Britain WILL bomb Syria

[Professor Buzzkill]

It seems everyone here can see that the gov't is lying about their reasons for war, and their objectives in Syria. But if you were to say that to the average brainwashed MSM watching citizen, they'd likely think you were crazy.

Why do we vote for these murderers again?

[Duke Wellington]

I have been listening to various Minsters of the Tory Government on the BBC 4 Today program over the last few days. The message still is that this is primarily about removing Assad so a new elected government can be established. They are brazen everywhere but in the Commons it seems.

A very dark day for Britain.

Br Cornelius

They're ignoring how Syria is a Democracy with its people having their own right to choose their leaders.

And the majority choose Assad. The nations own rebels were a small percentage of the population with most of the people fighting in the civil war being insurgent Jihads from other nations around the region. They are illegals not Syrians. We need to work with the Russians to put down all the rebels including ISIS. We can agree Syria will then hold free elections and free should mean free. So Assad has the right to stand in them.

It wont come to that as we will air snipe him at some point over the next few months.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

It comes as two additional Tornados and six Typhoons have been despatched to the region to take part in attacks.

So that'll leave as many as two helicopters and a glider to defend the UK, then.

* Oh, and I think they may be able to supplement the air defence forces with a balloon, as long as it's not too windy.

There's always the Battle of Britain memorial flight, if things get really hot.

[Space Commander Travis]

There's always the Battle of Britain memorial flight, if things get really hot.

Fortunately the Lanc is back in the air just in time to deploy it to Akrotiri.

[Leonardo]

There's always the Battle of Britain memorial flight, if things get really hot.

Fortunately the Lanc is back in the air just in time to deploy it to Akrotiri.

I understand Cameron has put the RN on standby to send one of our most powerful warships just in case it is needed...

And he has even asked for the SBS to be involved!

Fear us! Fear our mighty armed forces!

[Black Monk]

Just curious.....

Did the Brits even bother calling Syria and asking for permission to bomb their country?

We're not bombing Syria. We're bombing ISIS.

it's just a shame Canada isn't joining us instead of leaving it to others to fight for your safety.

[Black Monk]

Last time I checked it was the Assad Government in Syria.

Syria hasn't attacked Britain and Britain hasn't issued a formal declaration of war on Syria...... so....... according to International law without permission from the Syrian government the British military jets cannot legally fly within or drop bombs inside Syrian borders.

1) Britain isn't attacking Syria. It's attacking ISIS.

2) Britain's intervention in Syria, and the intervention in Syria by our coalition partners, is entirely legal. We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5, which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIS, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

And the RAF is vital in the war against ISIS. The RAF has the capability to bomb targets that the Americans and French usually daren't, or cannot, go for. RAF Tornado jets are bristling with British-made Brimstone missiles - Saudi Arabia is currently the only other country which has them - and these can hit a target but produce a smaller explosion, so reducting collateral damage. Brimstone can also hit moving targets travelling at up to 70mph, and can therefore hit ISIS terrorists moving in vehicles, for example. So, by joining the conflict against ISIS in Syria (the RAF targeting ISIS in just Iraq yet not targeting them in neighbouring Syria was just ludicrous, too), the RAF is bringing a capability into the conflict that wasn't there before.

http://i.dailymail.c...48839793036.jpg

Edited December 4, 2015 by Black Monk

[stevewinn]

OCTOBER 4th 2015.

"military action in Syria a 'terrible mistake' "It's going to make the region more unstable, it will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism"

British Prime Minister David Cameron, in response on the Start of Russian Bombing in Syria.

[Leonardo]

We're not bombing Syria. We're bombing ISIS.

So, you'd be fine with Russia dropping bombs on Daesh terrorists hiding in Britain - because they're "bombing Daesh, not Britain"?

2) Britain's intervention in Syria, and the intervention in Syria by our coalition partners, is entirely legal. We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5, which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIS, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria

Syria is a "member state", so why aren't we co-ordinating our military efforts with the recognised (and legitimate) govt of that country?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Leonardo

[Black Monk]

So, you'd be fine with Russia dropping bombs on Daesh terrorists hiding in Britain - because they're "bombing Daesh, not Britain"?

As long as they don't produce much collateral damage.

[/color]

Syria is a "member state", so why aren't we co-ordinating our military efforts with the recognised (and legitimate) govt of that country?

Well, we should be. Assad is vital to defeat ISIS. We also need to send British ground troops into Syria, too. Air strikes alone aren't enough.

[Space Commander Travis]

it's just a shame Canada isn't joining us instead of leaving it to others to fight for your safety.

Could you explain how it will enhance our safety? Edited December 4, 2015 by Norbert the Powerful

[Leonardo]

Well, we should be. Assad is vital to defeat ISIS. We also need to send British ground troops into Syria, too. Air strikes alone aren't enough.

That we aren't co-ordinating our military effort with the Syrian govt - and neither is the US, France, etc - suggests an agenda that is not one of "eradicating Daesh's safe haven", but instead is about allowing other insurgents, often mistakenly perceived as "moderate", to occupy the territory currently held by Daesh in the hope they will build a strong enough power-base to overthrow the Syrian govt (or at least, cause Syria to split, which I suspect is the current plan - and "the West" will conveniently "recognise" the breakaway state.)

We are not co-ordinating our efforts with other UN member states (i.e. Syria), but co-ordinating it with an insurgency within a foreign, and sovereign, state. Thus our actions are not "legal", they are illegally supporting the attempted coup of a foreign govt.

We have "stepped up" our actions both because of the intervention of the Russians on behalf of the Syrian govt, which will likely upset the plans of "the West", but also because, if the insurgency does happen to succeed Britain wants a slice of the pie when the "Western powers" carve up access to Syria's resources under what is presumed would be a new, West-sympathetic govt which is essentially a puppet of those Western nations. Again, this does not legitimise the actions of those Western nations.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Leonardo

[Black Monk]

Could you explain how it will enhance our safety?

I don't think it needs to be explained how defeating ISIS will make the world a safer place. And I'm glad that Britain is now at the forefront of fighting ISIS rather than just relying on other countries to keep British citizens safe.

[Black Monk]

That we aren't co-ordinating our military effort with the Syrian govt - and neither is the US, France, etc - suggests an agenda that is not one of "eradicating Daesh's safe haven", but instead is about allowing other insurgents, often mistakenly perceived as "moderate", to occupy the territory currently held by Daesh in the hope they will build a strong enough power-base to overthrow the Syrian govt (or at least, cause Syria to split, which I suspect is the current plan - and "the West" will conveniently "recognise" the breakaway state.)

We are not co-ordinating our efforts with other UN member states (i.e. Syria), but co-ordinating it with an insurgency within a foreign, and sovereign, state. Thus our actions are not "legal", they are illegally supporting the attempted coup of a foreign govt.

We have "stepped up" our actions both because of the intervention of the Russians on behalf of the Syrian govt, which will likely upset the plans of "the West", but also because, if the insurgency does happen to succeed Britain wants a slice of the pie when the "Western powers" carve up access to Syria's resources under what is presumed would be a new, West-sympathetic govt which is essentially a puppet of those Western nations. Again, this does not legitimise the actions of those Western nations.

And I always thought Britain was now in Syria to defend itself from crazed Muslim terrorists. I must have got the wrong end of the stick.

Britain is in Syria as an act of self-defence against an Islamist death cult that wants to kill us and destroy our way of life. Our air strikes in Syria cannot be more justified.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

Looks like our lads are already doing a fine job.

ISIS sniper team silenced by direct hit from a single Paveway bomb: RAF takes out terrorists firing on Iraqi troops near Ramadi as 150 British troops fly out to wage war in Syria which is set to last three years

A team of ISIS snipers was killed by an RAF airstrike last night as Britain continues to step up the fight against the terror group which is set to last at least three years.

Four Tornado GR4 jets set out overnight from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, with two carrying out reconnaissance in Syria and two providing air support for the Iraqi army.

The Ministry of Defence revealed that when a 'terrorist sniper team' began firing on Britain's allies, they were 'silenced by a direct hit' from a 500lb laser-guided bomb dropped by one of the Tornados.

The RAF has transported 150 military personnel and eight additional bomber jets to Cyprus in preparation for further airstrikes within Syria, following the first raids yesterday which saw seven Paveway bombs dropped on ISIS territory.

The raids are said to have wiped millions off the value of oil held by ISIS, which diplomatic sources suggested could disrupt the group's deadly terror network by reducing the funding it uses to pay the jihadist fighters who protect its territory in Iraq and Syria and carry out attacks on the West.

The UK Government is apparently targeting 'anything to do with ISIS and oil' as the first step towards defeating the terrorists in the aftermath of Wednesday's night's vote to authorise Syrian airstrikes.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon warned yesterday that the campaign 'is not going to be quick', suggesting that the conflict against ISIS could last at least three years in total.

The MoD said in a statement today: 'Royal Air Force aircraft have continued offensive operations against the Daesh terrorist network inside Syria and Iraq.

'Overnight on December 3/4, Tornado GR4s from RAF Akrotiri conducted missions over Syria and Iraq.

'Two GR4s flew an armed reconnaissance patrol over eastern Syria, gathering intelligence on terrorist activity. A second pair of GR4s patrolled over western Iraq, where they provided close air support to Iraqi forces engaged in combat with Daesh in and around Ramadi.

'A terrorist sniper team opened fire from a compound on Iraqi troops, but was silenced by a direct hit from a Paveway IV guided bomb.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz3tMUCkCx9

[Space Commander Travis]

So Michael Fallon is a clairvoyant as well as all his other qualifications for the prestigious post of Defence Secretary?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

And I always thought Britain was now in Syria to defend itself from crazed Muslim terrorists. I must have got the wrong end of the stick.

