Ad Lib Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 "Raqqa is being Slaughtered Silently" - citizen journalist group in the IS stronghold The group said on Twitter that it opposed UK bombing raids. "We are against the UK strikes on Raqqa. All the world is bombing Raqqa and the UK will not make any change in the situation. If the UK wants to help people then it should accept Syrian refugees and not close the border. "Just bombing IS in Raqqa from the sky will not defeat IS, but it will make people suffer more. IS will use the UK strikes to recruit new people in the West and new fighters and maybe they will carry out terrorist attacks. "In the end nobody will liberate Raqqa except the people of Raqqa." Which is all well and good, except the MoD and British government have expressed no desire whatsoever to bomb Raqqa. The focus on our involvement is cutting off oil and other supply lines outside of Raqqa. So its the Ministry of defence and not the americans and the french that are saying we are involved because we have brimstone?But you have already stated its because we cant trust the Saudis but everybody else in the coalition is fine,whats the odd hospital or 2 between friends Its for political reasons and not any military reasons No. The UK Government, in its case for intervention, has referred to requests made by the French and US, which include in them reference to the fact that the UK's involvement would help to minimise the risk of civilian casualties while pursuing the same objectives. This, we are told, will widen the scope of potential targets and therefore allow more effective destruction of infrastructure of Daesh. I have pointed out that no other state can do this job as well as we can. No other state than Saudi Arabia has the relevant missiles, and Saudi Arabia is not as reliable a partner in prioritising minimisation of casualties in operational decision-making. Kunduz was remarkable precisely because it was so exceptional, and the backlash to it was huge. This is as good a demonstration as any just how stigmatised civilian casualties are for Western democratic countries. If you compare this to the Russian response to their bombing of moderate forces and civilians in Syria, the contrast is instructive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Why don't we send Mr Bairn over there ? https://youtu.be/7Z5pXt7h1tQ?t=25s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Which is all well and good, except the MoD and British government have expressed no desire whatsoever to bomb Raqqa. The focus on our involvement is cutting off oil and other supply lines outside of Raqqa. So the fact we have Brimstones is actaully of no consequence as we will be using the Paveway mrkIV more often than not as it is by far the better arsenal for that mission. Edited December 5, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 So the fact we have Brimstones is actaully of no consequence as we will be using the Paveway mrkIV more often than not as it is by far the better arsenal for that mission. No, it is of consequence. Brimstone is not merely useful for carpet-bombing Raqqa. It does, however, allow us to operate in areas that are more densely populated than the current bombing campaign is doing at the moment. The point is the Coalition now has the choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 No, it is of consequence. Brimstone is not merely useful for carpet-bombing Raqqa. It does, however, allow us to operate in areas that are more densely populated than the current bombing campaign is doing at the moment. The point is the Coalition now has the choice.Yip its bombing oilfields and not areas of population So whats the point of us being there with our so called civilian missing bombs ( that of course are already being used in theatre) So basically your talking shite much like your utter waffle about "dont trust the saudis,but hospital bombing yanks are ok" The onky reason you and your utter busted deposit losing flush of a party voted for it,is that Tim,turn the other cheek,sky fairy believing dim is you want to try and hope the public is that your oooohhh look at us being all tough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 No, it is of consequence. Brimstone is not merely useful for carpet-bombing Raqqa. It does, however, allow us to operate in areas that are more densely populated than the current bombing campaign is doing at the moment. The point is the Coalition now has the choice. The choice of what? You stated the point of us being there is to cut off supply and destroy where necessary oil fields. We will use the Paveway for that, as it's better at it than anything else in our arsenal. Also if we were to "carpet bomb" Raqqa we wouldn't use Brimstone either - we'd use Paveway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 The missile malarkey looks more like a convenient excuse (in a similar vein to the old 45 minute claim back pre-iraq - did you fall for that one as well libby?) rather than an actual thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 The missile malarkey looks more like a convenient excuse (in a similar vein to the old 45 minute claim back pre-iraq - did you fall for that one as well libby?) rather than an actual thing. It is. Although not as bad a lie as the Ghost Battalion that Cameron mentioned 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Yip its bombing oilfields and not areas of population So whats the point of us being there with our so called civilian missing bombs ( that of course are already being used in theatre) So basically your talking shite much like your utter waffle about "dont trust the saudis,but hospital bombing yanks are ok" The onky reason you and your utter busted deposit losing flush of a party voted for it,is that Tim,turn the other cheek,sky fairy believing dim is you want to try and hope the public is that your oooohhh look at us being all tough In terms of "targets that can be bombed" there is a middle ground between (a) depopulated oil fields and (b) downtown Raqqa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 The choice of what? You stated the point of us being there is to cut off supply and destroy where necessary oil fields. We will use the Paveway for that, as it's better at it than anything else in our arsenal. Also if we were to "carpet bomb" Raqqa we wouldn't use Brimstone either - we'd use Paveway. Wrong. I said it was one of the objectives as part of the overall Coalition strategy to weaken strongholds like Raqqa so that regional forces were more likely to be able to beat them on the ground and reclaim the civilian population areas lost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) "Regional forces" Yes, the cuddly toy Free Syrian Army are about to ditch five years of utter failure and actually clear out a much more credible force - which really would not be difficult compared to the Syrian rebels now - but they'll do so only once the UK's scrambling for relevance contribution hits, or misses, its targets. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Edited December 5, 2015 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Some clown pundit on the BBC earlier was saying we may have to make some "uncomfortable alliances" to see this campaign through to a conclusion. This sounds pretty worrying to me, as I can only assume he's suggesting we team up with some Al Qaeda affiliate or another of the various jihadi groups running about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Could also mean Assad, Hezbollah and Iran given the Syrian regime is not so likely to cave in now that Russia is so heavily involved. Worth noting also that the YPG are now fighting against Al Nusra a lot of the time and they are the most pro-American of the groups that are worth taking seriously. Given their strategy up to now has been to sit on the fence and control their own areas it suggests they think Al Nusra are ultimately going to lose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Some clown pundit on the BBC earlier was saying we may have to make some "uncomfortable alliances" to see this campaign through to a conclusion. This sounds pretty worrying to me, as I can only assume he's suggesting we team up with some Al Qaeda affiliate or another of the various jihadi groups running about. Could be far left groups or the PYD - the Syrian offshoot of the Turkish PKK. Neither the Americans or the Turks want a Communist Kurdistan to rise up from the ashes of ISIL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Wrong. I said it was one of the objectives as part of the overall Coalition strategy to weaken strongholds like Raqqa so that regional forces were more likely to be able to beat them on the ground and reclaim the civilian population areas lost. No you're wrong. and not only moving your goal posts, you're changing pitches too. There is no crediable "regional forces" in Syria. Any force that would be friendly to us in Syria is currently being bombed into oblivian by Russia and/or enemies of our allies. And they're mostly based on the opposite side of Syria. Could be far left groups or the PYD - the Syrian offshoot of the Turkish PKK. Neither the Americans or the Turks want a Communist Kurdistan to rise up from the ashes of ISIL. TBF Neither Turkey or Iraq want any sort of Kurdistan to come out of this. Edited December 5, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Wrong. I said it was one of the objectives as part of the overall Coalition strategy to weaken strongholds like Raqqa so that regional forces were more likely to be able to beat them on the ground and reclaim the civilian population areas lost.Your kev ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 The UK Government, in its case for intervention, has referred to requests made by the French and US, which include in them reference to the fact that the UK's involvement would help to minimise the risk of civilian casualties while pursuing the same objectives. This, we are told, will widen the scope of potential targets and therefore allow more effective destruction of infrastructure of Daesh. I have pointed out that no other state can do this job as well as we can. No other state than Saudi Arabia has the relevant missiles, and Saudi Arabia is not as reliable a partner in prioritising minimisation of casualties in operational decision-making. We have already established that the UK and Saudi have the same weaponary, therefore introducing the UK to the fight in no way increases the potential targets. Where is your evidence that Saudi are not as reliable? I once again ask if they are provided with the same targets and use the same planes and weapons as the UK would, how will the fact that it was Saudi people and equipment produce less palatable results? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Closer to home some Syrian related trouble at London underground station. Bbc seem to have more pressing matters to report. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Can't believe idiots on here are talking about various missile makes as if they know what they are talking about. No one knows what missiles the RAF are using bar the pilots. Aircraft are taking off armed with a choice of weapons and the UK govt are merely using product placement in it's press bulletins the likes of which the BBC would be ashamed of . War sells as can be seen in the various missile manufacturers share prices. All good for the UK treasury no doubt. Oh and why did we have to bomb the same target twice in 3 days, a target the yanks allegedly hit just months earlier ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Did anyone watch the tub thumping cringeworthy speech from the secretary of defence to the pilots today? What the actual f**k are we being subjected to? This has gone full retard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.