  Which puts a bit of a spanner in your well thought out plans...
		
Click to expand...

This is true, so as I asked In earlier post, what would your approach be? as you seem very clear on what it shouldn't be...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 4, 2014)

Not sure there's a definitive answer. Dialogue clearly not going to work and military intervention comes at enormous risk and cost. What about the innocents. Where do they go and how do you stop IS merely slipping out as well and starting again at a later date. Not sure how effective airstrikes will be in isolation either


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 4, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Believe it or not there may be some middle ground between flattening an entire area and just talking to them.  

And ever considered that if you give them notice then the terrorists will leave as well?  Which puts a bit of a spanner in your well thought out plans...
		
Click to expand...


I was watching a TV programme the other day and a expert was saying that they cover an area the size
of the UK,that could take some time,in fact years.
The trouble is there will always be other groups waiting to take over.
This type of terror could go on for ever.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 4, 2014)

scottbrown said:



			This is true, so as I asked In earlier post, what would your approach be? as you seem very clear on what it shouldn't be...
		
Click to expand...

Much as is currently happening. You build a consensus between other Islamic states and neighbours that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable through dialogue. And also get them involved if you can in military action. Whilst at the same time you try and reduce their capabilities through targeted military action, trying to reduce as much as possible the innocent civilian victims.

Engaging in some kind of blanket bombing which may well get rid of some terrorists, but will also kill innocent civilians will only act as the best recruitment tool they have ever had.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 4, 2014)

They should deal with dangerous people leaving and entering the country to join them, maintain intelligence for domestic threats and otherwise encourage and support (with diplomacy and advice) Saudi and other local states who wish/need to take action. That is all.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 4, 2014)

Faceless terrorism is quite possibly the most difficult battle any country faces. You're not fighting a nation, so indiscriminate bombing of the place is out. Troops on the ground is expensive and when the body bags come home usually unpalatable. Targeted air strikes is probably the best we can do at the moment. 

Mind you, we could always go down the 'Irish route', identify the leaders and get them on the payroll. What odds on an IS leader getting nominated for a Nobel peace prize in 20 years? 

The 2nd paragraph is tounge planted firmly in cheek, but scratch the surface of (imo only, no evidence to back it up) any large scale terrorist organisation conflict and you'll find dialogue on going between Government intermediaries and terrorist intermediaries. Regardless of any military solution here, if we want peace in the predominantly Muslim middle east regions (in this case) then dialogue will be required, as unpalatable as it obviously is.  
Oh, and a genuine effort to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and being all to willing to send troops in to protect the oil interests of rich (I presume) yanks might go a long way to solving the issue. 


For the record, in case my post gets misinterpreted, I find the killing of innocent civilians abhorrent, whether by bombing, beheading or the bullet.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 4, 2014)

You can't fight these extremists. For everyone you kill there are another 10 being trained, the only way to get at them is to get the cooperation of the people that live there to help identify these people. So going in a bloody great big bomb is not really going to help is it as that just turns not just a nation, but a complete race of people against us. 

it is not world war 2 and we aren't fighting people walking around in uniforms with German flags on them. These people just look like every other person in that country and they then just appear armed when they get told to and kill people. It is a war that can't be won, just controlled, exactly the same as Afghanistan, Vietnam and every other country the western world have gone after in recent years.


----------



## bladeplayer (Oct 4, 2014)

My answer which is probably in reaction and without much sensible consideration is  i will get the list of terrorists they want freed and every time they kill someone kill one of them , 


of course tho "civilised" society cannot act this way for many "reasons" and hey ho this is how alot of problems in modern society have mushroomed , softly softly re educate instead of punish , make prisons hotels instead of placed to fear & dread returning to ,

Anyhow in reality unless these scum have factories they have to be sourcing there armoury and ammo somewhere , gota source this and stop the flow ,,

meanwhile home on the farm as we are piling resources on IS , al quieda [sp] an their like are building away nicely in the shadow 


MODS I hope theres is nothing untoword in this post if there is feel free to delete rather than edit it , thank u


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 4, 2014)

Ethan said:



			They should deal with dangerous people leaving and entering the country to join them, maintain intelligence for domestic threats and otherwise encourage and support (with diplomacy and advice) Saudi and other local states who wish/need to take action. That is all.
		
Click to expand...

That's not enough imo. Iraq has requested assistance and UK is in a position to assist. It all needs to be done legitimately/legally though, and, unlike Gulf 2, this (at least the Iraq portion) is legitimate/legal. 

But history has shown that being insular and saying it's a 'local' problem to solve doesn't work!


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2014)

There is a paradox in such situations, to destroy this type of evil entity means the deaths of many innocent civilians.  This has been the case in all wars throughout history.

The choice is whether you can accept the consequences that brings the slaughter of innocents to destroy the enemy.   Who can make such a choice?   The answer has to be the politician and who would envy them in this choice?


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 5, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			There is a paradox in such situations, to destroy this type of evil entity means the deaths of many innocent civilians.  This has been the case in all wars throughout history.

The choice is whether you can accept the consequences that brings the slaughter of innocents to destroy the enemy.   Who can make such a choice?   The answer has to be the politician and who would envy them in this choice?
		
Click to expand...

Having very recently left the armed (3 months ago) and having served in lovely hot sandy places like Afghanistan, killing innocent people does not help, it only escalates the problem. These people are getting brain washed and by killing innocent people is only proving the extremists right. In Afghan a lot of work was done installing infrastructures and giving people rights as human beings, by doing that we showed that we aren't what the Taliban are claiming, we are kind compassionate people that do not a problem with their faith. This actually made these people to start cooperating with us and helping us find local leaders of the Taliban.


Now flip the coin over..............

We go on major bombing missions, killing innocent people. A wife and mother of 5 boys, educated, so does not listen to the radical preachings of these extremists, gets killed. Oooops looks like an innocent person has died, but now we have just backed up the propaganda that is spread by the extremists, with respect to we want to crush Islam and because of that they take up arms and 6 new terrorists have been created. Now imagine a 1000 innocent ladies being killed in this manner, we have now created several thousand men wanting to take up arms against us. 

Now it really starts to escalate when people that are living in Western Europe and America see innocent family members being killed. They are now pissed off and the radicals that live here start to use this as propoganda to turn people to their way of thinking and a few more men willing to give their lives have been created. So by killing a few hundred innocent people, you have now turned several thousand against us. Bugger, that plan shot us up the arse didn't it, do you not think that carpet bombing the country has been discussed? But as they know it will not help, but hinder the operations out there.

So the numbers I mentioned might be a bit extreme, but do people see my point regarding flattening the country? It will just not work.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 5, 2014)

Depending on the intelligence available I would send in small special forces teams (as I suspect is already being done). We should also be attempting to assist and educate the local forces in the area. It is their battle to win ultimately. No "quick fix" though.


----------



## 6inchcup (Oct 5, 2014)

just keep bombing anything that moves that isnt friendly,this will let the ground troops from the neighbouring countries clear up,same with Syria find their strong holds and destroy them.This will take years but can be done,use intelligence to find sympathisers in this country and other countries do the same and lock them up for life,no phones, no computers, solitary confinement no human rights lefty running of to Strasbourg, 3 strikes of breaking rules let them swing and be buried in unmarked graves.


----------



## hovis (Oct 5, 2014)

Get the world to consolidate all its nuclear weapons and turn the place into a car park


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 5, 2014)

hovis said:



			Get the world to consolidate all its nuclear weapons and turn the place into a car park
		
Click to expand...

1000000% agree with this... Kaboooooooooommmmmm &#128165;&#128165;&#128165;&#128165;&#128165;&#128165;


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 5, 2014)

6inchcup said:



			just keep bombing anything that moves that isnt friendly,this will let the ground troops from the neighbouring countries clear up,same with Syria find their strong holds and destroy them.This will take years but can be done,use intelligence to find sympathisers in this country and other countries do the same and lock them up for life,no phones, no computers, solitary confinement no human rights lefty running of to Strasbourg, 3 strikes of breaking rules let them swing and be buried in unmarked graves.
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes it makes me wonder where people get their ideas on these subjects. How is Afghanistan working in your eyes? The main men for the Taliban just moved elsewhere. They do not necessarily have these great big strong holds as they know we will just go after them, so they have smaller strongholds all over the place and keep moving them to try and avoid detection. These blokes running them are not stupid, they do not just stick everything they have in one big warehouse and fly a flag to show us where they are. 

It doesn't matter how good the intelligence is these blokes have a habit of always being one step ahead. The best example will always be Northern Ireland. We knew what was going on and where these IEDs where being made, yet some still slipped under the radar and got used. Did we actually win or did both sides come to a ceasefire? Problem is these extreemists we fight now will never give in.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Sometimes it makes me wonder where people get their ideas on these subjects. How is Afghanistan working in your eyes? The main men for the Taliban just moved elsewhere. They do not necessarily have these great big strong holds as they know we will just go after them, so they have smaller strongholds all over the place and keep moving them to try and avoid detection. These blokes running them are not stupid, they do not just stick everything they have in one big warehouse and fly a flag to show us where they are. 

It doesn't matter how good the intelligence is these blokes have a habit of always being one step ahead. The best example will always be Northern Ireland. We knew what was going on and where these IEDs where being made, yet some still slipped under the radar and got used. Did we actually win or did both sides come to a ceasefire? Problem is these extreemists we fight now will never give in.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on assesment


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Sometimes it makes me wonder where people get their ideas on these subjects. How is Afghanistan working in your eyes? The main men for the Taliban just moved elsewhere. They do not necessarily have these great big strong holds as they know we will just go after them, so they have smaller strongholds all over the place and keep moving them to try and avoid detection. These blokes running them are not stupid, they do not just stick everything they have in one big warehouse and fly a flag to show us where they are. 

It doesn't matter how good the intelligence is these blokes have a habit of always being one step ahead. The best example will always be Northern Ireland. We knew what was going on and where these IEDs where being made, yet some still slipped under the radar and got used. Did we actually win or did both sides come to a ceasefire? Problem is these extreemists we fight now will never give in.
		
Click to expand...


Your right... Probably best to just Nuke the Middle East and be done with it all.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Sometimes it makes me wonder where people get their ideas on these subjects. How is Afghanistan working in your eyes? The main men for the Taliban just moved elsewhere. They do not necessarily have these great big strong holds as they know we will just go after them, so they have smaller strongholds all over the place and keep moving them to try and avoid detection. These blokes running them are not stupid, they do not just stick everything they have in one big warehouse and fly a flag to show us where they are. 

It doesn't matter how good the intelligence is these blokes have a habit of always being one step ahead. The best example will always be Northern Ireland. We knew what was going on and where these IEDs where being made, yet some still slipped under the radar and got used. Did we actually win or did both sides come to a ceasefire? Problem is these extreemists we fight now will never give in.
		
Click to expand...


So what should we do about it!    Give in?


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 5, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Your right... Probably best to just Nuke the Middle East and be done with it all.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder sometimes how much these are the actual beliefs of people or it is just purely tongue in cheek...............


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 5, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I wonder sometimes how much these are the actual beliefs of people or it is just purely tongue in cheek...............
		
Click to expand...

In this case my tounge is firmly stuck to the bottom of my mouth :thup:


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 5, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			So what should we do about it!    Give in?
		
Click to expand...

Problem is there is no way of actually winning. Unlike other wars we are not actually at war with a country and it's leader. We are at war with a race of people that reside in every nation across the world. When we bombed places like Dresden in WW2 the country was fully behind the destruction of Germany, as they were the enemy. We had a problem with terrorists in Ireland, but flattening the place was never the answer, we just had to do what we could to keep control and minimise the damage being caused.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 5, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			In this case my tounge is firmly stuck to the bottom of my mouth :thup:
		
Click to expand...

i didn't think anything else. But you do get people that believe that is the answer though. 

I'm ex forces so do not get me wrong, I am not against lethal force as that would make me a hypocrite for all the bombs I have strapped onto aircraft in these sandy climates. Problem is you have to make sure you are killing the right people or you are committing murder.

i think the phrase "damned if do, damned if you don't!" Sums it up


----------



## USER1999 (Oct 6, 2014)

I'm not keen on using Â£100,000 bombs to blow up Â£500 pick up trucks though. It seems wasteful to me.


----------



## Birchy (Oct 6, 2014)

I quite like the idea of just flattening the whole place but is that really a good idea? This is probably born out of rage due to the events that have gone before though and this is possibly what they want.

Wasting all those civilian and forces lives and not to mention a shedload of money is no good unless it will achieve something. Bombing them may strengthen their cause as has been mentioned so we need to be very careful.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place and to get out of that place we need to get back to being one step ahead of these nutters. Whatever that is im not sure but I think just bombing the hell out of the place wont work. This is where the leaders will earn their money making the tough decisions, hopefully they have got something up their sleeve to help resolve this.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 6, 2014)

Not sure how you do it but it must be about winning people over through education rather than bombing. Find it had to believe that in this day and age people still believe in their religions with such conviction.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

scottbrown said:



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=098_1412378328

As is said in this statement from IS though, they want western troops on the ground. 
Maybe it's time to up the ante, give the country notice so the innocent can leave and then absolutely flatten it from the air leaving nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Hey, I found where you got your argument from.  

[video=youtube_share;dMHDBL7CNA4]http://youtu.be/dMHDBL7CNA4[/video]


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			i didn't think anything else. But you do get people that believe that is the answer though. 

I'm ex forces so do not get me wrong, I am not against lethal force as that would make me a hypocrite for all the bombs I have strapped onto aircraft in these sandy climates. Problem is you have to make sure you are killing the right people or you are committing murder.

i think the phrase "damned if do, damned if you don't!" Sums it up
		
Click to expand...

Well yes it would be impossible to kill only the enemy but we could simply label the rest as potential future recruits... The longer you leave these people to operate the more new recruits they will recieve and the bigger the threat will become. In all honesty saying nuke the lot is a stupid comment for me to make as it would never ever happen (Wishful thinking) but something really needs to happen with this threat and religion across the entire world as its getting out of control. How can I trust one Muslim from another when any one of them have the potential to rip a blade out and attempt to publicly execute me.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Well yes it would be impossible to kill only the enemy but we could simply label the rest as potential future recruits... The longer you leave these people to operate the more new recruits they will recieve and the bigger the threat will become. In all honesty saying nuke the lot is a stupid comment for me to make as it would never ever happen (Wishful thinking) but something really needs to happen with this threat and religion across the entire world as its getting out of control. How can I trust one Muslim from another when any one of them have the potential to rip a blade out and attempt to publicly execute me.
		
Click to expand...

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a Muslim. All that takes is a psychopath or disturbed individual suffering from paranoid schizophrenia such as the murder of the woman in Tenerife a few years ago. So in that sense, how can you trust one person from another when they have the potential to rip a blade out and attempt to publicly execute you?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 6, 2014)

Birchy said:



*I quite like the idea of just flattening the whole place *but is that really a good idea? This is probably born out of rage due to the events that have gone before though and this is possibly what they want.

Wasting all those civilian and forces lives and not to mention a shedload of money is no good unless it will achieve something. Bombing them may strengthen their cause as has been mentioned so we need to be very careful.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place and to get out of that place we need to get back to being one step ahead of these nutters. Whatever that is im not sure but I think just bombing the hell out of the place wont work. This is where the leaders will earn their money making the tough decisions, hopefully they have got something up their sleeve to help resolve this.
		
Click to expand...

But where or what is the whole place?  They are like a lethal virus that is spreading invasively and not locally within an innocent host's body.  Too easy to kill the host when trying to eradicate the virus.

Our greatest hope lies with the UK Muslim community - to condemn and damn outright as they have done and ensure that ISIS/ISIL get's zero support in the UK.  That way they muslim community by it's words and actions reduces likelihood of any terrorist attack on us.  And that enables us to support the counties affected by ISI/ISIL in ridding themselves of that scourge.


----------



## Fish (Oct 6, 2014)

We need to identify where their arms are coming from and cut that supply off along with the funding they are getting, starve them of all resources, any country's known to support or supply them have immediate sanctions put in place and are cut-off, make sure all country's do not pay ransoms, intelligence from airports of Europeans travelling in & out of the country (Syria, Iraq, Turkey) from across the world, large donations in & out of bank accounts that are not major corporate business need to be identified and frozen, pinpoint strongholds and flatten them, we need a lot of intelligence gathering which I am positive is happening but some Middle East country's, who are saying the right things publicly, will still be slightly holding back on key information which could help more!

New laws need to be set up immediately with regards to UK or European citizens leaving the country to take up arms, its nothing less than treason and as such we need to update and renew some very old antiquated laws to protect our shores from those looking to return and becoming sleepers over here and recruit new followers. If some of these hold dual passports then its simple to me, deport them to their preferred other identity and let them live in the country they are fighting in and for.

If the world has changed so much, we need to change and adapt our laws to suit this hostility quickly.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Well yes it would be impossible to kill only the enemy *but we could simply label the rest as potential future recruits.*.. The longer you leave these people to operate the more new recruits they will recieve and the bigger the threat will become. In all honesty saying nuke the lot is a stupid comment for me to make as it would never ever happen (*Wishful thinking*) but something really needs to happen with this threat and religion across the entire world as its getting out of control. *How can I trust one Muslim from another when any one of them have the potential to rip a blade out and attempt to publicly execute me.*

Click to expand...

Just to get this right, you want to bomb entire regions as they contain 'potential new recruits' and you can't trust any Muslims as they may execute you.


----------



## bladeplayer (Oct 6, 2014)

Fish said:



We need to identify where their arms are coming from and cut that supply off along with the funding they are getting, starve them of all resources, any country's known to support or supply them have immediate sanctions put in place and are cut-off, make sure all country's do not pay ransoms, intelligence from airports of Europeans travelling in & out of the country (Syria, Iraq, Turkey) from across the world, large donations in & out of bank accounts that are not major corporate business need to be identified and frozen, pinpoint strongholds and flatten them, we need a lot of intelligence gathering which I am positive is happening but some Middle East country's, who are saying the right things publicly, will still be slightly holding back on key information which could help more!

New laws need to be set up immediately with regards to UK or European citizens leaving the country to take up arms, its nothing less than treason and as such we need to update and renew some very old antiquated laws to protect our shores from those looking to return and becoming sleepers over here and recruit new followers. If some of these hold dual passports then its simple to me, deport them to their preferred other identity and let them live in the country they are fighting in and for.

If the world has changed so much, we need to change and adapt our laws to suit this hostility quickly.
		
Click to expand...




bladeplayer said:



			My answer which is probably in reaction and without much sensible consideration is  i will get the list of terrorists they want freed and every time they kill someone kill one of them , 


of course tho "civilised" society cannot act this way for many "reasons" and hey ho this is how alot of problems in modern society have mushroomed , softly softly re educate instead of punish , make prisons hotels instead of placed to fear & dread returning to ,

Anyhow in reality unless these scum have factories they have to be sourcing there armoury and ammo somewhere , gota source this and stop the flow ,,

meanwhile home on the farm as we are piling resources on IS , al quieda [sp] an their like are building away nicely in the shadow 


MODS I hope theres is nothing untoword in this post if there is feel free to delete rather than edit it , thank u
		
Click to expand...


Thanks Rob , it seems a logical answer to me , and to you obviously , any idea why this isnt happening , im sure the Americans have a good idea who controls /runs the legal & Illegal  weapons industry ..

World news has to handle this carefully aswell , i know it needs reporting , but IMO it is better to starve Terrorism of notoriety & air time ,they wont go away but they will lose their shock and awe publicity


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Just to get this right, you want to bomb entire regions as they contain 'potential new recruits' and you can't trust any Muslims as they may execute you.  

Click to expand...

Listen there are a number of extremist groups in this world who use the muslim religion as there forefront, based on that im afraid I can't identfy an extremist from a non extremist, it would be great if they wore little armbands to identify themselves but unfortunatly they do not. As for the other guy talking about the nutters that go around murdering people... Yes they do but at this current time muslim extremists are a far greater threat to my own safety and my family's safety.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Listen there are a number of extremist groups in this world who use the muslim religion as there forefront, based on that im afraid I can't identfy an extremist from a non extremist, it would be great if they wore little armbands to identify themselves but unfortunatly they do not. As for the other guy talking about the nutters that go around murdering people... Yes they do but *at this current time muslim extremists are a far greater threat to my own safety and my family's safety*.
		
Click to expand...

Your location states Birmingham, is that where you are actually based? If so Muslim extremists are no more a greater threat to you than you getting hit by lightening, I mean when was the last time Muslim extremists targeted Birmingham and managed to kill someone? if you are actually based out in Syria or Iraq then you may have an argument! Talk about paranoia...


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Just to get this right, you want to bomb entire regions as they contain 'potential new recruits' and you can't trust any Muslims as they may execute you.  

Click to expand...

It's the military strategy of using the proverbial sledge-hammer to crush a nut.... and then putting the nut into a blender, make a nut smoothie, drink it, excrete it then smash that.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			Your location states Birmingham, is that where you are actually based? If so Muslim extremists are no more a greater threat to you than you getting hit by lightening, I mean when was the last time Muslim extremists targeted Birmingham and managed to kill someone? if you are actually based out in Syria or Iraq then you may have an argument! Talk about paranoia...
		