Britain is in Syria as an act of self-defence against an Islamist death cult that wants to kill us and destroy our way of life. Our air strikes in Syria cannot be more justified.

indeed you have since the the Tory Ministers behind this have stated at every available opportunity that it is their objective to remove Assad as the leader of Syria.

It cannot get much more unambigious as to what the British are trying to achieve.

It must have also escaped your notice that the British got all huffy when the Russians started bombing the oil exports convoys ISIS were making through the neighbouring country of Turkey.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 4, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

And I always thought Britain was now in Syria to defend itself from crazed Muslim terrorists. I must have got the wrong end of the stick.

Britain is in Syria as an act of self-defence against an Islamist death cult that wants to kill us and destroy our way of life. Our air strikes in Syria cannot be more justified.

No, our actions are not "self-defense" and will not "defend the UK from crazed Muslim terrorists". If you believe that you've drunk too much of the kool-aid the politicians are trying to feed you.

The puny bombing effort we are engaged in, even with the "additions" Cameron's parliament has authorised, amount to nothing in terms of "upgrading" the offensive against Daesh. What the UK has done is purely symbolic - a political gesture to boost our govts "credentials" with it's allies, that is all.

And our airstrikes cannot be "justified" if they are not carried out legally, which they are not. We have invaded a foreign airspace and undertaken military action in sovereign territory without the permission of the govt of that territory. So, no matter how much we despise Daesh we also are "criminals committing a criminal act" - which can never be justified.

[Dark_Grey]

We're not bombing Syria. We're bombing ISIS.

it's just a shame Canada isn't joining us instead of leaving it to others to fight for your safety.

It's cool - we're enjoying having our boys safe at home. You go ahead and play conqueror in the desert. Our immigration policies will keep us safer than your bombs will.

[+and-then]

Just curious.....

Did the Brits even bother calling Syria and asking for permission to bomb their country?

Technically speaking, Syria is no longer a country. No control of borders, no operating infrastructure on a national basis, no central control over territory. Assad gave up the right to any moral high ground when he started shooting civilians in the earliest days of protests. Sad thing is that he's still the BEST of a bunch of bad options....

[+and-then]

It's really going to turn worse for Israel is Isis penetrates Palestinian. Isis doesn't seem to be one that can be controlled or contained once it gains momentum using them to get your dirty work done is really dumb choice they are not going to disappear once Assad is gone. This will turn Syria into one more Iraq with weekly car bombings and shootings.

Hadn't you heard? Apparently since ISIS hasn't attacked Israel yet, Israel must be the one's supporting them. ISIS hasn't attacked Israel yet because they know they'd be quickly, viciously destroyed -period.

[+and-then]

I don't think it needs to be explained how defeating ISIS will make the world a safer place. And I'm glad that Britain is now at the forefront of fighting ISIS rather than just relying on other countries to keep British citizens safe.

With all due respect, with these particular members, it DOES require explaining. You have to acquire the correct mindset when discussing anything with them. Start from the premise that every major problem worldwide is the fault of Western countries and said problems can only be corrected by those Western countries fixing what they broke. It's a peculiar form of patriotism I think. It will pass though - as soon as blood begins to regularly flow in British and US streets and cities. This type will get very quiet, I'd imagine.

[acidhead]

With all due respect, with these particular members, it DOES require explaining. You have to acquire the correct mindset when discussing anything with them. Start from the premise that every major problem worldwide is the fault of Western countries and said problems can only be corrected by those Western countries fixing what they broke. It's a peculiar form of patriotism I think. It will pass though - as soon as blood begins to regularly flow in British and US streets and cities. This type will get very quiet, I'd imagine.

Well lets not kid ourselves here bud. There indeed seems to be a direct correlation of being attacked back home while your nations military is attacking militarily other sovereign nations in the Middle East. This is an undisputed fact of waging a war where innocent individuals are caught in the cross fire. Many, who turn a blind eye, call it collateral damage. Though many more, including those who lose family and friends or individuals of the same religious faith, call it terrorism. The pendulum swings back and forth.

[Michelle]

To be fair, acidhead...when no one comes to the rescue of the people calling for help, wherever, whoever does not respond also becomes the bad guy.

Who exactly is being wronged is very subjective, as we see in these discussion here every day.

[shadowhive]

Do I think daesh needs to be dealt with? Yes. Do I think rushing in to bomb is the best way to do that? No. It's going to cause more harm than good and the 'collatoral damage' will probably send as enough to them as the bombs destroy.

Which is exactly what Cameron said would happen when Russia started bombing them as Steve quoted just one page back.

We shouldn't have rushed in to this, because it's exactly what daesh want us to do. It'll radicalise innocents and support the narrative they've formed of themselves.

(Plus with Cameron's constantly harping about cuts and all of a sudden we have enough to dive headlong into another conflict.)