• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

30 dead in France terror attacks in Nice + Talk Turkey here!

LutonSpurs said:
Insulting is that the whole coup was pre=planned by him which some commentators are insinuating and a load of people are buying in to the theory. I think that's a whacked out theory BUT I agree he may have allowed it to happen and has achieved goals because of it.
Click to expand...

I would say, at this juncture, that specific becomes a matter of semantics i.e. is it a plan when you know it is coming, form a counter policy quietly and then 'allow' the cards to fall as they may? I have to also say (with regards to Iran) don't worry, that country has been getting a perpetual kick in the gonads for decades!!! I think now, BTW, there cannbe no doubt Erdogan is onto a landgrab - and was for sometime. Always a pleasure discussing with you mate and let's continue...
 
Roy1983 said:
Why fudgeing post it then?
Click to expand...

Easy mate. It's highlighting the disgusting behaviour of the forces we are supporting against extremists. They are portrayed as 'the good guys' and if they defeat the other side, I guarantee they will become our enemy going forwards. It's a horrible cycle and sadly one that I'm not sure one that can be broken.
 
AuroRaman said:
Easy mate. It's highlighting the disgusting behaviour of the forces we are supporting against extremists. They are portrayed as 'the good guys' and if they defeat the other side, I guarantee they will become our enemy going forwards. It's a horrible cycle and sadly one that I'm not sure one that can be broken.
Click to expand...
There was a chance to support something far closer to "the good guys" early on, but Labour turned it into a game to win some votes.
 
scaramanga said:
Grim indeed.

Don't like the way they cheapen the value of that kid's life by shoehorning it into their anti-US rhetoric though. That's a bit low.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm finding it very difficult to find articles which don't promote an agenda nowadays. Even the more alternative news networks have a leaning. One thing I do like about The Free Thought Project is they mostly try to provide credible links within their articles. However can appreciate that some of their content can be interpreted as wishy-washy or tree-hugging territory.
 
AuroRaman said:
Indeed. I'm finding it very difficult to find articles which don't promote an agenda nowadays. Even the more alternative news networks have a leaning. One thing I do like about The Free Thought Project is they mostly try to provide credible links within their articles. However can appreciate that some of their content can be interpreted as wishy-washy or tree-hugging territory.
Click to expand...
I don't mind that they have an agenda - even our beloved Beeb has one of them (a discussion for another time, I know).

My problem is that I don't believe the story supports an anti-US angle, and in order to push one they would have to demonstrate that the unfortunate need to support this group is better than the alternative. An article about the brutal death of a child is not the place for either.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't mind that they have an agenda - even our beloved Beeb has one of them (a discussion for another time, I know).

My problem is that I don't believe the story supports an anti-US angle, and in order to push one they would have to demonstrate that the unfortunate need to support this group is better than the alternative. An article about the brutal death of a child is not the place for either.
Click to expand...
scaramanga said:
There was a chance to support something far closer to "the good guys" early on, but Labour turned it into a game to win some votes.
Click to expand...

What was the alternative? Genuine question.
 
AuroRaman said:
What was the alternative? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
In 2013 there was an opportunity to support a strong and organised rebel force that had a chance to quickly take power from the government.

Instead, Labour (and a handful of Tory backbenchers) wanted to do some petty point scoring so they voted against taking action. In 2014 it went all "People's Front of Judea" when the rebels we should have been supporting were being destroyed by other rebels and the government forces. At that point lots of smaller groups joined to create larger groups, some of those splintered off into smaller groups which then joined other groups, etc.

Essentially the disruption and worsening of violence that happened during 2014 created an environment where this kind of thing can take place. I'm not saying that the rebel groups as they were in 2013 did not contain the kind of people that would do this, but they would have found it much more difficult to do so under an organised military offensive.
 
Last edited:
And now Munich

I suspect these types of attack will continue until the US elections, with something in the US in September.
 
scaramanga said:
In 2013 there was an opportunity to support a strong and organised rebel force that had a chance to quickly take power from the government.

Instead, Labour (and a handful of Tory backbenchers) wanted to do some petty point scoring so they voted against taking action. In 2014 it went all "People's Front of Judea" when the rebels we should have been supporting were being destroyed by other rebels and the government forces. At that point lots of smaller groups joined to create larger groups, some of those splintered off into smaller groups which then joined other groups, etc.

Essentially the disruption and worsening of violence that happened during 2014 created an environment where this kind of thing can take place. I'm not saying that the rebel groups as they were in 2013 did not contain the kind of people that would do this, but they would have found it much more difficult to do so under an organised military offensive.
Click to expand...


One year after the commons vote, America and others began dropping lots of bombs. It didn't remove the Syrian government, and then the Russians joined in on the other side. If America and others started bombing in 2013, imo it is highly likely the Russians would have joined the party earlier and protected the Syrian government. Remember, the Syrian civil war started in 2011 -- when the Syrian government eventually needed them, Russia stepped in.

To pretend that it's Labour's fault is very silly. It's far more complicated than that. And even in a pretend world where Russia and Iran don't help the Syrian government and, in 2013, David Cameron flew a spitfire over there and killed Assad himself, hastily replacing one group of loons for another doesn't necessarily work out either -- see Libya. It's gambling, not a sure-fire, black and white, can't fail plan.
 
Things are always changing/unfolding but latest thing on the news was that there is footage on social media showing one the gunmen was a German shouting things about "hate for foreigners" and that he was an older man possibly been out of work for a long time...apparently today is also meant to also be 5 years since Anders Breivik wen on his killing spree...:eek:
 
the dza said:
One year after the commons vote, America and others began dropping lots of bombs. It didn't remove the Syrian government, and then the Russians joined in on the other side. If America and others started bombing in 2013, imo it is highly likely the Russians would have joined the party earlier and protected the Syrian government. Remember, the Syrian civil war started in 2011 -- when the Syrian government eventually needed them, Russia stepped in.

To pretend that it's Labour's fault is very silly. It's far more complicated than that. And even in a pretend world where Russia and Iran don't help the Syrian government and, in 2013, David Cameron flew a spitfire over there and killed Assad himself, hastily replacing one group of loons for another doesn't necessarily work out either -- see Libya. It's gambling, not a sure-fire, black and white, can't fail plan.
Click to expand...
The difference would have been troops on the ground.

Bombs won't fix the problem, but Putin would have found it very difficult to go up against UK & US troops.
 
monkeybarry said:
And now Munich
I suspect these types of attack will continue until the US elections, with something in the US in September.
Click to expand...

glorygloryeze said:
Why do you say this?
Click to expand...

I just posted something in the Donald Trump thread about the risk of terrorist activity in the time leading up the the US elections.
A terrorist attack would play into the hands of Trump, with his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric. It would garner support for his extreme rantings, increase the suspicion and hatred towards foreigners (especially of a middle-eastern extraction) and give a massive boost to his chance of becoming president.
Yet Trump becoming president could be exactly what the likes of ISIS would want. He would create the sort of divisive environment in which they thrive, giving them more opportunities to manipulate those disaffected by the feeling of alienation and increasing the opportunities to recruit more followers likely to carry out further atrocities. It could become a (very) vicious circle.
 
scaramanga said:
The difference would have been troops on the ground.

Bombs won't fix the problem, but Putin would have found it very difficult to go up against UK & US troops.
Click to expand...

Nobody was talking about boots on the ground in 2013, bar the most hawkish American politicians. It was 'military strikes' so bombs and missiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back