Click to expand...

I bet the victims of 9/11 and the London transport bombings would have been called paranoid too if they told you what was going to happen. Luckily most attacks in this country are stopped before they happen, And to say in the current climate that we are more likely to be struck by lighting than a terror attack is just plain stupid.


----------



## shewy (Oct 6, 2014)

there's no easy answer, we are not the world's police anymore so the way I see it, pull out every UK citizen, shut up shop all travel stopped and let them get on with it. We have enough problems at home which the money would be better spent.
Yes it's a horrible situation but not one we should try and sort out, leave it to thier neighbours and fellow muslims.
Then after all that if they start to attack us, unlikely since we pose no threat, then we respond so heavily that they dare not try it again.
As for the UK nationals who have gone over there to fight, leave them there, rip up thier passports.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Listen there are a number of extremist groups in this world who use the muslim religion as there forefront, based on that im afraid I can't identfy an extremist from a non extremist, it would be great if they wore little armbands to identify themselves but unfortunatly they do not. As for the other guy talking about the nutters that go around murdering people... Yes they do but at this current time muslim extremists are a far greater threat to my own safety and my family's safety.
		
Click to expand...

So your answer to my question was basically yes?

And just to help you out as those pesky blinders are not wearing armband,s then the non extremist fundamentalists are more than likely the 99.99% of Muslims who have lived in this country and you no doubt have come into contact with, especially if you have ever gone into Birmingham.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			I bet the victims of 9/11 and the London transport bombings would have been called paranoid too if they told you what was going to happen. Luckily most attacks in this country are stopped before they happen, And to say in the current climate that we are more likely to be struck by lighting than a terror attack is just plain stupid.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was highly unlikely. You need to look at some stats...

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

Could you be killed by a terrorist attack in the UK? Of course, is it likely? No.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			So your answer to my question was basically yes?
		
Click to expand...

If your question was do I think we should Nuke the Middle East then yes :thup:

Also like ive already said its never going to happen but hey we all have hopes and dreams :cheers:


----------



## Fish (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			Your location states Birmingham, is that where you are actually based? If so Muslim extremists are no more a greater threat to you than you getting hit by lightening, I mean when was the last time Muslim extremists targeted Birmingham and managed to kill someone? if you are actually based out in Syria or Iraq then you may have an argument! Talk about paranoia...
		
Click to expand...

I think your view is pretty naive, why, because every police officer who has a firearms licence is currently carrying them in major cities across the country because the threat level and intelligence dictates that to be the case, how do I know, believe me, I do


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was highly unlikely. You need to look at some stats...

You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

Could you be killed by a terrorist attack in the UK? Of course, is it likely? No.
		
Click to expand...

I'd suggest bombing all the cars and police officers at the same time then, just to be safe.  As you can't tell nowadays when one of those police officers is there to try and ensure public order or to execute you.  Especially if you are paranoid nut job. Better safe than sorry...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			If your question was do I think we should Nuke the Middle East then yes :thup:

Also like ive already said its never going to happen but hey we all have hopes and dreams :cheers:
		
Click to expand...

Wow, to think swearing is banned on here partly because it is thought it gives the wrong impression to advertisers.  I bet Emirates Airlines will be thinking twice now...


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'd suggest bombing all the cars and police officers at the same time then, just to be safe.  As you can't tell nowadays when one of those police officers is there to try and ensure public order or to execute you.  Especially if you are paranoid nut job. Better safe than sorry...
		
Click to expand...

I never thought of that... Now I'm really worried


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

Fish said:



			I think your view is pretty naive, why, because every police officer who has a firearms licence is currently carrying them in major cities across the country because the threat level and intelligence dictates that to be the case, how do I know, believe me, I do 

Click to expand...

I couldn't care less how you know or don't know (winky smiley) - It is not naive at all. It's realistic. I don't doubt that due to the issues currently going on in Syria and Iraq there is an increased "threat" and that's all it is at the moment, a threat to our security. If we were seen to not reacting at all, people thinking about targeting us may think we are an easy target. Getting hysterical about a threat really doesn't help anyone though. Like I said, we are more likely to be killed or affected by something much closer to home than a genuine terrorist attack.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Wow, to think swearing is banned on here partly because it is thought it gives the wrong impression to advertisers.  I bet Emirates Airlines will be thinking twice now...
		
Click to expand...

You must try harder :thup:

BAN THE BURKA!!! Damn that's going to put all the Burka outfitters off now isn't it... Sorry Mike.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			I couldn't care less how you know or don't know (winky smiley) - It is not naive at all. It's realistic. I don't doubt that due to the issues currently going on in Syria and Iraq there is an increased "threat" and that's all it is at the moment, a threat to our security. If we were seen to not reacting at all, people thinking about targeting us may think we are an easy target. Getting hysterical about a threat really doesn't help anyone though. Like I said, we are more likely to be killed or affected by something much closer to home than a genuine terrorist attack.
		
Click to expand...

Be careful putting them socks on in the morning... Wouldn't want you to become part of a stastistic.

Could you imagine being killed by a donkey and becoming part of that stat... Jeeeez that's not going out in style at all.


----------



## JamPal (Oct 6, 2014)

They should focus on building a green, sustainable economy, that doesn't rely on the region at all. Nothing more.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Be careful putting them socks on in the morning... Wouldn't want you to become part of a stastistic.

Could you imagine being killed by a donkey and becoming part of that stat... Jeeeez that's not going out in style at all.
		
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy putting my socks on in the morning, commuting up to London, getting on the underground and getting to work every day. I'm not a paranoid android who thinks every Muslim is out to behead me or blow me up, and thinks the answer is genocide, but hey you enjoy life from the safety of your bunker.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			I'm quite happy putting my socks on in the morning, commuting up to London, getting on the underground and getting to work every day. I'm not a paranoid android who thinks every Muslim is out to behead me or blow me up, and thinks the answer is genocide, but hey you enjoy life from the safety of your bunker.
		
Click to expand...

Risky buisness that underground... You not worried about an Ebola outbreak in London? I wish I was as brave as you.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Risky buisness that underground... You not worried about an Ebola outbreak in London? I wish I was as brave as you.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not brave, just well informed and therefore able to make a rational decision. I suggest you do the same so here is a starter for ten - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ebola-virus/pages/ebola-virus.aspx#UK


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

So now I need to avoid all who have been to Africa recenetly aswell as extremist Muslims? Jeeez my options are very limited living in Birmingham... Do you have a link to that underground bunker you have spoken about?


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			So now I need to avoid all who have been to Africa recenetly aswell as extremist Muslims? Jeeez my options are very limited living in Birmingham... Do you have a link to that underground bunker you have spoken about?
		
Click to expand...

To be informed you need to actually read the information my learned friend. If you had you would clearly see that you don't need to avoid anyone; African, Muslim or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			To be informed you need to actually read the information my learned friend. If you had you would clearly see that you don't need to avoid anyone; African, Muslim or anyone else for that matter.
		
Click to expand...

So if you lock me in a room with a muslim extremist who wants the blood of the English fully armed and someone who has been in contact with the infected in Africa then I am perfectly safe? Do you live in narnia?


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			So if you lock me in a room with a muslim extremist who wants the blood of the English fully armed and someone who has been in contact with the infected in Africa then I am perfectly safe? Do you live in narnia?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:








Click to expand...

At least you admit defeat :thup:

Anyway today has been fun but unfortunately ive ran out of maggots :cheers:

One last thing... Do you not worry about the folk infected with Ebola returning as the undead Woody? That would be a whole new threat to humanity and would make IS look like little girls.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

Well that is an uncomfortable read 

Hoping the majority of the posts are not serious

Wiping out a whole region ?! 

Judging a race or religion on the actions of a minority


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			At least you admit defeat :thup:

Anyway today has been fun but unfortunately ive ran out of maggots :cheers:

One last thing... Do you not worry about the folk infected with Ebola returning as the undead Woody? That would be a whole new threat to humanity and would make IS look like little girls.
		
Click to expand...

I can't decide if you actually agree with me that you are stupid, or have absolutely no idea you are? Nice little tangent to go off down though when questioned on your rather bizarre idea that the best way to irradiate a small minority of misguided psychopaths is mass genocide of the majority. Well played sir.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well that is an uncomfortable read 

Hoping the majority of the posts are not serious

Wiping out a whole region ?! 

Judging a race or religion on the actions of a minority
		
Click to expand...

Uncomfortable read :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

woody69 said:



			I can't decide if you actually agree with me that you are stupid, or have absolutely no idea you are? Nice little tangent to go off down though when questioned on your rather bizarre idea that the best way to irradiate a small minority of misguided psychopaths is mass genocide of the majority. Well played sir.
		
Click to expand...

Bore off :thup:


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

TBH, the UK and US Governments have to take some responsibility for what's happened in the likes of  Iraq, Libya and now Syria. All had strict dictatorships that kept a lid on these extremists, if we had stayed out of it the region would still be pretty stable, we might not agree with how these country's were run, but none of these extremists were allowed to operate.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 6, 2014)

Actually I think Daveyboy has a point.  I've just been to my local post office that is run by Muslims.  And as I am I am a closet racist who would probably find like minded people agreeing with my views on the BNP forum, as I approached the counter I was not sure if they would be their usual cheery selves and serve me.  Or rip out a knife and execute me on the spot.  

And I'm sure most of you (but I'm sure not all) are glad to hear I survived the counter. And instead of killing me dead, they engaged in a bit of small talk, weighed my letter, put a special delivery stamp on it and gave me a receipt. But I can tell you it was a close run thing.  And it's so difficult to tell nowadays.  So I'll keep my eyes on them.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Actually I think Daveyboy has a point.  I've just been to my local post office that is run by Muslims.  And as I am I am a closet racist who would probably find like minded people agreeing with my views on the BNP forum, as I approached the counter I was not sure if they would be their usual cheery selves and serve me.  Or rip out a knife and execute me on the spot.  

And I'm sure most of you (but I'm sure not all) are glad to hear I survived the counter. And instead of killing me dead, they engaged in a bit of small talk, weighed my letter, put a special delivery stamp on it and gave me a receipt. But I can tell you it was a close run thing.  And it's so difficult to tell nowadays.  So I'll keep my eyes on them.
		
Click to expand...

Great :clap: Some comedian you are... How long did it take you to think that one up?


----------



## hovis (Oct 6, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			put a special delivery stamp on it and gave me a receipt.
		
Click to expand...

