AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Politicians doing things legally and in the interest of others?
-
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
ISIS and Air Strikes
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Politicians doing things legally and in the interest of others?
In almost every single case, politicians in democracies do things legally, despite what Russell Brand and a bunch of ill-informed students would have you think.
Doing things in the interest of others? Well there are a lot of career politicians around, but I don't think there's much political mileage in taking part in what will clearly be a difficult war - all the mileage is in taking the anti-war stance and chasing the Russell Brand/student/ill-informed vote.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
The beauty of Russell Brand is just that, he makes you think, rather than telling you what to think. Whether you champion his ideologies or wholly disagree with them.
My original post was light-hearted by the way, apologies if it touched a nerve
The beauty of Russell Brand is just that, he makes you think, rather than telling you what to think. Whether you champion his ideologies or wholly disagree with them.
My original post was light-hearted by the way, apologies if it touched a nerve
Brand often makes me think "What a ****" if that's what you mean.
The problem with him is, he doesn't actually make any real points for a person to think about. He just Gish Gallops - throwing half-baked ideas around with no respect for reasoning, facts or logic. It would then take a person a good few minutes to deconstruct each of those arguments (ignoring the hours of research required to gather the correct facts) so it sounds like people are conceding to the nonsense he's spouting.
He makes you think in the same way that a child's puzzle book does - it staves off the boredom for a couple of minutes but it's hardly heavy lifting in an intellectual sense.
No offence taken BTW - it's just a oft-used, lazy opinion in my eyes despite the fact that we have one of the best systems around for keeping out leader in check.
thfcsteff
Garth Crooks
Who's our 'leader' and 'who's' dictating national (and international) policy, as well as alliances?
In this country it's David Cameron, assisted by his cabinet. All working under the caveat that Labour have little enough shame to make political capital out of a human tragedy should they see any mileage in it.
Unless you tend to wear tin foil hats, but I've never had you pegged as one of them Steff.
Do you honestly believe that big businesses have no influence over the politics in this country?
clownfoot
Goran Bunjevcevic
One of the many problems with this topic is what information is given to the public. What IS promote in terms of ideology is against a lot of what I believe in. Militant zealous fundamentalism in religion is dangerous, regardless of the religion in question. What IS propose to do needs curtailing.
That said, Saudi Arabia in this case are our allies, but their government have executed more people in the last 6 months than IS have in the last 18 (I will find the link for this later on when I am home) Nations we once saw as an enemy are now our ally in a war against IS. And nobody really knows what IS is, much like Al Quaeda. It is a name of an organisation that is demonised.
Another problem is where did IS get their ammunition, their arms, their training? Many reports have stated the weapons being used are (or were) the property of American forces. How did these end up in the hands of suspected terrorists? Terrorists we are told have been watched for a number of years.
Whilst I agree with the general view that Russell Brand is rather childish, perhaps naive in his conspiracy theory views that he coats with grandiose language, I do sometimes find myself suspicious of the government. Not so much Great Britain but America. The world is capable of accessing the evidence of what they did in South America during the late 70s and 80s. Why wouldn't they behave in a similar way again? Americans took control of world banking, and run mass media world wide. They can manipulate with these sources.
But then again perhaps I've watched Zeitgeist too many times...
That said, Saudi Arabia in this case are our allies, but their government have executed more people in the last 6 months than IS have in the last 18 (I will find the link for this later on when I am home) Nations we once saw as an enemy are now our ally in a war against IS. And nobody really knows what IS is, much like Al Quaeda. It is a name of an organisation that is demonised.
Another problem is where did IS get their ammunition, their arms, their training? Many reports have stated the weapons being used are (or were) the property of American forces. How did these end up in the hands of suspected terrorists? Terrorists we are told have been watched for a number of years.
Whilst I agree with the general view that Russell Brand is rather childish, perhaps naive in his conspiracy theory views that he coats with grandiose language, I do sometimes find myself suspicious of the government. Not so much Great Britain but America. The world is capable of accessing the evidence of what they did in South America during the late 70s and 80s. Why wouldn't they behave in a similar way again? Americans took control of world banking, and run mass media world wide. They can manipulate with these sources.
But then again perhaps I've watched Zeitgeist too many times...
Of course they have influence - as major contributors to the tax take, it's only right and proper that they do. I don't think they have undue influence - they certainly have a lot less influence than the various trades unions. Probably less than the likes of the BBC too.
And I certainly don't think that the Chairman of Scottish Widows is calling up David Cameron and asking if he wouldn't mind sending someone to go and shoot some ****er in a desert somewhere.
Also how does 30,000 terrorists hold a territory the size of the uk?
They are using tanks now apparently, I'm assuming you cant drive and operate one of those like you can a car??? So who trains them to do so? How in little over a couple of years did they set up an international recruitment network? Who is giving them logistic support to be able to first conquer and then defend the huge lands that they now occupy? OK lets accept that the iraqi army was a little um... Weak.... Same can't be said about the Kurds forces though... So how come they are struggling to repel them?
