• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

How should the UK government deal with IS?

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?'
 
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. ;)
 
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.......
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!

:D
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mudball
Polishing super scruffed boots
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Mudball
Mudball
S
Newbie feeling completely lost
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
garyinderry
garyinderry
cookelad
Ball played by someone from another group
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
Backache
B
H
Golf trolley diagnosis experts??
Replies
4
Views
907
Haydenm96
H
H
Deal breakers for joining courses
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
24K
KenL
KenL
Top