The jokes on you. They put cyanide on the stamps.  Hope for your sake they where self adhesive


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			TBH, the UK and US Governments have to take some responsibility for what's happened in the likes of  Iraq, Libya and now Syria. All had strict dictatorships that kept a lid on these extremists, if we had stayed out of it the region would still be pretty stable, we might not agree with how these country's were run, but none of these extremists were allowed to operate.
		
Click to expand...

The strict dictatorships were also causing humanitarian crimes and genocide 

Killing thousands upon thousands

To say the at none of the extremists were allowed to operate is laughable - 9/11 shows how false that statement is


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 6, 2014)

Guys if you are looking to get this thread closed then you are going the right way about it

Grow up


----------



## Ethan (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			TBH, the UK and US Governments have to take some responsibility for what's happened in the likes of  Iraq, Libya and now Syria. All had strict dictatorships that kept a lid on these extremists, if we had stayed out of it the region would still be pretty stable, we might not agree with how these country's were run, but none of these extremists were allowed to operate.
		
Click to expand...

It goes back further than recent dictators. The US and UK sponsored a coup to overthrow Mossadegh in Iran in 50s. It was over oil, funnily enough. That led to the Shah, and in response an islamic theocracy overthrew the Shah in the 70s. Meantime, the US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, because islamic freedom fighters were better than Ruskie Commies. They became Al Qaeda. Then the US best friend in the region, Saddam gets wrongly blamed for 9/11, but only after the US got all the Saudi royals safely out of the US,  even though he was a foe of Al Qaeda, and non-existent WMDs, so a war is started which kills tens of thousand of people and destabilises the precarious balance with Iran even further. Now Saddam was undoubtedly an evil tyrant, but there have been quite a few of those around that the US did not start wars with. So Iran starts to develop nukes, in response to their perception of the threat from Israel, and everyone goes crazy. Not about Israel's nukes, of course, because we all pretend those don't exist. Oh, and the UK and US were instrumental in the foundation of Israel too, and who would have thought a Jewish state in the area would cause problems?

The west seems to cause a bigger problem every time it gets involved, so it should step out. Let other local states which have the capability, do the heavy lifting this time. Give them diplomatic and strategic support, but otherwise leave this as a regional issue. If the wets is really concerned about beheadings of innocent people, Saudi does far more of those, so when does that invasion begin?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 6, 2014)

The problems are numerous and complex and some of the remarks on here are horrific. Those that may get killed by military intervention will be martyrs and many will follow in their shoes. They are a secretive and moving target so how can you be sure they are eradicated. They are linked across the globe and so the terrorist threat will never go away. It seems now Turkey and IS have exchanged prisoners and hostages and so there is obviously a deal of brokering going on. 

As far as living in fear, I commuted to London during the IRA mainland attacks, have been in the vicinity of the Harrods bombing although thankfully close enough not have been directly involved, and know people that were in a similar position with the London bombings. It's never stopped me doing my day to day work and enjoying one of the most thriving capital cities


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Bore off :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Ah OK, thanks for confirming it is the latter. All the best.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The strict dictatorships were also causing humanitarian crimes and genocide 

Killing thousands upon thousands

To say the at none of the extremists were allowed to operate is laughable - 9/11 shows how false that statement is
		
Click to expand...


not in any of the counties in my post.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Ethan said:



			It goes back further than recent dictators. The US and UK sponsored a coup to overthrow Mossadegh in Iran in 50s. It was over oil, funnily enough. That led to the Shah, and in response an islamic theocracy overthrew the Shah in the 70s. Meantime, the US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, because islamic freedom fighters were better than Ruskie Commies. They became Al Qaeda. Then the US best friend in the region, Saddam gets wrongly blamed for 9/11, but only after the US got all the Saudi royals safely out of the US,  even though he was a foe of Al Qaeda, and non-existent WMDs, so a war is started which kills tens of thousand of people and destabilises the precarious balance with Iran even further. Now Saddam was undoubtedly an evil tyrant, but there have been quite a few of those around that the US did not start wars with. So Iran starts to develop nukes, in response to their perception of the threat from Israel, and everyone goes crazy. Not about Israel's nukes, of course, because we all pretend those don't exist. Oh, and the UK and US were instrumental in the foundation of Israel too, and who would have thought a Jewish state in the area would cause problems?

The west seems to cause a bigger problem every time it gets involved, so it should step out. Let other local states which have the capability, do the heavy lifting this time. Give them diplomatic and strategic support, but otherwise leave this as a regional issue. If the wets is really concerned about beheadings of innocent people, Saudi does far more of those, so when does that invasion begin?
		
Click to expand...

yep, Oils has a big part in this as you say.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			not in any of the counties in my post.
		
Click to expand...


Suggest possibly you read up about Saddams treatment of the Kurds

Then you have Libya extremists bombings various places around UK including an Airline 

Extrenists have been operating and active for decades upon decades 

If we are looking to start the blame game we might as well go all the way back to the Crusades


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 6, 2014)

Ethan said:





patricks148 said:



			TBH, the UK and US Governments have to take some responsibility for what's happened in the likes of  Iraq, Libya and now Syria. All had strict dictatorships that kept a lid on these extremists, if we had stayed out of it the region would still be pretty stable, we might not agree with how these country's were run, but none of these extremists were allowed to operate.
		
Click to expand...

It goes back further than recent dictators. The US and UK sponsored a coup to overthrow Mossadegh in Iran in 50s. It was over oil, funnily enough. That led to the Shah, and in response an islamic theocracy overthrew the Shah in the 70s. Meantime, the US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, because islamic freedom fighters were better than Ruskie Commies. They became Al Qaeda. Then the US best friend in the region, Saddam gets wrongly blamed for 9/11, but only after the US got all the Saudi royals safely out of the US,  even though he was a foe of Al Qaeda, and non-existent WMDs, so a war is started which kills tens of thousand of people and destabilises the precarious balance with Iran even further. Now Saddam was undoubtedly an evil tyrant, but there have been quite a few of those around that the US did not start wars with. So Iran starts to develop nukes, in response to their perception of the threat from Israel, and everyone goes crazy. Not about Israel's nukes, of course, because we all pretend those don't exist. Oh, and the UK and US were instrumental in the foundation of Israel too, and who would have thought a Jewish state in the area would cause problems?

The west seems to cause a bigger problem every time it gets involved, so it should step out. Let other local states which have the capability, do the heavy lifting this time. Give them diplomatic and strategic support, but otherwise leave this as a regional issue. If the wets is really concerned about beheadings of innocent people, Saudi does far more of those, so when does that invasion begin?
		
Click to expand...

You forgot the disaster in waiting (and already happening) caused by using over 1000 tons of Depleted Uranium ammunition during Gulf 2! A huge increase in the number of serious birth defects and a 20 fold increase in Cancers - including many of the clean-up team! - in spite of it being only 'mildly' radioactive. 

Of course, the West is not going to simply withdraw from the region because of the huge reserves of Oil it has. And that has been a major factor in it's dealings with the region for decades - back to T E Lawrence's exploits! And it also seems to have an obsession of imposing it's view of democracy wherever it can too!


----------



## JamPal (Oct 6, 2014)

DAVEYBOY said:



			Bore off :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Obvious troll is obvious


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Suggest possibly you read up about Saddams treatment of the Kurds

Then you have Libya extremists bombings various places around UK including an Airline 

Extrenists have been operating and active for decades upon decades 

If we are looking to start the blame game we might as well go all the way back to the Crusades
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were good guys, just they kept the lid on most of it the extremism now rife in the region. 

The Libyans  Allegedly  blew up one plane in 40 years  how may have Al Qaeda ? 

We got involved because of oil not Sadams treatment of anyone else. Plus the US were happy to bank role and arm Iraq in its war with Iran.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			I didn't say they were good guys, just they kept the lid on most of it the extremism now rife in the region. 

The Libyans  Allegedly  blew up one plane in 40 years  how may have Al Qaeda ? 

We got involved because of oil not Sadams treatment of anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

No lid was kept on anything 

Al Qaeda causing 9/11 happened before Gulf War 2 or the U.S. etc going into Afghan - did a great job of keeping a lid on it then

I'm not going to get into the reasons for going to Gulf War 2 and Afghan etc 

Just clearly pointing out that suggesting dictators kept extremists down is a false statement


----------



## woody69 (Oct 6, 2014)

JamPal said:



			Obvious troll is obvious
		
Click to expand...

I'm confused by this post? Are you saying I'm a troll or our genocide loving resident Dave?


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No lid was kept on anything 

Al Qaeda causing 9/11 happened before Gulf War 2 or the U.S. etc going into Afghan - did a great job of keeping a lid on it then

I'm not going to get into the reasons for going to Gulf War 2 and Afghan etc 

Just clearly pointing out that suggesting dictators kept extremists down is a false statement
		
Click to expand...

 were there Muslim fundamentalist running riot though Syria, Libya and Iraq while it this had its dictators?

I don't think so

I didn't mention Afghanistan, but as you did what about the US arming funding and training Al Qaeda?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			were there Muslim fundamentalist running riot though Syria, Libya and Iraq while it this had its dictators?

I don't think so

I didn't mention Afghanistan, but as you did what about the US arming funding and training Al Qaeda?
		
Click to expand...

Yes fundamentalists and extremists have been running around those countries for decades and decades 

A lot of the time they have been the government themselves 

The U.S. armed the Taliban during the Soviet campaign - don't confuse them with Al Qaeda


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes fundamentalists and extremists have been running around those countries for decades and decades 

A lot of the time they have been the government themselves 

The U.S. armed the Taliban during the Soviet campaign - don't confuse them with Al Qaeda
		
Click to expand...

did you get that from Google?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			did you get that from Google?
		
Click to expand...


I got that from being in those various countries and seeing the effects of years of dictatorships :thup:


----------



## Fish (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			did you get that from Google?
		
Click to expand...

I'd bet he didn't, I have had many chats with Phil as we have both served over there and know quite a bit more than what you read or need to know!

[edit] her beat me to it :smirk:


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			were there Muslim fundamentalist running riot though Syria, Libya and Iraq while it this had its dictators?

I don't think so
...
		
Click to expand...

Would you describe Syria currently as anything but a Dictatorship? The Daily Mail certainly describes Assad as a dictator. The fact that there is also a civil war occurring does not change that description.

And it was in Syria that this latest atrocity was carried out!


----------



## c1973 (Oct 6, 2014)

I thought the US armed Bin Laden and his cohorts during the Afghan war with Russia. No?  (Genuine question btw, not stirring the pot).

Bin Laden was Al Qaeda (not literally). Taliban may have been the name on the scoreboard at the time, but no way am I believing US/European armaments were not supplied (directly or indirectly) to Al Qaeda. Part of the reason Bin Laden waged war/terror on the west was because we left them to it against the ruskies after arming/training them. I realise that's quite a simplistic view, but I'd be confident it's not far off the mark. 

Anyone that thinks oil and/or the protection of gas pipelines is not the main (lets face it,probably only) reason the West have been meddling in the middle east for as long as they have is, imo, sadly deluded.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

c1973 said:



			I thought the US armed Bin Laden and his cohorts during the Afghan war with Russia. No?  (Genuine question btw, not stirring the pot).

Bin Laden was Al Qaeda (not literally). Taliban may have been the name on the scoreboard at the time, but no way am I believing US/European armaments were not supplied (directly or indirectly) to Al Qaeda. Part of the reason Bin Laden waged war/terror on the west was because we left them to it against the ruskies after arming/training them. I realise that's quite a simplistic view, but I'd be confident it's not far off the mark. 

Anyone that thinks oil and/or the protection of gas pipelines is not the main (lets face it,probably only) reason the West have been meddling in the middle east for as long as they have is, imo, sadly deluded.
		
Click to expand...

There has been many rumours and allegations that the CIA armed Bin Laden etc but been dismissed 

The U.S. did arm members of the Taliban and Afghan army during the Soviet Wars 

The arming off Al Qaeda was even dismissed by them

This is from a CNN reported who interviews Bin Laden back in the 90's

The story about bin Laden and the CIA â€” that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden â€” is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There has been many rumours and allegations that the CIA armed Bin Laden etc but been dismissed 

The U.S. did arm members of the Taliban and Afghan army during the Soviet Wars 

The arming off Al Qaeda was even dismissed by them

This is from a CNN reported who interviews Bin Laden back in the 90's

The story about bin Laden and the CIA â€” that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden â€” is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.
		
Click to expand...


Cheers for the info.  

I've got a healthy mistrust of the CIA (and most government bodies tbf) and I'll freely admit I always thought there was a degree of hypocrisy regards the US and Bin Laden, good possibility I've been wrong.  Having said that, would it not have been in the interests of both parties to keep any deals on the QT though? 
Also, It does beg the question of where did he get his armaments.

My comment  regards oil and gas still stand.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Cheers for the info.  

I've got a healthy mistrust of the CIA (and most government bodies tbf) and I'll freely admit I always thought there was a degree of hypocrisy regards the US and Bin Laden, good possibility I've been wrong.  Having said that, would it not have been in the interests of both parties to keep any deals on the QT though? 
Also, It does beg the question of where did he get his armaments.

My comment  regards oil and gas still stand.
		
Click to expand...

There are a great deal amount of comments and quotes all saying the same thing in regards the CIA and Al Qaeda - the U.S. will always confirm that they armed the locals in Afghan but always deny arming Bin Laden - as you say it could easily be on the QT but so far no actual evidence has been found 

As for where they get their weapons from - black market , rogue arms dealers - as sterotypical as it sounds the weapon of choice was regulary the same AK-47 enhanced plus the same type of explosives and RPG etc - arms bought on the black market more than likely via Pakistan also South Africa and ex Soviet States. 

And yes as with most wars - an element of financial gain is always hiding in the background


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 6, 2014)

Fish said:



			I'd bet he didn't, I have had many chats with Phil as we have both served over there and know quite a bit more than what you read or need to know!

[edit] her beat me to it :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Will always be the case Robin, what the papers print is what is released to them to print by the MOD. What they write keeps people happy and that is what is needed. But the old 'need to know' does happen all the time. Having served in these places with reconnaissance aircraft I have been privileged to information regarding what is really happening, not what the papers are writing from the little bit of factual evidence they recieve.

Regarding oil, people are correct IMO and going into the middle eastern countries to 'sort them out' to keep the supply of world oil going is critical. Everything in this modern is relying on crude oil and it's by-products. Oil just doesn't power cars, it's used to make all kinds of man made materials. The oil has to be protected or we are all screwed, but I do also believe that we have to go in to protect the innocent people of these countries from their aggressive governments that does not think twice about committing genocide.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There are a great deal amount of comments and quotes all saying the same thing in regards the CIA and Al Qaeda - the U.S. will always confirm that they armed the locals in Afghan but always deny arming Bin Laden - as you say it could easily be on the QT but so far no actual evidence has been found 

As for where they get their weapons from - black market , rogue arms dealers - as sterotypical as it sounds the weapon of choice was regulary the same AK-47 enhanced plus the same type of explosives and RPG etc - arms bought on the black market more than likely via Pakistan also South Africa and ex Soviet States. 

And yes as with most wars - an element of financial gain is always hiding in the background
		
Click to expand...

A lot of the weapons and explosives in used in afghan are left over from the war with Russia. They have stockpiles of Chinese rockets that they like to use for explosives. The rifles are black market like Phil said, how do you think any criminals get their weapons, you can get many things on the high street but I haven't seen AK-47s in a TESCO extra yet so not very easy to target the people supplying them. Regarding ammunition, it is not that bigger job to get empty cases and recycle them back into live rounds again.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			A lot of the weapons and explosives in used in afghan are left over from the war with Russia. They have stockpiles of Chinese rockets that they like to use for explosives. The rifles are black market like Phil said, how do you think any criminals get their weapons, you can get many things on the high street but I haven't seen AK-47s in a TESCO extra yet so not very easy to target the people supplying them. Regarding ammunition, it is not that bigger job to get empty cases and recycle them back into live rounds again.
		
Click to expand...

With the amount of money they had ( from opium amongst other stuff ) they could buy whatever they wanted 

Certainly plenty of places people find to purchase weapons 

The stock piles found in Afghan I couldn't believe the amount of weapons they have


----------



## c1973 (Oct 6, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Will always be the case Robin, what the papers print is what is released to them to print by the MOD. What they write keeps people happy and that is what is needed. But the old 'need to know' does happen all the time. Having served in these places with reconnaissance aircraft I have been privileged to information regarding what is really happening, not what the papers are writing from the little bit of factual evidence they recieve.

Regarding oil, people are correct IMO and *going into the middle eastern countries to 'sort them out' to keep the supply of world oil going is critical. *Everything in this modern is relying on crude oil and it's by-products. Oil just doesn't power cars, it's used to make all kinds of man made materials. The oil has to be protected or we are all screwed, but I do also believe that we have to go in to protect the innocent people of these countries from their aggressive governments that does not think twice about committing genocide.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but playing devils advocate it begs the question 'who's the terrorists?'


----------



## c1973 (Oct 6, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			A lot of the weapons and explosives in used in afghan are left over from the war with Russia. They have stockpiles of Chinese rockets that they like to use for explosives. The rifles are black market like Phil said, how do you think any criminals get their weapons, you can get many things on the high street but *I haven't seen AK-47s in a TESCO extra *yet so not very easy to target the people supplying them. Regarding ammunition, it is not that bigger job to get empty cases and recycle them back into live rounds again.
		
Click to expand...

That's why their profits were down then.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 6, 2014)

c1973 said:



			I'm not saying I disagree with you, but playing devils advocate it begs the question 'who's the terrorists?'
		
Click to expand...

Terrorist derives from the word Terror (to strike fear). Followers of these terrorists will see them as freedom fighters as they believe we are the the terrorists. 

Best at idea IMO to stop these people is to shoot every junkie on the planet. Take away the need for illegal drugs and you take away their main source of income. No money, no guns, simples.......


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 6, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Cheers for the info.  

I've got a healthy mistrust of the CIA (and most government bodies tbf) and I'll freely admit I always thought there was a degree of hypocrisy regards the US and Bin Laden, good possibility I've been wrong.  Having said that, would it not have been in the interests of both parties to keep any deals on the QT though? 
Also, It does beg the question of where did he get his armaments.

My comment  regards oil and gas still stand.
		
Click to expand...

Phil's comment about there being no US/Bin Laden relationship (and CIA not even knowing about him) concurs with my memory of events - though not sure about dates. He was Saudi born and wealthy via family construction business. Found sanctuary in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) which is where I think the merging of Taliban and Al Qaeda in folks minds happens.

US certainly armed the Mujihadeen, during Russian invasion - with Stinger missiles as defence against Helicopter Gunships.

The Taliban is a fundamentalist group that evolved from the Mujihadeen and eventually seized power in Afghanistan (1996) and turned it into a Taliban state. Al Qaeda was a 'state within the Taliban state' until the Taliban were overthrown in 2001. So there were close links  - of convenience. Taliban control almost all opium poppy production areas.

I too distrust  the CIA. But, unlike with Saddam, their attitude to Bin Laden was always consistent and I believe the same applied to the Taliban once it emerged as a separate 'extreme' group from Mujihadeen. It was US 'hands off' approach that allowed them to take control in 1996.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 6, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Phil's comment about there being no US/Bin Laden relationship (and CIA not even knowing about him) concurs with my memory of events - though not sure about dates. He was Saudi born and wealthy via family construction business. Found sanctuary in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) which is where I think the merging of Taliban and Al Qaeda in folks minds happens.

US certainly armed the Mujihadeen, during Russian invasion - with Stinger missiles as defence against Helicopter Gunships.

The Taliban is a fundamentalist group that evolved from the Mujihadeen and eventually seized power in Afghanistan (1996) and turned it into a Taliban state. Al Qaeda was a 'state within the Taliban state' until the Taliban were overthrown in 2001. So there were close links  - of convenience. Taliban control almost all opium poppy production areas.

I too distrust  the CIA. But, unlike with Saddam, their attitude to Bin Laden was always consistent and I believe the same applied to the Taliban once it emerged as a separate 'extreme' group from Mujihadeen. It was US 'hands off' approach that allowed them to take control in 1996.
		
Click to expand...


Yep, done a bit of googling and (while I'm a fully paid up member of the dont believe everything you read and question everything your told club) I'm quite happy to alter my thinking on the  US arming Bin Laden directly. I was well aware of the Afghan conflict at the time but it wouldn't be a lie to say I was more intrigued by the Palestinian/Israel conflict, resulting in a better knowledge of the latter and more of a general impression of the former. 

I'll also freely admit that Spitting Image probably had too much of an influence on my political thinking around that time as well though!


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I got that from being in those various countries and seeing the effects of years of dictatorships :thup:
		
Click to expand...

We're you part of the high comand ? What was your rank for the CIA to fill you in on there ops etc?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 6, 2014)

patricks148 said:



			We're you part of the high comand ? What was your rank for the CIA to fill you in on there ops etc?
		
Click to expand...

Makes no difference what so ever

I have seen the effects someone like Saddam had on his own people with my own eyes.

