User20205
Money List Winner
we seen in the past what targeted bombing can do
isn't that an oxymoron anyway. targeted bombing??
Paris under attack
- Thread starter bladeplayer
- Start date
we seen in the past what targeted bombing can do
isn't that an oxymoron anyway. targeted bombing??
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
we seen in the past what targeted bombing can do
isn't that an oxymoron anyway. targeted bombing??
We have - it's killed some of the highest profile targets in the fight against terror
User20205
Money List Winner
But they're political killings rather than strategic ones. They don't seem to have hindered the oppo operationally.
The fella last week was killed purely for propaganda. I'm sure he deserved to die but at what cost in 'collateral damage'?
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Not all of them are political killings -far from it.
The areas are targeted to weaken the terrorists - not for political reasons but to tackle the war on terror
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Re-read the thread have given my thoughts on it, I'm not the one with the do nothing stance.
Also there are other IS Military Figures being took out with targeted strikes, but just like the newsreels of old it is the ones with the biggest impact on ours and their morale that tend to get the publicity.
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
I think the middle east needs a "congress of Vienna".
Would it be peaceful - probably not.
Would it lead to mini-wars - probably.
Could it lead to more despots in charge - maybe.
Would existing regimes like Assad, the Saudis etc be happy to do that - never.
However, with the ethnic and religious melting pot only leading to worse terrorists, ethnic division, despotic nepotism (Libya, Saudi,Iraq) we may have no choice.
Europe, India/Pakistan had to go through it, and maybe with a strong UN (not G20) "managing" it, it might, once and for all let the middle east sort out their own problems instead of Britain, France, US and Russia putting it's selfish twopennorth in.
Would it be peaceful - probably not.
Would it lead to mini-wars - probably.
Could it lead to more despots in charge - maybe.
Would existing regimes like Assad, the Saudis etc be happy to do that - never.
However, with the ethnic and religious melting pot only leading to worse terrorists, ethnic division, despotic nepotism (Libya, Saudi,Iraq) we may have no choice.
Europe, India/Pakistan had to go through it, and maybe with a strong UN (not G20) "managing" it, it might, once and for all let the middle east sort out their own problems instead of Britain, France, US and Russia putting it's selfish twopennorth in.
The problem is the highlighted bit, UN is far from strong.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Not just that Robin, but how do we get the terrorists and their followers back to their own Country, the IS ideaology has spread to both Africa and Asia.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Not pleasant but one of the most successful anti terrorist operations carried out was by the British Forces in Malaya. They basically used terror tactics against the terrorist but these days when our politicians demand that we have to wait to be attacked before we can respond we couldn't get away with it.
Seems like we have to play nice while our enemy can do what they must.
Unforunatly war is a dirty business and the public want the dirty business done but the people doing it have to have at least one arm behind their back.
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
I'll try a second time with you. What would you do?
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I'm not sure if you will get an answer - the question has been asked a number of time by a number of people and so far it's silence
Knit them a jumper for Christmas
User20205
Money List Winner
Do you think that a terrorist threat will be removed by bombing targeted or otherwise?
Ethan made a point about learning from history, it seems to have been largely ignored. Surely the last 15 years has shown; you can't achieve an end goal by bombing alone, this infact is a recruitment poster for home grown Islamic terrorists. You can't enter into a middle eastern conflict without a succession plan. I don't think we have one & that's why we are in the position we're in.
I've not issue with taking the fight to Isis. It's 'collateral damage' I've an issue with, that and the lack of an end game
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Do you think that a terrorist threat will be removed by bombing targeted or otherwise?
Ethan made a point about learning from history, it seems to have been largely ignored. Surely the last 15 years has shown; you can't achieve an end goal by bombing alone, this infact is a recruitment poster for home grown Islamic terrorists. You can't enter into a middle eastern conflict without a succession plan. I don't think we have one & that's why we are in the position we're in.
I've not issue with taking the fight to Isis. It's 'collateral damage' I've an issue with, that and the lack of an end game
Bombing is all part of the strategy - not the sole threat
Reducing the training camps , taking out leaders and influential terrorists , destroying weapon dumps - all tactical targets that hurt the terrorists.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
And like was answered to Ethan and not ignored, it's a fair point and hindsight is a wonderful thing and if the problems with IS was starting tomorrow we could do things differently, but we can't they are here in Europe and we are involved over there, so the question Ethan failed to answer and the one being asked is, given the situation we find ourselves in today, what can we do? and for me the one important thing we definitely can't do is to ease up on IS and back off because as sure as eggs are eggs that will be seen as weakness and they will benefit from it.Do you think that a terrorist threat will be removed by bombing targeted or otherwise?
Ethan made a point about learning from history, it seems to have been largely ignored. Surely the last 15 years has shown; you can't achieve an end goal by bombing alone, this infact is a recruitment poster for home grown Islamic terrorists. You can't enter into a middle eastern conflict without a succession plan. I don't think we have one & that's why we are in the position we're in.
I've not issue with taking the fight to Isis. It's 'collateral damage' I've an issue with, that and the lack of an end game
Liverbirdie
Ryder Cup Winner
Correct, maybe they need to talk over being the world's police force from America, couldn't do any worse.
5 million troops from Russia, USA, China,Japan, UK,France, Germany,Brazil, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Spain, Italy, Saudi, Iran, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria etc
netrghjhw
Newbie
Yes..you are surely right
The theory behind the Coalition invasion of Iraq was to remove a dictator and then install a friendly democratically elected government. Did this theory work? Not really, because it was seen by the locals as yet another Western intervention in their affairs and led to the mess we have now, and to the rise of the extremist Islamic State. A far worse problem than Saddam Hussain!
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Lot's of good stuff from Cameron on seeking parliament approval for bombing Syria, and that I can understand and go with. But I didn't hear anything from him that explained why our involvement in bombing will make us here in the UK safer - I just didn't hear him make the connection and I don't know what it is.
Lots of good stuff about UK playing it's part and all nations are in this together so should take responsibility - and I get that - but if you base your argument for us getting involved in bombing on making us safer here in the UK, then you have to explain why that actually brings that about - and indeed why it doesn't make us more vulnerable.
And I'm also not sure about these 70,000 moderate 'free Syrian' forces on the ground who will do their part for the coalition - without need for any support from our own troops.
Lots of good stuff about UK playing it's part and all nations are in this together so should take responsibility - and I get that - but if you base your argument for us getting involved in bombing on making us safer here in the UK, then you have to explain why that actually brings that about - and indeed why it doesn't make us more vulnerable.
And I'm also not sure about these 70,000 moderate 'free Syrian' forces on the ground who will do their part for the coalition - without need for any support from our own troops.
To the best of my knowledge, no war has ever been won by non-nuclear bombing alone, so we should either stay out of it altogether, or put troops on the ground and fight them to the death!
Last edited:
