• 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

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
Heard much from Al Qaeda lately? Bombing terrorist organisations seems to have been pretty effective there - why not Syria?
Click to expand...

Yes, they separated from Islamic State in 2014 (?) and are fighting in Syria,Iraq and Yemen whilst still mainly based in Afghanistan and Pakistan iirc. Perhaps they love The West now, maybe we should arm them to fight the new enemy of the day? I guess Al Qaeda just stopped doing terrorism after all the drone strikes/bombs/wars.

Oh, wait...Charlie Hebdo shooting?
 
scaramanga said:
Heard much from Al Qaeda lately? Bombing terrorist organisations seems to have been pretty effective there - why not Syria?
Click to expand...
Far too simplistic. Al Qaeda have been degraded by the death of their leader and figure head. That was achieved by a special operation not air strikes. Additionally Isil have surpassed them in terms of radicalising, recruiting and training new fighters. Even the politicians voting yesterday were unclear about what would be achieved and mostly talked about standing side by side with our NATO partners. That is how we got sucked into 2 world wars.

Air strikes in Syria have only been effective when coordinated with suitable ground support in the form of the Kurdish militias. Even then it was difficult to take back kobane or hold parts of Iraq from being taken back by IS. This is partly because of a reluctance to arm the Kurds because of the sensitivities of Turks. The Kurds themselves claimed that the air strikes in themselves were ineffective. So if we are serious about taking out the control centre of IS in raqqa then we either arm the Kurds (unpalatable to Turkey our NATO partner) or launch a ground offensive unpalatable to the British public.

Blaming the Labour party for a missed opportunity to remove IS is wrong. Those rebels that you think we should be supporting have no interest in taking out IS . They want A sad out. Also Remember 2 years ago your mate Cameron wanted to bomb Asad. He also helped create the instability in Libya. We are best staying out of an incredibly complex situation.
 
the dza said:
Yes, they separated from Islamic State in 2014 (?) and are fighting in Syria,Iraq and Yemen whilst still mainly based in Afghanistan and Pakistan iirc. Perhaps they love The West now, maybe we should arm them to fight the new enemy of the day? I guess Al Qaeda just stopped doing terrorism after all the drone strikes/bombs/wars.

Oh, wait...Charlie Hebdo shooting?
Click to expand...
Yes they are fighting Asad in Syria under the name of Al- nusra.
 
Btw Scara you would be right to blame New Labour for their I'll advised invasion of Iraq, although tbh it would have happened with just America anyway. When they toppled Saddam a largely secular leader who kept the Sunnis and the Shias apart the shias majority took power and the disgruntled baathist Sunnis became IS effectively.
 
scaramanga said:
Why would people pretending to be sombre make you feel better? Personally, I'd rather they acted more naturally - gives them one less thing to worry about on a difficult day like yesterday.
Click to expand...

Why do we bother having silence on Remembrance Sunday? Difficult day? How about how difficult it is for those parents of service men and women who die in service, how about the thousands of innocent Syrians who fear for their lives and that of their families? Those arseholes should be sombre because they are sending other people's children into danger, and they are very likely going to cause more innocent deaths through their air strikes and traumatise more families. All for a reason they are not even sure of. For me it would be an absolute mark of respect for the gravity of what they were voting to do. Let's face it none of them were putting themselves in danger.
 
I agree with your sentiment robspur. Unfortunately this has been turned into a party point scoring issue at times.
Anyone who says they KNOW how any of this will play is IMHO a fool. It's a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situation that has so many facets it's impossible to predict. For once I have sympathy with politicians. I would not like to have to vote on that.
 
Robspur12 said:
Far too simplistic. Al Qaeda have been degraded by the death of their leader and figure head. That was achieved by a special operation not air strikes. Additionally Isil have surpassed them in terms of radicalising, recruiting and training new fighters. Even the politicians voting yesterday were unclear about what would be achieved and mostly talked about standing side by side with our NATO partners. That is how we got sucked into 2 world wars.

Air strikes in Syria have only been effective when coordinated with suitable ground support in the form of the Kurdish militias. Even then it was difficult to take back kobane or hold parts of Iraq from being taken back by IS. This is partly because of a reluctance to arm the Kurds because of the sensitivities of Turks. The Kurds themselves claimed that the air strikes in themselves were ineffective. So if we are serious about taking out the control centre of IS in raqqa then we either arm the Kurds (unpalatable to Turkey our NATO partner) or launch a ground offensive unpalatable to the British public.

Blaming the Labour party for a missed opportunity to remove IS is wrong. Those rebels that you think we should be supporting have no interest in taking out IS . They want A sad out. Also Remember 2 years ago your mate Cameron wanted to bomb Asad. He also helped create the instability in Libya. We are best staying out of an incredibly complex situation.
Click to expand...

Those rebels will probably be the next ones we end up fighting in 5-10 years time if we take ISIS out.
 
parklane1 said:
The yanks will always find someone to bomb and like sheep we will follow them.
Click to expand...

After Trump's speech today I am genuinely frightened at what would happen if he was to get power in US. You're right about us following like sheep but unfortunately what ever happens in the US does seem to affect the rest of the western world. So far it seems like he'd make George Bush look like a revolutionary promoter of Western- Middle Eastern relations. And I do feel like Trump has a chance of getting in over there. American citizens seem very reactionary by nature and his election would be Foxes wet dream.
 
Craig_J said:
After Trump's speech today I am genuinely frightened at what would happen if he was to get power in US. You're right about us following like sheep but unfortunately what ever happens in the US does seem to affect the rest of the western world. So far it seems like he'd make George Bush look like a revolutionary promoter of Western- Middle Eastern relations. And I do feel like Trump has a chance of getting in over there. American citizens seem very reactionary by nature and his election would be Foxes wet dream.
Click to expand...

he has no chance of getting in, he won't even win the GOrP nomination

he's one of those comedy candidates, you a complete fool with unworkable ideas that nobody in their right mind actually agree's with, like we used to have screaming lord sutch in the uk, oh, and corbyn
 
Notmegov said:
Christ would not like to be taken alive by a tinkleed of French security force, no wonder they were standing and fighting this morning.
Click to expand...

galeforce said:
he has no chance of getting in, he won't even win the GOrP nomination

he's one of those comedy candidates, you a complete fool with unworkable ideas that nobody in their right mind actually agree's with, like we used to have screaming lord sutch in the uk, oh, and corbyn
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. But if he has no chance why haven't The Republican party told him to stfu and stop taking air time away from more serious candidates?
 
I think Trump is doing what he has to do to dominate the news cycle. When he's being talked about, his poll numbers go up. And all the oxygen is sucked out of the other candidates campaigns.

He could win the nomination and get elected -- but my guess is that, if he did, he wouldn't be half as crazy as he has sounded on the campaign trail. Still crazy enough, but not THAT nuts. He'll probably just end up your run of the mill right-wing b3llend.
 
Craig_J said:
I hope you're right. But if he has no chance why haven't The Republican party told him to stfu and stop taking air time away from more serious candidates?
Click to expand...
Because Trump has a core of voters that will vote for him no matter what he says.

Every time a Republican speaks out against him they take a dip in the polls for attacking a fellow Republican. Trump meanwhile, doesn't ever gain or lose votes because he's only ever appealed to the same set of people who will continue to vote for him even if he argues that the sky is green and the grass blue.
 
Craig_J said:
After Trump's speech today I am genuinely frightened at what would happen if he was to get power in US. You're right about us following like sheep but unfortunately what ever happens in the US does seem to affect the rest of the western world. So far it seems like he'd make George Bush look like a revolutionary promoter of Western- Middle Eastern relations. And I do feel like Trump has a chance of getting in over there. American citizens seem very reactionary by nature and his election would be Foxes wet dream.
Click to expand...
He'd be a terrible president but he's absolutely right about banning Muslims from entering the US.

The only problem with that opinion is that he hasn't yet worked out that he should also be banning Christians, Jews, Buddhists and all the other Godtards as well.

If I were president that's what I'd do. Then if you can't deport the existing ones just wait while they dumb themselves out of existence.
 
WTF

scaramanga said:
He'd be a terrible president but he's absolutely right about banning Muslims from entering the US.

The only problem with that opinion is that he hasn't yet worked out that he should also be banning Christians, Jews, Buddhists and all the other Godtards as well.

If I were president that's what I'd do. Then if you can't deport the existing ones just wait while they dumb themselves out of existence.
Click to expand...
 
Luton, i think Scara is coming at it from the angle that all religious people are slightly/very loopy.

Trump is a nutter and a fool but I am not sure if this is all a publicity thing or not. No way should he ever be near a position of power. Signalling out Muslims is stupid and dangerous and the actions of someone who does not actually understand the world. Now if he said anyone believing in any sort of deity should be forced to leave America or any other decent advanced country, well then maybe I would listen to him.
 
As this is the politics thread I think the decision to postpone the Heathrow third runway should be discussed. Absolute shocking by Cameron and a government that is meant to be pro business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back