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
metalgear
Luka Modric
To put it more succinctly, Ed Milibland was too preoccupied with scoring political points than saving the lives of real people in Syria. We were then unable to help the rebels fight Assad so they got ****ed up. IS grew in the gap that used to be the rebels.
So, we can blame Milibland for considering his own career over the lives of women and children in Syria.
That is absolutely not true. Saudi Arabia executed 79 people last year, mainly for drug trafficking and all after some kind of judicial hearing - however useless and corrupt. Even if they doubled that this year, it would still be nowhere near the number of executions carried out by IS, which may be in the thousands, but it is certainly in the hundreds. All without any kind of judicial hearing and the vast majority are executed - beheaded usually - because of their crime of not being Sunni Muslims.
And Islamic State are very clear about who they are and what goals they have.
They need to be wiped off the face of the earth.
thfcsteff
Garth Crooks
thfcsteff
Garth Crooks
Serious reply now (and I had a giggle at the tin foil hat comment, a genuine one because there have certainly been times where you wouldn't have been alone in suggesting it matey)…
I think every government is dictated to by big business to a lesser extent. I would argue that a lot of Cameron's actions are driven by the machines around him. I'd say Milliband would be no different. With no liberal party any more, it appears to be a two-party system which has become progressively harder to define. The days of distinct parties and distinct differences (thus distinct choices) were officially on there death bed when Bliar got voted in.
But enough of that, what SHOULD be done about ISIS if not air and ground strikes? Containment.
If the majority of ISIS forces are in Syria, why not commit armed forces to sieging them in? Why not work on securing a situation around them? If there are innocent members of the public caught inside, give them time to find their way to one of several check points? In the meantime, let ISIS stay where they are and don't let them out. Don't let anyone in. Restrict air attacks. Do it like this. Do we not have the ability?
Bullet
Colin Calderwood
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Western-airstrikes-against-terror-group.html
Fierce fighting has been reported on the outskirts of Baghdad where ISIS militants are attempting to seize control of the Iraqi capital - despite ongoing Western airstrikes against the terror group.
The fighting is taking place just one mile to the west of the city, with government forces desperately trying to hold off the militants, who allegedly killed up to 1,000 soldiers during clashes yesterday.
(Yes I know it is the Mail)
Surely other countries in the region have planes with bombs -- the yanks and us will have sold them. Why don't they get on and do it?
Our forces have no business in that part of the world and whenever we go to war there, we make bad situations worse. The government can't expect us to believe that they give a sh1t about brutality, or we'd be at war all over the globe with various groups of ar5eholes. A year ago, Cameron et al wanted to go to war to assist another group of nutters fighting against the current regime in Syria. Isis fights against...the current regime in Syria (amongst others).
Someone will earn out of it anyway.
Our forces have no business in that part of the world and whenever we go to war there, we make bad situations worse. The government can't expect us to believe that they give a sh1t about brutality, or we'd be at war all over the globe with various groups of ar5eholes. A year ago, Cameron et al wanted to go to war to assist another group of nutters fighting against the current regime in Syria. Isis fights against...the current regime in Syria (amongst others).
Someone will earn out of it anyway.
Bullet
Colin Calderwood
Amazing, check out these home made "tanks"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rdish-fighters-repel-ISIS-soldiers-Syria.html
(Yes I know it's the Mail)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rdish-fighters-repel-ISIS-soldiers-Syria.html
(Yes I know it's the Mail)
jts1882
Dean Richards
My biggest problem with action now is that it seems to be what ISIS want. The videos were well produced for an English-speaking audience, targeting US and UK citizens, using a British narrator, who may or may not have been the killer. From what I have read the cut was not visible and there was little blood (you don't want to upset the audience too much), suggesting the actual beheading occurred off-camera. They are designed to provoke a reaction.
Why? Obviously a full-scale invasion is not in their interests, even if a useful recruiting tool. But a bombing campaign will kill civilians and that will be effective for recruitment. They may well have calculated that there is no stomach for troops on the ground and they can survive a bombing campaign. We seem to be doing what they want.
That said, a bombing campaign with specific aims might be appropriate. If it is to protect the Kurds, help recapture Mosul and regain control of the dams, or to protect Baghdad, then it might be the least bad option. But chasing them in the desert and claiming some kills won't be effective. It will be just what the videos were produced to provoke.
Why? Obviously a full-scale invasion is not in their interests, even if a useful recruiting tool. But a bombing campaign will kill civilians and that will be effective for recruitment. They may well have calculated that there is no stomach for troops on the ground and they can survive a bombing campaign. We seem to be doing what they want.
That said, a bombing campaign with specific aims might be appropriate. If it is to protect the Kurds, help recapture Mosul and regain control of the dams, or to protect Baghdad, then it might be the least bad option. But chasing them in the desert and claiming some kills won't be effective. It will be just what the videos were produced to provoke.