And yes there is plenty of need to know stuff that people in the military know regardless of rank


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 6, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Makes no difference what so ever

I have seen the effects someone like Saddam had on his own people with my own eyes.

And yes there is plenty of need to know stuff that people in the military know regardless of rank
		
Click to expand...

i will back you up on that Phil. When on ops you get constant briefings telling you about wha is happening. I could pretty much tell you about every bombing raid carried out on Libya seeing as I was out there with the Tornados doing it and like you Phil I'm not Chief of the Air Staff. What the military people in these places know and what people know back home are no where near the same. Some of what happens out there would cause far to much unrest back home should people know the exact truth.

People would be be amazed as to the security clearance level even the lowliest of ranks has and what they know.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 6, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Some of what happens out there would cause far to much unrest back home should people know the exact truth.
		
Click to expand...

Must admit, I find this quite disturbing.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Must admit, I find this quite disturbing.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much...........:thup:


----------



## DaveM (Oct 7, 2014)

I really hope some of the earlier replies were made more in hast than true thought out believes.

Otherwise we have some seriously deranged people on here. That would scare me more than any terrorist threat. living in Cheetham Hill Manchester. I'm friendly with may people of differing religious backgrounds and believes and feel completely safe in what is a predominantly Muslim society. May your god be with you my friends.


----------



## JustOne (Oct 7, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			Some of what happens out there would cause far to much unrest back home should people know the exact truth.
		
Click to expand...

You don't allow ladies to tee off before mid day?


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

JustOne said:



			You don't allow ladies to tee off before mid day? 

Click to expand...

We also allow ripped denim and flop flops to be worn while shouting into your mobile phone I the first tee.....


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I wouldn't worry too much...........:thup:
		
Click to expand...

I think the public should know exactly what is being done "in our name" and the concern that we wouldn't like it if we knew is the absolute worst reason not to tell us.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think the public should know exactly what is being done "in our name" and the concern that we wouldn't like it if we knew is the absolute worst reason not to tell us.
		
Click to expand...

A lot of military actions on ops are deemed classified for a reason and the public don't need to know and won't know


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think the public should know exactly what is being done "in our name" and the concern that we wouldn't like it if we knew is the absolute worst reason not to tell us.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say anything untoward is happening, I just don't think the public really needs in depth blow by blow accounts of what is happening in these war zones.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

I can appreciate the need for secrecy in the short term for some operations and we maybe don't need precise operational details of anything. However, the implication that some of what goes on would cause unrest suggests there is stuff that the public would not approve of or condone. Fear of public disapproval alone is not sufficient reason for secrecy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

I believe the public doesnt need to know every single detail - there is no reason for them to know 

There are some shocking sights out in both Iraq and Afghan and they would be very upsetting for some to see or know about but there is nothing to be gained from letting the public know or see 

War and conflicts are horrible things - military people are trained to deal with the actions and sights of war ( even then it effects them )- it's in the public interest to not know every gory detail of the conflict


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I believe the public doesnt need to know every single detail - there is no reason for them to know 

There are some shocking sights out in both Iraq and Afghan and they would be very upsetting for some to see or know about but there is nothing to be gained from letting the public know or see 

War and conflicts are horrible things - military people are trained to deal with the actions and sights of war ( even then it effects them )- it's in the public interest to not know every gory detail of the conflict
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely think we need to know exactly what our forces are doing in our name. 

We don't need to see graphic pictures, I agree with that, but I am very wary of shadowy military figures deciding what the public does and doesn't get to know once any operational need for secrecy has passed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

Sorry but it's need to know for a reason. The public don't need to know and won't know anything bar what is released 

It's the way it's been for decades and it won't change - thankfully 99% of the public trust the military to do what is right


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but it's need to know for a reason. The public don't need to know and won't know anything bar what is released 

It's the way it's been for decades and it won't change - *thankfully 99% of the public trust the military to do what is right*

Click to expand...

Not even close - and this attitude is why.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not even close - and this attitude is why.
		
Click to expand...


So you don't trust the soliders etc on the ground - remember don't confuse them with politicians 

But if you don't trust our military then that's sad to hear and something I haven't witnessed greatly in my time in the military and I have not witnessed anything that isn't right 

But you will never know everything that goes on in a conflict - things are kept classified for reasons and they are need to know. If you want to know then join


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I absolutely think we need to know exactly what our forces are doing in our name. 

We don't need to see graphic pictures, I agree with that, but I am very wary of shadowy military figures deciding what the public does and doesn't get to know once any operational need for secrecy has passed.
		
Click to expand...

Like.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't trust the soliders etc on the ground - remember don't confuse them with politicians 

But if you don't trust our military then that's sad to hear and something I haven't witnessed greatly in my time in the military and I have not witnessed anything that isn't right 

But you will never know everything that goes on in a conflict - things are kept classified for reasons and they are need to know. If you want to know then join
		
Click to expand...

Phil, it's all shades of grey. I've no doubt that the vast majority of our people over there are great people doing an extremely important job in hugely difficult situations. But when you and Adey start going on about the public not needing to know because we'd find it too upsetting I hear alarm bells ringing. Of course we need to know, we might not be there physically ourselves but our representatives are and we need to know what they are doing and what's happening to them - good and bad.


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 7, 2014)

Phil this is just rubbish. 99% of people d&#333; not trust the army.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Phil, it's all shades of grey. I've no doubt that the vast majority of our people over there are great people doing an extremely important job in hugely difficult situations. But when you and Adey start going on about the public not needing to know because we'd find it too upsetting I hear alarm bells ringing. Of course we need to know, we might not be there physically ourselves but our representatives are and we need to know what they are doing and what's happening to them - good and bad.
		
Click to expand...

The alarms bells ringing are a combination of adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5 

Yes there are things that happen out in Afghan and Iraq that will be too upsetting to hear or see - there are currently thousands of trained soldiers having to deal with those sort of things via counselling due to Post Dramatic Stress - 

If you really want to know the gory details then go ask them or even go and speak to and understand why the public doesnt need to know everything that goes on.

I have seen sights that you don't want to know about or see - why - because it disturbed and upset me so there is no way I would like my friends or family to know about them and they never will.

The public will not know everything , will not be shown every image and it will be to protect the public as opposed to people doing untoward stuff 

But the suspicion is sad to hear


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 7, 2014)

If you are talking about bodies sitting scattered around the place then yes we don't need all the gory details bit if its operations in our name that might not be approved of back home then we should know.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

garyinderry said:



			If you are talking about bodies sitting scattered around the place then yes we don't need all the gory details bit if its operations in our name that might not be approved of back home then we should know.
		
Click to expand...

Operations carried out are done with the correct authority via security councils 

The public will not know about all those operations because they will be classified for various security reasons 

Should our military ops need to say so of the public people ?! Is it now getting to the stage where people are getting that paranoid about everything now 

If the military does something that embarrasses the country then it will be found out as with the Iraq tortue scandal 

But operations get carried out for humanitarian , tactic and military reasons - that's happened now for hundreds of years


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The alarms bells ringing are a combination of adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5 

Yes there are things that happen out in Afghan and Iraq that will be too upsetting to hear or see - there are currently thousands of trained soldiers having to deal with those sort of things via counselling due to Post Dramatic Stress - 

If you really want to know the gory details then go ask them or even go and speak to and understand why the public doesnt need to know everything that goes on.

I have seen sights that you don't want to know about or see - why - because it disturbed and upset me so there is no way I would like my friends or family to know about them and they never will.

The public will not know everything , will not be shown every image and it will be to protect the public as opposed to people doing untoward stuff 

But the suspicion is sad to hear
		
Click to expand...

Phil.  You are confusing the detail from the strategy.    The General public should be fully aware of what operations are carried out a in their name, the detail of how this is achieved is not needed.   The overall results are also important to share.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. At no point am I asking to see gory images or anything of the kind and that is not the sort of detail I am getting at, although I do think the public should know the real consequences of military action - both for the local population and our forces. 

It's not suspicion either. We, the British people, are responsible for what our forces do but how can we feel any accountability if the "powers that be" decide not to inform us in case we get upset by what we hear?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

garyinderry said:



			If you are talking about bodies sitting scattered around the place then yes we don't need all the gory details bit if its operations in our name that might not be approved of back home then we should know.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!



SocketRocket said:



			Phil.  You are confusing the detail from the strategy.    The General public should be fully aware of what operations are carried out a in their name, the detail of how this is achieved is not needed.   The overall results are also important to share.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 7, 2014)

26 people shot at a civil rights march in my home town would go quite some way in building some mistrust towards the British armed forces.  Covered up for years.  

My father was on his hands and knees crawling away as the bullets pinged over his head. If he had been caught by one of those I might not be here today.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Phil.  You are confusing the detail from the strategy.    The General public should be fully aware of what operations are carried out a in their name, the detail of how this is achieved is not needed.   The overall results are also important to share.
		
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't - they are deemed classified up to Top Secret for national security reasons and for  future security reasons

Simple as that


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think you're being deliberately obtuse. At no point am I asking to see gory images or anything of the kind and that is not the sort of detail I am getting at, although I do think the public should know the real consequences of military action - both for the local population and our forces. 

It's not suspicion either. We, the British people, are responsible for what our forces do but how can we feel any accountability if the "powers that be" decide not to inform us in case we get upset by what we hear?
		
Click to expand...

Ok I firmly believe you have taken an innocent comment from both Adey and myself and are starting to think that the military are doing things that the public wouldn't approve off 

Well I haven't ever seen abything of the sort of any operation that has been authorised via security councils around the world 

The operations carried out have all been cleared - simple as that and the public will know what they will be allowed to know to protect both that operations success and any future successful operation 

What I was talking about the British public being upset about isnt the actions of the British Military - it's the sights and actions of the people they are trying to stop.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

garyinderry said:



			26 people shot at a civil rights march in my home town would go quite some way in building some mistrust towards the British armed forces.  Covered up for years.  

My father was on his hands and knees crawling away as the bullets pinged over his head. If he had been caught by one of those I might not be here today.
		
Click to expand...

I'm going to take a guess you are talking about Bloody Sunday and the actions of the Para's ?

I'm also going to suggest that it's a very emotive subject that also effected my family over there as well and this is prob not the time and place to discuss it


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No they shouldn't - they are deemed classified up to Top Secret for national security reasons and for  future security reasons

Simple as that
		
Click to expand...

Its not as simple as anything.   We all agree that there are some operations that need to be kept secret at the time of execution but this should only be to assist in their outcome by keeping information from the enemy.

The Military should always be controlled by Civilians who are accountable to the public for their decisions.   I cant think of any case where the Public should not be informed of what is carried out on their behalf.   If there is anything then maybe you could explain why this should be so.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Its not as simple as anything.   We all agree that there are some operations that need to be kept secret at the time of execution but this should only be to assist in their outcome by keeping information from the enemy.

The Military should always be controlled by Civilians who are accountable to the public for their decisions.   I cant think of any case where the Public should not be informed of what is carried out on their behalf.   If there is anything then maybe you could explain why this should be so.
		
Click to expand...

Then we will go round in circles

You will never be informed of the details of all operations because both military and civilian people will have deemed it classified and keeping those details will be for national security reasons and protecting people


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok I firmly believe you have taken an innocent comment from both Adey and myself and are starting to think that the military are doing things that the public wouldn't approve off 

Well I haven't ever seen abything of the sort of any operation that has been authorised via security councils around the world 

The operations carried out have all been cleared - simple as that and the public will know what they will be allowed to know to protect both that operations success and any future successful operation 

What I was talking about the British public being upset about isnt the actions of the British Military - it's the sights and actions of the people they are trying to stop.
		
Click to expand...

I am purely concerned about the general principle that the public need to be kept as informed as possible and am not hinting at anything untoward going on.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I am purely concerned about the general principle that the public need to be kept as informed as possible and am not hinting at anything untoward going on.
		
Click to expand...


And the public are kept informed where is deemed not to harm security


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And the public are kept informed where is deemed not to harm security
		
Click to expand...

Or, apparently, when it won't "upset" us.


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm going to take a guess you are talking about Bloody Sunday and the actions of the Para's ?

I'm also going to suggest that it's a very emotive subject that also effected my family over there as well and this is prob not the time and place to discuss it
		
Click to expand...

No different to any other subject on here. Just an example of why some would not have full trust in the British armed forces. 

I do not wish to know every detailed movement of the army, but as mentioned above, you gave the impression they do things in our interest that the general public might not approve of.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Or, apparently, when it won't "upset" us.
		
Click to expand...

Still fixated on one comment 

The upsetting part will be the gory details - do you want to know the gory details


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

garyinderry said:



			No different to any other subject on here. Just an example of why some would not have full trust in the British armed forces. 

I do not wish to know every detailed movement of the army, but as mentioned above, you gave the impression they do things in our interest that the general public might not approve of.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I gave no such impression 

Unless you can point it out to me


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Still fixated on one comment 

The upsetting part will be the gory details - do you want to know the gory details
		
Click to expand...



For the third time... no, I don't want to know the gory details.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:





For the third time... no, I don't want to know the gory details.
		
Click to expand...

Then there is no issue is there


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Then there is no issue is there
		
Click to expand...

Not for the first time, you have missed the point.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I can appreciate the need for secrecy in the short term for some operations and we maybe don't need precise operational details of anything. However, the implication that some of what goes on would cause unrest suggests there is stuff that the public would not approve of or condone. Fear of public disapproval alone is not sufficient reason for secrecy.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with the Military guys on this one. 

As long as operations conform to Geneva Conventions, I'm satisfied. There should be very strong action, and public, taken when these conventions are broken however. Torture, for example, is unacceptable anywhere. Guantanemo Bay facility should not exist imo. It was an Obama pledge to get rid of it which, if he fails to do so, will be his biggest failure imo. There is no way any country can point at another and say 'that is wrong and unacceptable' if they are allowing or actively facilitating equivalent breaches!

The gory nature of war is not necessary to broadcast imo. Dad never talked about the details of his exploits in WW2, save the funny bits, and I think that's pretty common. I've been past Headley Court enough times to realise what the consequences of war can be!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not for the first time, you have missed the point.
		
Click to expand...


Ok I'll sum it up

You believe by going by Adey's comment that the military carry out ops that will upset the British Public 

Now I believe that what will upset the british public is people get hurt in those operations - the public know every single person who has been either hurt or killed in an operation but they don't know the gory details and they dont need to know 

So I take Adeys comment exactly how I see it - there are details of things that happen or have happened in both Iraq and Afghan that will upset the public - those details aren't the actions of the British military over there it's the seeing Young ladies raped and mutliated to an inch of their lives ,children stolen from families and taught to fight at the age of 7 plus many other horror stories that happen 

Those will upset the British Public so not every single detail is released - it serves no purpose at all.

If you think going by one statement that there is something else going on then I'm sorry but there isn't - it's people doing there job within the laws written down in the Geneva Convention and cleared by Security councils


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Again, not what I'm driving at. I'm not hinting at anything untoward.

The public don't just have a right to know about what is done in our name, we have an obligation to know. Not just out of concern for the populations of the countries our forces go to but out of respect for our military personnel who risk life and limb on our behalf.


----------



## garyinderry (Oct 7, 2014)

There seems to be some confusion here. You seem to talk about what the military sees and the need to protect us from those gory details and we are concerned about what the military gets up to in our name when you say these details have to be kept from us.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Again, not what I'm driving at. I'm not hinting at anything untoward.

The public don't just have a right to know about what is done in our name, we have an obligation to know. Not just out of concern for the populations of the countries our forces go to but out of respect for our military personnel who risk life and limb on our behalf.
		
Click to expand...

I would agree with the outline premise, but I don't think we need operational detail. Military operations quite often include local intelligence. I'm happy with that particular info to remain secret. Not just to protect the asset on the ground for the current operation, but also to provide protection for future similar operations..
I do have concerns regarding some of the actions on the ground, but I'm not there and don't know enough about the situation to fully grasp the detail in isolation..

So you could say I'm middle ground in this particular discussion...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

What details exactly would you like ?

Would you like to know the details every single time a patrol goes out from a FOB ?

Do you want to know targets ? Names ? Places ? 

Would you like a daily report on national telly of what is happening so that you know what they are doing ?

Who else ? A daily report on the police ? Secret Service ? 

You want it out of respect for the people of the military yet you want to know what they are up too ?! 

Our RAF right now are bombing strategic targets in areas covered by IS - what more details would you like

In Afghan they are continuing to train the Afghan army so that thru can govern their own country 

There are exercises going on all around the world - would you like details of them also ignoring any security risks attached ? 

What exactly would you like to know ?

If you believe there is nothing untoward going on then why the demand to ensure the public knows what they are doing ?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What exactly would you like to know ?
		
Click to expand...

Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. I've quite clearly stated my understanding of the need for secrecy of some operational details. 

The public need to know as much information as possible regardless of whether it is upsetting or not. What's so hard to understand about that?

This whole debate started because I questioned the military "covering up" facts (again, for the avoidance of doubt, not necessarily anything untoward) for no reason other than they would "unsettle" the public.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. I've quite clearly stated my understanding of the need for secrecy of some operational details. 

The public need to know as much information as possible regardless of whether it is upsetting or not. What's so hard to understand about that?

This whole debate started because I questioned the military "covering up" facts (again, for the avoidance of doubt, not necessarily anything untoward) for no reason other than they would "unsettle" the public.
		
Click to expand...

But you questioned the military "covering" up based on one quote from Adey - that's it , nothing else at all - you have gained all your suspicions about "covering up" from one quote. 

I'll say it agsin - the public do know as much as they possibly are able to know before security is involved 

The upsetting things that people don't get told are the gory details - that's it - nothing bring covered up just the gory details of war not being handed out publically


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...
cleared by Security councils
		
Click to expand...

The latest Resolution allowing ISAF action in Afghanistan only did so for a further year - until 2004!

Earlier ones were restricted to Kabul province.

I'd be interested to know what Resolution they are using as authority! I do know that the Taliban is a named terrorist organisation/regime though, as part of another, early, resolution, along with Al Qaeda, so there may be another one covering it, or it may just be a particularly long 'winding down/handover' exercise.

Btw. This is no criticism of the 'men on the ground (and in the air)' who plan and carry out the operations. If they have been told that 'it has been sanctioned' that's all they need to know! The flavour of the politician that made the decision is irrelevant to their role!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Ach I give up, you just don't seem capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ach I give up, you just don't seem capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make. 

Click to expand...

:rofl:

[P-take Mode]
Lucky, (as a Rangers supporter? ) you are 'not interested' in football then! 

[/P-take Mode]


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ach I give up, you just don't seem capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make. 

Click to expand...

When then tell me plain and simple if I have missed your point ?

It appears you believe there is covering up going on because of what Adey said ? Am I wrong or right ?

You want the public to know what the military is up too as long as it doesn't breach security - the public do know as much as they are able to know 

So have I missed something ?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It appears you believe there is covering up going on because of what Adey said ? Am I wrong or right ?
		
Click to expand...

I have given up but will respond (once again!!!!) just to this particular point. You are wrong.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I have given up but will respond (once again!!!!) just to this particular point. You are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

So where has the covering up that you mention in post 153 come from ? Especially when you think there is nothing untoward going on ?

Is it derived from a lack of trust of the military based on something else before this thread started because it appears on here to a reaction to what Adey has said ?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So where has the covering up that you mention in post 153 come from ? Especially when you think there is nothing untoward going on ?

Is it derived from a lack of trust of the military based on something else before this thread started because it appears on here to a reaction to what Adey has said ?
		
Click to expand...

Ok, last word from me, honest. 

There are valid reasons for withholding information from the public. The fact that it might be upsetting or unsettling is not one of them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ok, last word from me, honest. 

There are valid reasons for withholding information from the public. The fact that it might be upsetting or unsettling is not one of them.
		
Click to expand...

And I'm going to suggest the information that will be withheld will be the gory details as opposed to the actions of the guys on the ground and not being covered up to ensure no public outcry from what I have witnessed and the briefs I have been in 

Our guys work within the Geneva Convention - when they haven't the public have found out and they have been punished for those actions. 

Any information withheld will be for security reasons and the finite details are gory and the public don't need or wish to know them


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			....
Our guys work within the Geneva Convention - *when they haven't the public have found out and they have been punished for those actions. *
....
		
Click to expand...

H'mm. Not entirely convinced about that! That all comes down to trust! And there have been sufficient cover-ups identified to threaten that trust by many!

To mimic Rumsfeld... The public have only found out about the ones they have found out about, and are blissfully unaware of the ones they are unaware of - but should be informed about!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			I wouldn't say anything untoward is happening, I just don't think the public really needs in depth blow by blow accounts of what is happening in these war zones.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get over exited by some of the statements made on here. Very rare is it for anything to sinister being done in your name other than the star rating of the hotels the RAF are keen to use. A couple on here make it sound like they were the 101 and 102 man on the balcony.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			The latest Resolution allowing ISAF action in Afghanistan only did so for a further year - until 2004!
		
Click to expand...

No further resolution was required as an interim Afgan government was in place who authorized action of foreign troops in their country.


----------



## DAVEYBOY (Oct 7, 2014)

What on earth would we do without our very own in house football/military and just about any subject that comes up expert Phillip... The importance that you speak with really is staggering!!!

:rofl:


----------



## richy (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			I wouldn't get over exited by some of the statements made on here. Very rare is it for anything to sinister being done in your name other than the star rating of the hotels the RAF are keen to use. A couple on here make it sound like they were the 101 and 102 man on the balcony.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the Burger King in KAF ran out of buns
:rofl:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

richy said:



			Maybe the Burger King in KAF ran out of buns
:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Got to love the US and their welfare vans !


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

I have missed thread and what is being said due to the time difference and having not long been awake. I did not just chuck an Internet bomb in  and sit back to watch the fun, that was no my intent.

My earlier statement wasn't regarding things being covered up to keep people out of trouble for carrying out illegal operations, but more aimed at the people that are in shock when pictures of coffins getting taken out the of aircraft appear on the news. If some people knew about every time someone lost a limb or was on life support in these war zones they would go off their mind with worry knowing their 20 year old daughter is out there. Most if not all parents know that it is a dangerous place out there, but like to bury their head in the sand and believe their spouses and children are safe and that is not a dig at those people, as everyone has to deal with things in their own way.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

Let's look at withholding information this way......

the SAS go in and take down a prominent leader of the Taliban, does the public need to know anymore than that? 

Do you need to know how?
Who was the informant that gave us the intelligence to find him?
Who the members of the SAS where?
How many shots got fired?
How much it cost?

what do people want to know?


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ok, last word from me, honest. 

There are valid reasons for withholding information from the public. The fact that it might be upsetting or unsettling is not one of them.
		
Click to expand...

That is the greatest reason to withhold stuff. Do you have family members in the Armed Forces? If you do, are you not happier to think that they are safe and going to return home in one piece. Spraying every last little thing all over the news does not do that, I know my mum was scared stupid that something would happen to me out there and that would not have been made any better by worrying her.


----------



## G1BB0 (Oct 7, 2014)

easy answer to all world issues

send in these guys, problem sorted :thup:


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 7, 2014)

Y



MadAdey said:



			Let's look at withholding information this way......

the SAS go in and take down a prominent leader of the Taliban, does the public need to know anymore than that? 

Do you need to know how?
Who was the informant that gave us the intelligence to find him?
Who the members of the SAS where?
How many shots got fired?
How much it cost?

what do people want to know?
		
Click to expand...

All I want to know is that my family and loved ones are safe and that our armed services are doing all that can to ensure that remains the case. How they go about that I have no care. I trust and believe in the forces and believe they do whatever needs to be done to protect overweigh, unfitting balding guys like me who cannot protect his family from evil. 

Big respect to all that have or are serving in the forces.


----------



## MadAdey (Oct 7, 2014)

scottbrown said:



			Y

All I want to know is that my family and loved ones are safe and that our armed services are doing all that can to ensure that remains the case. How they go about that I have no care. I trust and believe in the forces and believe they do whatever needs to be done to protect overweigh, unfitting balding guys like me who cannot protect his family from evil. 

Big respect to all that have or are serving in the forces.
		
Click to expand...

That is my point, start telling every single little thing that happens and maybe the public will start to worry. People like yourself (and that is by no means a dig at you) want to live in a country free from terror and feel that the people trying to get this for you are safe and sound. You are happy for the armed forces, by whatever means possible within the laws of the Geneva convention, to go to far away lands and carry out their jobs in your name.

:cheers:


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Might work if we had a few more or last resort.


----------



## scottbrown (Oct 7, 2014)

MadAdey said:



			That is my point, start telling every single little thing that happens and maybe the public will start to worry. People like yourself (and that is by no means a dig at you) want to live in a country free from terror and feel that the people trying to get this for you are safe and sound. You are happy for the armed forces, by whatever means possible within the laws of the Geneva convention, to go to far away lands and carry out their jobs in your name.

:cheers:
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. 

I am not qualified to tell you how to do your job, anymore I guess than you are to do mine. 

And as bad as it sounds, sometimes ignorance of the full truth is bliss.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And I'm going to suggest the information that will be withheld will be the gory details as opposed to the actions of the guys on the ground and not being covered up to ensure no public outcry from what I have witnessed and the briefs I have been in 

Our guys work within the Geneva Convention - when they haven't the public have found out and they have been punished for those actions. 

Any information withheld will be for security reasons and the finite details are gory and the public don't need or wish to know them
		
Click to expand...

I dont believe anyone has suggested gory details should be reported, they have been talking about strategy..   No one is suggesting  operations that would affect National Security should be broadcast either.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			I dont believe anyone has suggested gory details should be reported, they have been talking about strategy..   No one is suggesting  operations that would affect National Security should be broadcast either.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the military strategy will be on a need to know basis - the public most certainly do not need to know the strategy of any operation and I'm pretty sure broadcasting the strategy is just the thing that would compromise any operation and national security.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			No further resolution was required as an interim Afgan government was in place who authorized action of foreign troops in their country.
		
Click to expand...

Ah! Of course! All legit then - though not 'cleared by Security Councils', or at least not the UN one, anymore. Phew!


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 7, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm pretty sure the military strategy will be on a need to know basis - the public most certainly do not need to know the strategy of any operation and I'm pretty sure broadcasting the strategy is just the thing that would compromise any operation and national security.
		
Click to expand...

The operations are part of a strategy.   It's the way you organise things, you have an overall Strategy, for example to reduce the threat of ISIS, you then need to plan how this can be achieved by considering the following:  1) Objectives 2) Actions  3) Resources.   The Public have a need to know the Strategic plan and operational outcomes in as much detail as they can be given that does not compromise National Security or would be particularly disturbing in it's detail.

Thats my view anyway and I guess to assist with stopping the discussion going around in circles anymore 'I'm out'  :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 7, 2014)

If you want to know the strategy of the RAF in Op Shader it's quite simple 

Support local ground forces in their fights against ISIS by carrying out air strikes on strategic targets identified by intelligence 

It's 4 Tornadoes and ground crew 

What more does the public need to know than that ?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 7, 2014)

Adey, I obviously read too much into what was a throwaway comment. Apologies.

:thup:


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Ah! Of course! All legit then - though not 'cleared by Security Councils', or at least not the UN one, anymore. Phew!
		
Click to expand...

Why would it need to be cleared by the UN or it's security council. It's not the norm when request come from the country's government. What made this different in your eyes.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Why would it need to be cleared by the UN or it's security council. It's not the norm when request come from the country's government. What made this different in your eyes.
		
Click to expand...

It wouldn't!

But it needs to be one of them in order to be 'legal' (I prefer 'legitimate' as describing conflict/war as legal doesn't seem right!). 

Phil posted that it had been 'cleared by Security councils', which was not the case after 2004 - nor required as superceded by the request from the (interim) government.

Gulf 2, on the other hand, was neither requested, nor sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so was not legitimate imo.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 7, 2014)

I don't believe the public need to know anything about the armed forces top secret and/or black ops ...........











.......well, not until General Major Walton Smythe-Billington Moncrief publishes his memoirs.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			It wouldn't!

But it needs to be one of them in order to be 'legal' (I prefer 'legitimate' as describing conflict/war as legal doesn't seem right!). 

Phil posted that it had been 'cleared by Security councils', which was not the case after 2004 - nor required as superceded by the request from the (interim) government.

Gulf 2, on the other hand, was neither requested, nor sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so was not legitimate imo.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure why you keep mentioning the UN or it's Security Council. As I previously suggested. When an incumbent government requests outside assistance from foreign combat troops there is no need for either of the UN bodies to get involved nor have they any say in the matter. The Afgan government request combat troops until the end of 2014 which was why the USA was negotiating with the Afgans for an extension which they have not got hence the withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of this current deployment.

Gulf 2 is another issue altogether.

Tellys boring tonight.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Not sure why you keep mentioning the UN or it's Security Council. As I previously suggested. When an incumbent government requests outside assistance from foreign combat troops there is no need for either of the UN bodies to get involved nor have they any say in the matter. The Afgan government request combat troops until the end of 2014 which was why the USA was negotiating with the Afgans for an extension which they have not got hence the withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of this current deployment.

Gulf 2 is another issue altogether.

Tellys boring tonight.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you can't see that I know that! And agree that provides legitimacy. :sbox:

Afghanistan conflict pre interim Government was also legitimate. Can you tell me why?!

Likewise, what was the legal basis on which Gulf 1 was launched. Hint: It wasn't actually a request from Kuwait, other than a cry for help - guess where/how!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			Afghanistan conflict pre interim Government was also legitimate. Can you tell me why?!
		
Click to expand...

Resolution 1386 which was required as at the time no legitimate government held overall power. (Some could say that is still true)


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			Resolution 1386 which was required as at the time no legitimate government held overall power. (Some could say that is still true)
		
Click to expand...

What body made Resolution 1386 then?  (you are nearly there....)


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 7, 2014)

Foxholer said:



			What body made Resolution 1386 then?  (you are nearly there....)
		
Click to expand...

I think we all know which body was responsible. I may have miss read one of your posts but my understanding was that you didn't think that the continual involvement by ISAF after 2004 was not legitimate, if that's not the case then at least the last hour or so was entertaining for some.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 7, 2014)

Old Skier said:



			I think we all know which body was responsible. *I may have miss read one of your posts* but my understanding was that you didn't think that the continual involvement by ISAF after 2004 was not legitimate, if that's not the case then at least the last hour or so was entertaining for some. 

Click to expand...

Got there! :clap:

You did indeed - 2nd sentence in #184! Or maybe (combined with) Phil's reference to UN SC in #148. And I don't think the 'not' before 'legitimate' is meant to be there!

Phil mentioned UN SC sanction in #148, I queried it in #155, you explained it in #165, acknowledged by me in #179, challenged by you in 183, Explained by me in #184, then you lost the (either or) plot and I went into Schoolteacher (Sergeant Major?) mode! 

It was really all Phil's fault for being wrong in the first place! :rofl: Some bleedin' 'expert' he turned out to be!  :rofl:


----------



## RW1986 (Oct 8, 2014)

I think we get to find out all that we need to know. Like what came out in the news today. Superb work by national security and the Police in this fight against terror.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29532703


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 8, 2014)

RW1986 said:



			I think we get to find out all that we need to know. Like what came out in the news today. Superb work by national security and the Police in this fight against terror.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29532703

Click to expand...

That report seems to have been manufactured from very thin details!

In many ways, I hope the Security services have got it wrong, but if they were a threat, then great to see it being disrupted.Oddly slightly contradictory, words from Met Commissioner!


----------

